What do you expect from APS staff (option/neighborhood) on 4/30?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you would be suprised by the number of rising kindergarten families who are not aware this process is going on as they make their option decisions. Heck, I was surprised by the number of current elementary families I know who have no idea what's going on because their schools haven't made a short list so their PTAs aren't keeping them informed.

While many people look at PTAs as fundraisers and party throwers, this is a great example of why you also need PTA folks who are going to pay attention to this type of thing and can communicate effectively (especially when APS staff cannot).

I agree, as someone who is active in this area for my children's PTA, but I am also a big believer that people need to take some responsibility for themselves. If you are an APS family, you should be signed up for their Engage and APS Updates. Ask your PTA or principal. Read the Sun Gazette or ArlNow. Maybe that's beyond the reality for low SES families, but if you're an UMC family in the school system anywhere in the county, then it's on you to be engaged in your child's education.

[Anonymous]

The only reason staff wants to put an option school in the NW is because they know they are going to have empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery if they don't-- especially now that ASF is going to take some of the Taylor kids and some of the east side Jamestown/Discovery kids will be moved to Taylor. Otherwise, I don't think they would even have floated the idea of making Nottingham a choice school and take on the political backlash they knew would happen. I get the Barcroft idea, but that also means that the rest of the County is going to have to be okay with the optics of less full schools at Jamestown and Discovery in the richest corner of the county. (This challenge came up in the middle school process as well with Williamsburg.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you would be suprised by the number of rising kindergarten families who are not aware this process is going on as they make their option decisions. Heck, I was surprised by the number of current elementary families I know who have no idea what's going on because their schools haven't made a short list so their PTAs aren't keeping them informed.

While many people look at PTAs as fundraisers and party throwers, this is a great example of why you also need PTA folks who are going to pay attention to this type of thing and can communicate effectively (especially when APS staff cannot).

I agree, as someone who is active in this area for my children's PTA, but I am also a big believer that people need to take some responsibility for themselves. If you are an APS family, you should be signed up for their Engage and APS Updates. Ask your PTA or principal. Read the Sun Gazette or ArlNow. Maybe that's beyond the reality for low SES families, but if you're an UMC family in the school system anywhere in the county, then it's on you to be engaged in your child's education.

PP here. Absolutely and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Parents must not expect the PTA and other parents to do the work for them. Our PTA has sent weekly emails that contain info on this. I'm sure many parents never bother to read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you would be suprised by the number of rising kindergarten families who are not aware this process is going on as they make their option decisions. Heck, I was surprised by the number of current elementary families I know who have no idea what's going on because their schools haven't made a short list so their PTAs aren't keeping them informed.

While many people look at PTAs as fundraisers and party throwers, this is a great example of why you also need PTA folks who are going to pay attention to this type of thing and can communicate effectively (especially when APS staff cannot).

I agree, as someone who is active in this area for my children's PTA, but I am also a big believer that people need to take some responsibility for themselves. If you are an APS family, you should be signed up for their Engage and APS Updates. Ask your PTA or principal. Read the Sun Gazette or ArlNow. Maybe that's beyond the reality for low SES families, but if you're an UMC family in the school system anywhere in the county, then it's on you to be engaged in your child's education.

PP here. Absolutely and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Parents must not expect the PTA and other parents to do the work for them. Our PTA has sent weekly emails that contain info on this. I'm sure many parents never bother to read them.

Original pp here, and I agree with this too. But the communications from APS around this issue have been terrible (for instance, they never actually sent a follow-up email letting people know the analysis had been posted on 5/1 after sending the email the day before saying it had been delayed). And skipping things like a meeting or a summary slideshow to breakdown what the analysis means left a lot of people uncertain or confused after reading a very dense analysis document. It sure has the appearance that APS is holding back on engaging with the community on this, because they know that if more people start really digging into what this could mean for themselves even though they're not at an option school or one of the short-listed neighborhood schools, they're going to have some serious concerns.

