The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCK-ATS might take 20 minutes on bike. I drive it 4 times a week and it's usually am at Wilson within 5 minutes. Run it through Google maps and you get "typically 6-10 minutes" even as you scroll through the hours. It's not distance that is going to change things.


The idea of moving Key to Jamestown or Tuckahoe would provide actual seats since those schools can't seem to fill themselves up. I never applied to Claremont b/c it was too far away. Tuckahoe, however, would have been a different story.

How would you respond to the often-cited concerns about your proposal?

Jamestown can’t fill. Tuckahoe can and is.

What concern do you think you’re addressing with that comment?

The statement that it be moved to Jamestown or Tuckahoe because they can’t fill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS is in such demand why not move it to Jamestown? That is the only way to fill it to capacity.

When talking to option school advocates, the county is tiny if you are talking about busing neighborhood kids but insurmountably wide if you're talking about moving an option school. True story.

seriously. And the concern of Cherrydale/ Rosslyn that ASFS is outside its own boundary is a completely specious concern, not even worthy of addressing. But the idea that some students currently at Key might opt to remain at Key as a neighborhood school if the immersion program is moved out is obviously justification for keeping the immersion program at Key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS is in such demand why not move it to Jamestown? That is the only way to fill it to capacity.

When talking to option school advocates, the county is tiny if you are talking about busing neighborhood kids but insurmountably wide if you're talking about moving an option school. True story.

seriously. And the concern of Cherrydale/ Rosslyn that ASFS is outside its own boundary is a completely specious concern, not even worthy of addressing. But the idea that some students currently at Key might opt to remain at Key as a neighborhood school if the immersion program is moved out is obviously justification for keeping the immersion program at Key.

It's definitely not an indication that people were picking the building rather than the program. Nope, not at all.

Also, the distance from Key to ATS is about 2.5 miles, and that's apparently an equity issue that is going to kill the program. The distances from the neighborhoods south and east of Key to Taylor (where neighborhood kids would be zoned with no program moves) are 2.5+ miles and somehow that's not an issue at all. If the exact same kids were in immersion, though, they would absolutely need to walk to school OR ELSE.

It's the lack of logical consistency that really bothers me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS is in such demand why not move it to Jamestown? That is the only way to fill it to capacity.

When talking to option school advocates, the county is tiny if you are talking about busing neighborhood kids but insurmountably wide if you're talking about moving an option school. True story.

seriously. And the concern of Cherrydale/ Rosslyn that ASFS is outside its own boundary is a completely specious concern, not even worthy of addressing. But the idea that some students currently at Key might opt to remain at Key as a neighborhood school if the immersion program is moved out is obviously justification for keeping the immersion program at Key.

It's definitely not an indication that people were picking the building rather than the program. Nope, not at all.

Also, the distance from Key to ATS is about 2.5 miles, and that's apparently an equity issue that is going to kill the program. The distances from the neighborhoods south and east of Key to Taylor (where neighborhood kids would be zoned with no program moves) are 2.5+ miles and somehow that's not an issue at all. If the exact same kids were in immersion, though, they would absolutely need to walk to school OR ELSE.

It's the lack of logical consistency that really bothers me.

me too. I'm a former Key parent. I have to stop reading the threads on AEM because I am losing so much respect for teachers and other parents who I like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immersion has no shortage of English speakers. Moving it to a different school within n Arlington, with the possible exception of Barrett, won’t do a thing to boost the population that needs to be boosted to keep the program viable- Spanish speakers. Moving it to Jamestown? lol.

Immersion does not require a 50/50 split to be effective. APS decided that it wanted those proportions, but there's no evidence requiring it.

APS supports 50/50 currently. Changing that, if it happens, would come after the relocation, so it’s a moot point anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS is in such demand why not move it to Jamestown? That is the only way to fill it to capacity.

When talking to option school advocates, the county is tiny if you are talking about busing neighborhood kids but insurmountably wide if you're talking about moving an option school. True story.

seriously. And the concern of Cherrydale/ Rosslyn that ASFS is outside its own boundary is a completely specious concern, not even worthy of addressing. But the idea that some students currently at Key might opt to remain at Key as a neighborhood school if the immersion program is moved out is obviously justification for keeping the immersion program at Key.

It's definitely not an indication that people were picking the building rather than the program. Nope, not at all.

Also, the distance from Key to ATS is about 2.5 miles, and that's apparently an equity issue that is going to kill the program. The distances from the neighborhoods south and east of Key to Taylor (where neighborhood kids would be zoned with no program moves) are 2.5+ miles and somehow that's not an issue at all. If the exact same kids were in immersion, though, they would absolutely need to walk to school OR ELSE.

It's the lack of logical consistency that really bothers me.

me too. I'm a former Key parent. I have to stop reading the threads on AEM because I am losing so much respect for teachers and other parents who I like.

You mean the ones where they accuse any parent who doesn't agree with them of being racist.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agreed. Change is hard for the parents going through it, but the kids will be fine. The decisions being made now are for the benefit of the system as a whole. If moves and changes were always delayed because they are unpopular with current parents, then no necessary changes would EVER be made in our rapidly growing system.

Get a grip, McKinley, ATS, and Key.

And ASFS.

Though none of them seem particularly strong at the getting of grips.

Huh? Where is ASFS losing it? They just wanted another neighborhood school to ease its overcrowding — since the key neighborhood preference was removed it is now the most overcapacity school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCK-ATS might take 20 minutes on bike. I drive it 4 times a week and it's usually am at Wilson within 5 minutes. Run it through Google maps and you get "typically 6-10 minutes" even as you scroll through the hours. It's not distance that is going to change things.


