APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

What if they expanded exclusively with more VPI students?

Or conduct a lottery that provides seats by the home neighborhood school proportionate to the FR/L rate?

Right! K lottery should have a FR/L preference.

Literally VPI

IN ADDITION to the VPI kids. VPI preference for K and then additional preference for FR/L kids that didn't get into VPI the year before.

Pretty sure APS was sued for a similar policy at HBW.

I think you’re referring to the lawsuit brought about by a parent against ATS, which had a lottery with racial preference (not economic status policy). It went to the Supreme Court, and that ended the former ATS lottery policy, and led to the HB lottery being changed to a neighborhood seat allocation.

The VPI thing works, as long as every option school continues to have a couple VPI classrooms (they all do now). HB’s newly revised policy that separates out option and neighborhood schools and kids from private ES has led to a (modest) bump in diversity. I think the new location will make it more diverse over time, too.

HBW and ATS were sued together, for favoring minorities in the lottery. As the lawsuit made its way through the courts there were proposals to change the system from giving more weight to minorities to giving more weight to low income families, but the courts denied that as well. As I understand it.

I don’t think that’s correct. There may have been a separate HB lawsuit, but this one was two white ATS applicants who didn’t win the lottery.

The original judge’s injunction against a weighted lottery was overturned, but the court upheld that a policy giving racial preference had to be so specific and narrowly tailored that APS abandoned the effort and chose not find an alternate way to weight the lottery. At some point they decided to guarantee VPI students admission to K. While I don’t think that was intent behind that second decision, it has led to increased diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

What if they expanded exclusively with more VPI students?

Or conduct a lottery that provides seats by the home neighborhood school proportionate to the FR/L rate?

Right! K lottery should have a FR/L preference.

Literally VPI

IN ADDITION to the VPI kids. VPI preference for K and then additional preference for FR/L kids that didn't get into VPI the year before.

Pretty sure APS was sued for a similar policy at HBW.

I think you’re referring to the lawsuit brought about by a parent against ATS, which had a lottery with racial preference (not economic status policy). It went to the Supreme Court, and that ended the former ATS lottery policy, and led to the HB lottery being changed to a neighborhood seat allocation.

The VPI thing works, as long as every option school continues to have a couple VPI classrooms (they all do now). HB’s newly revised policy that separates out option and neighborhood schools and kids from private ES has led to a (modest) bump in diversity. I think the new location will make it more diverse over time, too.

HBW and ATS were sued together, for favoring minorities in the lottery. As the lawsuit made its way through the courts there were proposals to change the system from giving more weight to minorities to giving more weight to low income families, but the courts denied that as well. As I understand it.

I don’t think that’s correct. There may have been a separate HB lawsuit, but this one was two white ATS applicants who didn’t win the lottery.

The original judge’s injunction against a weighted lottery was overturned, but the court upheld that a policy giving racial preference had to be so specific and narrowly tailored that APS abandoned the effort and chose not find an alternate way to weight the lottery. At some point they decided to guarantee VPI students admission to K. While I don’t think that was intent behind that second decision, it has led to increased diversity.

The lawsuit applied to all APS schools. It was the APS policy that was targeted, and that policy was in use at HBW as well as ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if the only redrew boundaries for Reed and we ended up with horrible boundary options. Everyone would have complained that they didn’t plan ahead or look at a holistic solution.

100% truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

It does suck when it happens to you, but at some point APS needs to rip off the bandaid and make these wholesale changes or it’ll just keep being a mess. There’s never going to be a time when they can move planning units in exactly the right numbers to make people happy and effect the changes the system needs. I say that as someone whose child might also be in a position of changing schools with only a small number of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if the only redrew boundaries for Reed and we ended up with horrible boundary options. Everyone would have complained that they didn’t plan ahead or look at a holistic solution.

100% truth

So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

It does suck when it happens to you, but at some point APS needs to rip off the bandaid and make these wholesale changes or it’ll just keep being a mess. There’s never going to be a time when they can move planning units in exactly the right numbers to make people happy and effect the changes the system needs. I say that as someone whose child might also be in a position of changing schools with only a small number of students.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

APS will have 3 elementary schools with capacity = or > 700 students:

Reed 725
Fleet 752

Abingdon 725:
walk zone 327. Non walkzone capacity 398
2018-19 transfers out 489 in 8 net 481
Major outflow :
ATS 33
Campbell 64
Claremont 254
Drew 72

VDOE Abingdon 2018 671
VDOE Abingdon 2019 749- 11% increase and pre K went up only by 2.