If all a PTA does is pass along notices when information is released, well, that's better than APS is doing but still not great. This is an incredibly complex process, it's difficult to understand all of the implications just from reading what APS posts, and the staff is not being forthcoming about their thought process here. If people want to really understand all of the implications, they need to be digging into the data, but it's too big a job for just one person. That's where PTAs should come in, organizing efforts to do their own analysis and figure out the implications now rather than being caught short later (see, e.g., Tuckahoe; whatever you may think about their PTA's motivations, they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in early rather than waiting until it was too late, although it's not clear that they're continuing to follow the issue anymore now that they're not short-listed). Anyone saying people at neighborhood schools that are likely to stay neighborhood schools shouldn't get worked up until the boundaries are released is a fool, because the location selection will ultimately dictate the boundaries, and by the time we see boundary proposals the staff will have finished its analysis and sent its recommendation to the board. There won't be an opportunity to revisit the location selection if you realize the boundaries in both options are bad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason staff wants to put an option school in the NW is because they know they are going to have empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery if they don't-- especially now that ASF is going to take some of the Taylor kids and some of the east side Jamestown/Discovery kids will be moved to Taylor. Otherwise, I don't think they would even have floated the idea of making Nottingham a choice school and take on the political backlash they knew would happen. I get the Barcroft idea, but that also means that the rest of the County is going to have to be okay with the optics of less full schools at Jamestown and Discovery in the richest corner of the county. (This challenge came up in the middle school process as well with Williamsburg.)

If they end up with capacity at Jamestown/Discovery, then they should allow transfers to those schools and provide transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you would be suprised by the number of rising kindergarten families who are not aware this process is going on as they make their option decisions. Heck, I was surprised by the number of current elementary families I know who have no idea what's going on because their schools haven't made a short list so their PTAs aren't keeping them informed.

While many people look at PTAs as fundraisers and party throwers, this is a great example of why you also need PTA folks who are going to pay attention to this type of thing and can communicate effectively (especially when APS staff cannot).

I agree, as someone who is active in this area for my children's PTA, but I am also a big believer that people need to take some responsibility for themselves. If you are an APS family, you should be signed up for their Engage and APS Updates. Ask your PTA or principal. Read the Sun Gazette or ArlNow. Maybe that's beyond the reality for low SES families, but if you're an UMC family in the school system anywhere in the county, then it's on you to be engaged in your child's education.

PP here. Absolutely and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Parents must not expect the PTA and other parents to do the work for them. Our PTA has sent weekly emails that contain info on this. I'm sure many parents never bother to read them.

Original pp here, and I agree with this too. But the communications from APS around this issue have been terrible (for instance, they never actually sent a follow-up email letting people know the analysis had been posted on 5/1 after sending the email the day before saying it had been delayed). And skipping things like a meeting or a summary slideshow to breakdown what the analysis means left a lot of people uncertain or confused after reading a very dense analysis document. It sure has the appearance that APS is holding back on engaging with the community on this, because they know that if more people start really digging into what this could mean for themselves even though they're not at an option school or one of the short-listed neighborhood schools, they're going to have some serious concerns.

If all a PTA does is pass along notices when information is released, well, that's better than APS is doing but still not great. This is an incredibly complex process, it's difficult to understand all of the implications just from reading what APS posts, and the staff is not being forthcoming about their thought process here. If people want to really understand all of the implications, they need to be digging into the data, but it's too big a job for just one person. That's where PTAs should come in, organizing efforts to do their own analysis and figure out the implications now rather than being caught short later (see, e.g., Tuckahoe; whatever you may think about their PTA's motivations, they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in early rather than waiting until it was too late, although it's not clear that they're continuing to follow the issue anymore now that they're not short-listed). Anyone saying people at neighborhood schools that are likely to stay neighborhood schools shouldn't get worked up until the boundaries are released is a fool, because the location selection will ultimately dictate the boundaries, and by the time we see boundary proposals the staff will have finished its analysis and sent its recommendation to the board. There won't be an opportunity to revisit the location selection if you realize the boundaries in both options are bad for you.

I think the staff working on this process have come to see that they need to fully flesh out the possibilities to make a choice and can't just pick the sites and figure out boundaries and option placement later. Remember the original plan was to vote on sites by June and then worry about boundaries after that. Now this is on the schedule: Fall 2018 – In Phase 2, staff will present draft recommendations on neighborhood and option school locations along with potential boundaries. I think that is what needs to happen to make fully informed decisions about tradeoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ which they already proved they won’t do after middle and high school boundaries.
Sorry, if you want diversity - the poor kids end up getting on a bus.

