APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get out to school board meetings and open office hours and let your voices be heard. The School Board needs to hear from the rest of Arlington that they are ok with option 1 otherwise the loud voices of McKinley/ATS/Key win.

I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before...

Because realistically, it's just too much to do it all at once. For this phase, the staff looked at three scenarios -- proposal 1, proposal 2, and no moves. In a boundary process, we typically see at least 2-3 publicly-released proposals, and have been upwards of six for more extensive redrawings (as would happen here) -- and this doesn't include any scenarios the staff prepares and then rejects after analysis that the public never sees. If the staff does the whole thing together, we're talking about them having to analyze three times as many boundary scenarios at the same time. Any change they want to explore in handling one part of the county would require three times as much work, and would have to be analyzed not just through adjusting boundaries but also consideration of whether they should consider different locations with their own set of boundaries. Doing it this way would be chaotic, input would be flying in so many different directions, the odds of errors would go up dramatically, and we could very well end up with a worse result because the staff wouldn't be able to invest as much time and resources into each aspect of the project.

It's too much to do at once and they also need to start hiring for the new ES principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get out to school board meetings and open office hours and let your voices be heard. The School Board needs to hear from the rest of Arlington that they are ok with option 1 otherwise the loud voices of McKinley/ATS/Key win.

I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before...

They want to know the locations by spring because they need to hire a new principal. It makes a difference whether the principal will be at a school in the west or in the east because they will be building a community from entirely different schools and neighborhoods. They want that principal to have a full year to build-up his/her team according to the needs of the expected school population. If a school is going to be more diverse with a lot of English language learners and a lot of low-income students or special ed students, the staffing would be different than for a school of mostly upper to upper middle class English speakers with few special education needs and few, if any, English language learners.

Discovery and Hamm both had a full year to put their teams together. In the case of Discovery, they had that time to put a PTA together, too, because they knew which schools they would be drawing enrollment from. Especially when, according to Key's arguments, a lot of special programs and services are in place for their students, the more time APS and PTAs have to prepare for a move and a new neighborhood school in Key's wake, the better for the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just whoever is organizing a protest and or speeches at the SB meeting, please leave the kids out of this. March all you want. Make signs, whatever. But it’s beyond selfish and cruel to expose the kids to this. They don’t need to know anything about it unless it actually happens. Parents and teachers, please put your students first and set the tone that they are resilient, that they will be okay no matter what, that you will make it okay for them. Don’t bring them up to the podium to cry that they’re going to lose all their friends (which may not be true anyway). Please. It’s not right.

+1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some very good questions being asked in those AEM posts, I’ll be interested to see if the McKinley people have responses.

Seems they are unable to respond when confronted with their data errors.

Seriously, there are some deafening crickets in response to the number-crunching posts.

And apparently only care about their low income population. No response to the question about the low income population who live near key but don’t attend the school and how this will impact them.


Just bitching about “why are choice programs always the ones getting the short end of the stick”

Also no response on what their proposal would do to Barrett.

Oh wait now we are going back to attacking the people asking reasonable questions! Good times! I for one can’t wait until we have a presidential election and boundary change process at the same time. I’m already stocking up on wine and popcorn for that one.

Huh? People asking about Barrett and non-Key low-income families are asking very reasonable questions - and the Key advocates refuse to provide any responses other than insinuations that one population is expendable for another, or you need to read all of our posts more closely because what we've been saying is of greater importance than any concerns of anyone else, or you're anti-immersion and racist, or on and on. Yet WE'RE the ones who are attacking????? Quite evident what side you fall on.

Relax I was talking about how Key lady was going off on the people asking questions. I’m on your side

Sorry - I misinterpreted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get out to school board meetings and open office hours and let your voices be heard. The School Board needs to hear from the rest of Arlington that they are ok with option 1 otherwise the loud voices of McKinley/ATS/Key win.

I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before...

This is the only part that bothers me. I'm in a PU that is probably not going to Reed and there are many PUs that will go to many other schools. Furthermore, some other PUs will drop into Reed from other schools but we have no eyes on that plan. FWIW, there's some Mck PUs that are closer to Glebe than Reed...and probably one other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get out to school board meetings and open office hours and let your voices be heard. The School Board needs to hear from the rest of Arlington that they are ok with option 1 otherwise the loud voices of McKinley/ATS/Key win.

I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before...

This is the only part that bothers me. I'm in a PU that is probably not going to Reed and there are many PUs that will go to many other schools. Furthermore, some other PUs will drop into Reed from other schools but we have no eyes on that plan. FWIW, there's some Mck PUs that are closer to Glebe than Reed...and probably one other.

Yes, my PU is the only one in Waycroft-Woodlawn not at Glebe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just suggested that a new school could be built where the central library is. Really?? That is outrageous to even consider taking away a public resource like that.

There’s actually a lot of land there that could probably be designed to keep the library and build a school. So I could see that as a possibility

It'd be tight. The land is jam-packed with soccer fields, baseball fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, basketball court, playground, etc.

What is the smallest footprint that is feasible? Underground parking, multi-level. Could work but it'd be $$$.

That’s why I said the whole area would have to be reworked (redesign some of the fields and such space to accommodate as may have field space and school space as possible) it’s not ideal but that is a large chuck of county owned land that could be used if we continue to face a shortage of space.

It's so close to the metro they should be able to get away with dramatically reduced parking.

They would have to become really creative in order to pull off having the library, an ES and fields in that area. Also if you took away the fields, you run into the sports contingent (which is large in Arlington) who already have to do some intricate planning for all the practices and games.
(Not to spiral off but if we really wanted a large chunk of land, someone should target the country club, haha.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please get out to school board meetings and open office hours and let your voices be heard. The School Board needs to hear from the rest of Arlington that they are ok with option 1 otherwise the loud voices of McKinley/ATS/Key win.