With all the contention would it be better to open the Reed site as the new ATS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

APS will have 3 elementary schools with capacity = or > 700 students:

Reed 725
Fleet 752

Abingdon 725:
walk zone 327. Non walkzone capacity 398
2018-19 transfers out 489 in 8 net 481
Major outflow :
ATS 33
Campbell 64
Claremont 254
Drew 72

VDOE Abingdon 2018 671
VDOE Abingdon 2019 749- 11% increase and pre K went up only by 2.

With all the contention would it be better to open the Reed site as the new ATS?

Staff has repeatedly said that there are so many potential walkers to Reed (400+) that it would be fiscally irresponsible to make it an option school. They aren’t backing away from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

APS will have 3 elementary schools with capacity = or > 700 students:

Reed 725
Fleet 752

Abingdon 725:
walk zone 327. Non walkzone capacity 398
2018-19 transfers out 489 in 8 net 481
Major outflow :
ATS 33
Campbell 64
Claremont 254
Drew 72

VDOE Abingdon 2018 671
VDOE Abingdon 2019 749- 11% increase and pre K went up only by 2.

With all the contention would it be better to open the Reed site as the new ATS?

No. There is not actually that much contention. It's just a handful of loud people who demand data but refuse to acknowledge any that doesn't support their preferred outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

It does suck when it happens to you, but at some point APS needs to rip off the bandaid and make these wholesale changes or it’ll just keep being a mess. There’s never going to be a time when they can move planning units in exactly the right numbers to make people happy and effect the changes the system needs. I say that as someone whose child might also be in a position of changing schools with only a small number of students.

+1

+1

This is what I keep putting in the surveys they send out. Do it right for the long-term, and yes that might suck for some current families right this minute if you are in a small group of affected kids. But they have to start making better, more strategic long-term decisions and not just appeasing current families.

I think most normal people will accept this and then hopefully the staff can endure and tune out the irrational people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny (not funny?) thing is that when APS eventually gets to the boundary part of this process so many people are going to feel just as screwed as the McKinley and Key parents, they just don’t know it yet. Moving the option programs is a bandaid on a gushing artery and whether options move or not, the real magic comes through the reassignment of planning units. Nothing in this plan addresses the shortage of seats, and moving the option programs shifts the relative burden of the problem while doing nothing to solve it. What a mess.

Yes - this is exactly the rationale; but you are missing the next point: by shifting some things around, APS can address the capacity #s with future projects more readily because they already KNOW they can do additions at certain schools and not others; that they have more options for expansion or new schools in some areas rather than others (NE); and relieving the NE part of the artery at least some now helps delay having to do something there that they know they are not prepared or able to do in the next 5 years.

I think PP is right here. APS is touting the "the majority of McK moves to Reed" theme but I bet 2 planning units go here, 1 goes there, 5 go here, etc...then that has ripple effects so 2 planning units from Tuckahoe go here, 1 goes there, etc. And that's when parents are going to be up in arms. Because no one wants to be among a small group moved somewhere else. It happened to us before. It sucks.

It does suck when it happens to you, but at some point APS needs to rip off the bandaid and make these wholesale changes or it’ll just keep being a mess. There’s never going to be a time when they can move planning units in exactly the right numbers to make people happy and effect the changes the system needs. I say that as someone whose child might also be in a position of changing schools with only a small number of students.

+1

+1

This is what I keep putting in the surveys they send out. Do it right for the long-term, and yes that might suck for some current families right this minute if you are in a small group of affected kids. But they have to start making better, more strategic long-term decisions and not just appeasing current families.

I think most normal people will accept this and then hopefully the staff can endure and tune out the irrational people.

We should save these emails and remind everyone of how reasonable they were back before it was their child who was 20 moved to a new school.

[Anonymous]

We should save these emails and remind everyone of how reasonable they were back before it was their child who was 20 moved to a new school.

Both of my kids have been moved to new schools. Some people are capable of seeing the big picture and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We should save these emails and remind everyone of how reasonable they were back before it was their child who was 20 moved to a new school.

Both of my kids have been moved to new schools. Some people are capable of seeing the big picture and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them.

Same. My older kid will likely get moved as part of a small group. I have younger kids though and I can see past my own nose.

These kids will be fine. You will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We should save these emails and remind everyone of how reasonable they were back before it was their child who was 20 moved to a new school.

Both of my kids have been moved to new schools. Some people are capable of seeing the big picture and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them.

Right—that’s why Key has to move. The county needs a neighbourhood school there.