It's kind of a catch 22. Do you break up the high poverty neighborhood schools and put poor kids on the bus for their own good? Or do you leave the schools there and let them continue to be high poverty for their own good? The only way you are going to get kids from more affluent families to take a bus to the poor schools is to convince them that the special program is worth it, which is what they are proposing by moving both immersion schools. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. The housing patterns are too segregated to just redraw lines.

Totally agree.
But by adding options that entice upper class familes, they will absolutely be putting some ED kids on the bus.
It’s worth it.
Besides we aren’t talking about busing from one end of Fairfax to the other. They will be at a nearby school on the same side of town.

Here's the thing: in some ED neighborhoods the families PREFER a bus. It means safety, avoiding time spent in bad weather when they and their kids often lack the best gear, and more time to get to work. What they don't want is to be bused too far away, too far into a neighborhood that may be difficult for them to get to, or too far into "hostile" territory. I'm not accusing any neighborhoods of actually being hostile, but there is definitely a perception among minority groups that its dangerous for their kids to be in certain neighborhoods and certain schools. I cannot say whether or not that perception is accurate, but is the perception.

We should also keep in mind that these recommendations are, at least, informed by school Principals. Say what you will about Central Administration, but if the school Principals are saying it would be better for their students to be bused to a slightly further diverse school rather than walk to a more convenient but highly segregated one, maybe, just maybe, they have good reasons for their thinking and advocacy. Most of the Principals and administrators have worked at multiple schools within APS. They know what's working and what is not. Certainly they know more about how to ensure every child receives an equitable education within APS than do competing groups of myopic and self-interested parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Original pp here, and I agree with this too. But the communications from APS around this issue have been terrible (for instance, they never actually sent a follow-up email letting people know the analysis had been posted on 5/1 after sending the email the day before saying it had been delayed). And skipping things like a meeting or a summary slideshow to breakdown what the analysis means left a lot of people uncertain or confused after reading a very dense analysis document. It sure has the appearance that APS is holding back on engaging with the community on this, because they know that if more people start really digging into what this could mean for themselves even though they're not at an option school or one of the short-listed neighborhood schools, they're going to have some serious concerns.

If all a PTA does is pass along notices when information is released, well, that's better than APS is doing but still not great. This is an incredibly complex process, it's difficult to understand all of the implications just from reading what APS posts, and the staff is not being forthcoming about their thought process here. If people want to really understand all of the implications, they need to be digging into the data, but it's too big a job for just one person. That's where PTAs should come in, organizing efforts to do their own analysis and figure out the implications now rather than being caught short later (see, e.g., Tuckahoe; whatever you may think about their PTA's motivations, they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in early rather than waiting until it was too late, although it's not clear that they're continuing to follow the issue anymore now that they're not short-listed). Anyone saying people at neighborhood schools that are likely to stay neighborhood schools shouldn't get worked up until the boundaries are released is a fool, because the location selection will ultimately dictate the boundaries, and by the time we see boundary proposals the staff will have finished its analysis and sent its recommendation to the board. There won't be an opportunity to revisit the location selection if you realize the boundaries in both options are bad for you.

Community meeting on May 9th, and they are answering some questions from what I can see.

My guess as to what will be happening this summer and is happening now is that they are absolutely already playing with proposed boundaries. If ATS goes here, how would we draw boundaries. If we put immersion there, how do boundaries look. They can't make a recommendation until they've done this, so people claiming they are being dishonest by doing it behind the scenes are off base. This is part of the process, they don't need to let us see every step in the sausage being made, but they are no doubt looking at it and considering an entire range of scenarios.

They are also still very open to receiving input because they know that there are smart people in the community taking time on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you would be suprised by the number of rising kindergarten families who are not aware this process is going on as they make their option decisions. Heck, I was surprised by the number of current elementary families I know who have no idea what's going on because their schools haven't made a short list so their PTAs aren't keeping them informed.

While many people look at PTAs as fundraisers and party throwers, this is a great example of why you also need PTA folks who are going to pay attention to this type of thing and can communicate effectively (especially when APS staff cannot).