I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before...

This is the only part that bothers me. I'm in a PU that is probably not going to Reed and there are many PUs that will go to many other schools. Furthermore, some other PUs will drop into Reed from other schools but we have no eyes on that plan. FWIW, there's some Mck PUs that are closer to Glebe than Reed...and probably one other.

Yes, my PU is the only one in Waycroft-Woodlawn not at Glebe.

the McK tail or its rainbow horn?

[Anonymous]

The county should reclaim community centers. Better to have smaller, well-distributed elementary schools than places for seniors to do yoga.

Build them a fancy community center at Quincy and take back the community centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county should reclaim community centers. Better to have smaller, well-distributed elementary schools than places for seniors to do yoga.

Build them a fancy community center at Quincy and take back the community centers.

Let us know how you feel about that 20 or 30 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should reclaim community centers. Better to have smaller, well-distributed elementary schools than places for seniors to do yoga.

Build them a fancy community center at Quincy and take back the community centers.

Let us know how you feel about that 20 or 30 years from now.

+1. The answer can't be "screw everyone but parents of school-age kids," because the county simply won't go along with that and it undermines the credibility of school advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county should reclaim community centers. Better to have smaller, well-distributed elementary schools than places for seniors to do yoga.

Build them a fancy community center at Quincy and take back the community centers.

There are a lot of base costs associated with a school, so having a lot of smaller schools eats up budget. (They all have to have a principal, asst principal, librarian, etc.) A lot of positions don't scale well. The schools that were turned into community centers are a LOT smaller than most schools now. And the costs to bring them up to speed are a lot -- they are spending $25M just to convert the former H-B building, which hadn't been updated in 50 years even though it was functioning as a school building for 700 kids, to make it a modern middle school. It's not like $5M to convert an existing building, it's closer to the cost of building new.

If there were easy solutions, they would do them. Discovery was the only easy one where APS owned a huge piece of land and the boundaries for all of the neighboring schools were demographically the same. Reed is the only easy-to-convert building and people are losing their *#&@ over boundaries. APS owned the Wilson building and look how hard it was to figure out what to put there and then how many complaints there have been about what they ended up doing. And again, it took them an extra year or two to get the neighborhood to let them build Fleet next to TJ because the County owned part of the parcel, and then people went nuts over moving boundaries in south Arlington.

The amount of energy people spend arguing over this stuff and complaining about staff and yelling at each other. There is no good solution. There is rarely a better solution. There are choices between not-great solutions that will make kids have to change schools and make families have to change their arrangements, and maybe leave some schools overcrowded for a while and maybe make some undercrowded for a while. All we are debating is which ones, and no answer is the right answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just suggested that a new school could be built where the central library is. Really?? That is outrageous to even consider taking away a public resource like that.

There’s actually a lot of land there that could probably be designed to keep the library and build a school. So I could see that as a possibility

It's half a mile from the ASFS campus. Not easy to draw a boundary that way with two neighborhood schools so close (like Reed/McK).

So make one of them an option school.

um hello - see how that's working out for Reed and McK? Seems so simple doesn't it.

[Anonymous]

If there are four plans for how to move schools, or set boundaries, and people were forced to vote, and 40% liked Option A and 20% liked Options B, C, and D, they would go with Option A because it is twice as popular as any other option, its a clear winner, right? Well, 60% of people--the majority--would be mad, because their preference didn't win.

And if they looked at the results from the first vote and said well, none of these got a majority, we'll adjust the plans and take another vote, and the second time around 50% liked Option A, 30% liked Option B, and 10% liked Options C and D, you would have a majority but you would still have only 50% of people happy, plus all the people who switched from C and D to B and STILL lost would be even more pissed.

Everyone needs to accept that most people aren't going to be happy and get everything they want. We have to get to where people will accept a solution that they can live with. Without all the damn dramatics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should reclaim community centers. Better to have smaller, well-distributed elementary schools than places for seniors to do yoga.

Build them a fancy community center at Quincy and take back the community centers.

There are a lot of base costs associated with a school, so having a lot of smaller schools eats up budget. (They all have to have a principal, asst principal, librarian, etc.) A lot of positions don't scale well. The schools that were turned into community centers are a LOT smaller than most schools now. And the costs to bring them up to speed are a lot -- they are spending $25M just to convert the former H-B building, which hadn't been updated in 50 years even though it was functioning as a school building for 700 kids, to make it a modern middle school. It's not like $5M to convert an existing building, it's closer to the cost of building new.

If there were easy solutions, they would do them. Discovery was the only easy one where APS owned a huge piece of land and the boundaries for all of the neighboring schools were demographically the same. Reed is the only easy-to-convert building and people are losing their *#&@ over boundaries. APS owned the Wilson building and look how hard it was to figure out what to put there and then how many complaints there have been about what they ended up doing. And again, it took them an extra year or two to get the neighborhood to let them build Fleet next to TJ because the County owned part of the parcel, and then people went nuts over moving boundaries in south Arlington.

The amount of energy people spend arguing over this stuff and complaining about staff and yelling at each other. There is no good solution. There is rarely a better solution. There are choices between not-great solutions that will make kids have to change schools and make families have to change their arrangements, and maybe leave some schools overcrowded for a while and maybe make some undercrowded for a while. All we are debating is which ones, and no answer is the right answer.

During the Discovery placement debate, I also thought they should take back some community centers, but most of them are so old they would need to be torn down and rebuilt to accommodate modern school regulations. I wish they would have had some more forethought on this move, but they didn't. Key moving to a new building should have been on the table for the past 5 years then it could have been more seriously looked at to adding I to the lubber run renovation, to HB, field space at Lee Center.... seems like there must be a better solution than what is going on, but APS is so behind the ball.