I agree, as someone who is active in this area for my children's PTA, but I am also a big believer that people need to take some responsibility for themselves. If you are an APS family, you should be signed up for their Engage and APS Updates. Ask your PTA or principal. Read the Sun Gazette or ArlNow. Maybe that's beyond the reality for low SES families, but if you're an UMC family in the school system anywhere in the county, then it's on you to be engaged in your child's education.

PP here. Absolutely and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Parents must not expect the PTA and other parents to do the work for them. Our PTA has sent weekly emails that contain info on this. I'm sure many parents never bother to read them.

Original pp here, and I agree with this too. But the communications from APS around this issue have been terrible (for instance, they never actually sent a follow-up email letting people know the analysis had been posted on 5/1 after sending the email the day before saying it had been delayed). And skipping things like a meeting or a summary slideshow to breakdown what the analysis means left a lot of people uncertain or confused after reading a very dense analysis document. It sure has the appearance that APS is holding back on engaging with the community on this, because they know that if more people start really digging into what this could mean for themselves even though they're not at an option school or one of the short-listed neighborhood schools, they're going to have some serious concerns.

If all a PTA does is pass along notices when information is released, well, that's better than APS is doing but still not great. This is an incredibly complex process, it's difficult to understand all of the implications just from reading what APS posts, and the staff is not being forthcoming about their thought process here. If people want to really understand all of the implications, they need to be digging into the data, but it's too big a job for just one person. That's where PTAs should come in, organizing efforts to do their own analysis and figure out the implications now rather than being caught short later (see, e.g., Tuckahoe; whatever you may think about their PTA's motivations, they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in early rather than waiting until it was too late, although it's not clear that they're continuing to follow the issue anymore now that they're not short-listed). Anyone saying people at neighborhood schools that are likely to stay neighborhood schools shouldn't get worked up until the boundaries are released is a fool, because the location selection will ultimately dictate the boundaries, and by the time we see boundary proposals the staff will have finished its analysis and sent its recommendation to the board. There won't be an opportunity to revisit the location selection if you realize the boundaries in both options are bad for you.

I think the staff working on this process have come to see that they need to fully flesh out the possibilities to make a choice and can't just pick the sites and figure out boundaries and option placement later. Remember the original plan was to vote on sites by June and then worry about boundaries after that. Now this is on the schedule: Fall 2018 – In Phase 2, staff will present draft recommendations on neighborhood and option school locations along with potential boundaries. I think that is what needs to happen to make fully informed decisions about tradeoffs.

This fall (which probably means mid to late September at the earlier), the staff will issue its draft recommendation with proposed boundaries; this will be the first time they see boundaries. The board is scheduled to vote on the options at its early-November board meeting, and there is zero room to push that back again because the decision needs to be made before the option process starts in January. What that means is that from the time the staff issues its recommendations to when the school board votes, there will be maybe six weeks to make adjustments to the recommendation. That is enough time to tweak some proposed boundaries to see if they can improve either option, but it is not enough time to revisit were they propose siting the schools. Unless the staff expands the community engagement again, which is unlikely since we're headed into summer, we most likely will not see any further analysis from the staff until they release their final siting determination in September.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Original pp here, and I agree with this too. But the communications from APS around this issue have been terrible (for instance, they never actually sent a follow-up email letting people know the analysis had been posted on 5/1 after sending the email the day before saying it had been delayed). And skipping things like a meeting or a summary slideshow to breakdown what the analysis means left a lot of people uncertain or confused after reading a very dense analysis document. It sure has the appearance that APS is holding back on engaging with the community on this, because they know that if more people start really digging into what this could mean for themselves even though they're not at an option school or one of the short-listed neighborhood schools, they're going to have some serious concerns.

If all a PTA does is pass along notices when information is released, well, that's better than APS is doing but still not great. This is an incredibly complex process, it's difficult to understand all of the implications just from reading what APS posts, and the staff is not being forthcoming about their thought process here. If people want to really understand all of the implications, they need to be digging into the data, but it's too big a job for just one person. That's where PTAs should come in, organizing efforts to do their own analysis and figure out the implications now rather than being caught short later (see, e.g., Tuckahoe; whatever you may think about their PTA's motivations, they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in early rather than waiting until it was too late, although it's not clear that they're continuing to follow the issue anymore now that they're not short-listed). Anyone saying people at neighborhood schools that are likely to stay neighborhood schools shouldn't get worked up until the boundaries are released is a fool, because the location selection will ultimately dictate the boundaries, and by the time we see boundary proposals the staff will have finished its analysis and sent its recommendation to the board. There won't be an opportunity to revisit the location selection if you realize the boundaries in both options are bad for you.

Community meeting on May 9th, and they are answering some questions from what I can see.

My guess as to what will be happening this summer and is happening now is that they are absolutely already playing with proposed boundaries. If ATS goes here, how would we draw boundaries. If we put immersion there, how do boundaries look. They can't make a recommendation until they've done this, so people claiming they are being dishonest by doing it behind the scenes are off base. This is part of the process, they don't need to let us see every step in the sausage being made, but they are no doubt looking at it and considering an entire range of scenarios.

They are also still very open to receiving input because they know that there are smart people in the community taking time on this.

It's so cute you think the staff is taking community feedback into consideration. Let's remember they removed the Walker checkmark from Nottingham in round one after acknowledging it was an error based on community feedback, and then added it back in for round two when they otherwise had zero data to support making Nottingham an option site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason staff wants to put an option school in the NW is because they know they are going to have empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery if they don't-- especially now that ASF is going to take some of the Taylor kids and some of the east side Jamestown/Discovery kids will be moved to Taylor. Otherwise, I don't think they would even have floated the idea of making Nottingham a choice school and take on the political backlash they knew would happen. I get the Barcroft idea, but that also means that the rest of the County is going to have to be okay with the optics of less full schools at Jamestown and Discovery in the richest corner of the county. (This challenge came up in the middle school process as well with Williamsburg.)

Then why did they build Discovery???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason staff wants to put an option school in the NW is because they know they are going to have empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery if they don't-- especially now that ASF is going to take some of the Taylor kids and some of the east side Jamestown/Discovery kids will be moved to Taylor. Otherwise, I don't think they would even have floated the idea of making Nottingham a choice school and take on the political backlash they knew would happen. I get the Barcroft idea, but that also means that the rest of the County is going to have to be okay with the optics of less full schools at Jamestown and Discovery in the richest corner of the county. (This challenge came up in the middle school process as well with Williamsburg.)

Then why did they build Discovery???

Because before Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe were the two most crowded schools in APS at over 140% apiece, and they had no where they could move students from those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason staff wants to put an option school in the NW is because they know they are going to have empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery if they don't-- especially now that ASF is going to take some of the Taylor kids and some of the east side Jamestown/Discovery kids will be moved to Taylor. Otherwise, I don't think they would even have floated the idea of making Nottingham a choice school and take on the political backlash they knew would happen. I get the Barcroft idea, but that also means that the rest of the County is going to have to be okay with the optics of less full schools at Jamestown and Discovery in the richest corner of the county. (This challenge came up in the middle school process as well with Williamsburg.)

Then why did they build Discovery???

Because before Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe were the two most crowded schools in APS at over 140% apiece, and they had no where they could move students from those schools.

Really, for all the crap some people like to spew about how the families up there never have to feel everyone else's pain, there were years when it was just awful at those schools and no one envied them. We're less than three years out from that, and both schools have still had trailers during that time.

[Anonymous]

What is ATS saying in all of this?

Do they want to move and switch to IB?

[Anonymous]

anonymous wrote:

This fall (which probably means mid to late September at the earlier), the staff will issue its draft recommendation with proposed boundaries; this will be the first time they see boundaries. The board is scheduled to vote on the options at its early-November board meeting, and there is zero room to push that back again because the decision needs to be made before the option process starts in January. What that means is that from the time the staff issues its recommendations to when the school board votes, there will be maybe six weeks to make adjustments to the recommendation. That is enough time to tweak some proposed boundaries to see if they can improve either option, but it is not enough time to revisit were they propose siting the schools. Unless the staff expands the community engagement again, which is unlikely since we're headed into summer, we most likely will not see any further analysis from the staff until they release their final siting determination in September.

This is an important point. They are going to be releasing recommendations on school changes and boundaries at the same time, with only a few weeks to hammer out details. I think we're in for a big mess this fall if they don't release anything until then.