The idea of moving Key to Jamestown or Tuckahoe would provide actual seats since those schools can't seem to fill themselves up. I never applied to Claremont b/c it was too far away. Tuckahoe, however, would have been a different story.

How would you respond to the often-cited concerns about your proposal?

Jamestown can’t fill. Tuckahoe can and is.

What concern do you think you’re addressing with that comment?

The statement that it be moved to Jamestown or Tuckahoe because they can’t fill.

That is a conclusory statement (and a vague one that doesn’t suggest particular understanding of the concern), not an explanation for why it shouldn’t be a concern or how APS might address the concern.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Change is hard for the parents going through it, but the kids will be fine. The decisions being made now are for the benefit of the system as a whole. If moves and changes were always delayed because they are unpopular with current parents, then no necessary changes would EVER be made in our rapidly growing system.

Get a grip, McKinley, ATS, and Key.

And ASFS.

Though none of them seem particularly strong at the getting of grips.

Huh? Where is ASFS losing it? They just wanted another neighborhood school to ease its overcrowding — since the key neighborhood preference was removed it is now the most overcapacity school.

You misunderstand the situation. ASFS becoming overcrowded has little to nothing to do with removing neighborhood preference at Key. The school population has grown as a neighborhood school because there are more kids living in this area than there were a decade ago, in multifamily housing. And, the projections are showing that this will continue, especially with the approval of nearby CAFs that have a higher student generation factor than even SFHs, and there isn’t any other nearby school to shuffle those kids to. That’s the problem. It’s not because there are so many Key kids being shut out of immersion at Key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at ATS and there is very little resistence to the move (although the extra 10 minutes each way on the bus will be a drawback for many). The concern is the school not being in the IPP. I don't think it's unhinged to ask for a straight-forward explanation of what that means for the program.

It’s not “unhinged” to want an answer to that question, but it has absolutely zero to do with the location review. They could move ATS but otherwise keep it exactly the same, or they could keep it where it is and fundamentally change it. The ATS program discussion does not belong in the location review process, and it’s obnoxious and counterproductive to keep trying to derail one process with your personal concerns about a wholly separate process.

I think parents see a connection because of the dissonance of APS touting an expansion of the program's size as an advantage to moving ATS to a less central location (explicitly in order to advantage another program with ATS's current location), while simultaneously refusing to explain a planning document that omits the program. I think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation of how those two APS stances make sense together. To portray that as "derailing the process" seems off base to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at ATS and there is very little resistence to the move (although the extra 10 minutes each way on the bus will be a drawback for many). The concern is the school not being in the IPP. I don't think it's unhinged to ask for a straight-forward explanation of what that means for the program.

It’s not “unhinged” to want an answer to that question, but it has absolutely zero to do with the location review. They could move ATS but otherwise keep it exactly the same, or they could keep it where it is and fundamentally change it. The ATS program discussion does not belong in the location review process, and it’s obnoxious and counterproductive to keep trying to derail one process with your personal concerns about a wholly separate process.

I think parents see a connection because of the dissonance of APS touting an expansion of the program's size as an advantage to moving ATS to a less central location (explicitly in order to advantage another program with ATS's current location), while simultaneously refusing to explain a planning document that omits the program. I think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation of how those two APS stances make sense together. To portray that as "derailing the process" seems off base to me.

Those parents would be pretty obtuse, since it has been explicitly stated that the staff is considering implementing an IB curriculum at ATS. The program may transition in the future, but we will continue to have just as many elementary option programs. This is not a difficult think to understand, and I don’t think ATS parents as a group are somehow cognitively impaired, so let’s stop being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at ATS and there is very little resistence to the move (although the extra 10 minutes each way on the bus will be a drawback for many). The concern is the school not being in the IPP. I don't think it's unhinged to ask for a straight-forward explanation of what that means for the program.

It’s not “unhinged” to want an answer to that question, but it has absolutely zero to do with the location review. They could move ATS but otherwise keep it exactly the same, or they could keep it where it is and fundamentally change it. The ATS program discussion does not belong in the location review process, and it’s obnoxious and counterproductive to keep trying to derail one process with your personal concerns about a wholly separate process.

I think parents see a connection because of the dissonance of APS touting an expansion of the program's size as an advantage to moving ATS to a less central location (explicitly in order to advantage another program with ATS's current location), while simultaneously refusing to explain a planning document that omits the program. I think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation of how those two APS stances make sense together. To portray that as "derailing the process" seems off base to me.

Those parents would be pretty obtuse, since it has been explicitly stated that the staff is considering implementing an IB curriculum at ATS. The program may transition in the future, but we will continue to have just as many elementary option programs. This is not a difficult think to understand, and I don’t think ATS parents as a group are somehow cognitively impaired, so let’s stop being disingenuous.

Can you point me to where that was explicitly stated? I know ATS was not included but IB was added, but I haven't seen that staff stated ATS would become IB? I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Natrass said ats would evolve to be the in program in the ipp when Reid Goldstein questioned her about it at a work session last year. She seemed like she didn’t want to say anything, but that might have been because she was leaving.

[Anonymous]

It would be perfectly possible to implement an IB curriculum while keeping many facets of the Traditional model. It doesn’t have to be either/or. Basically IB just means the teachers and administrators need special training and the curriculum is divided up into units of inquiry. There’s also a huge focus on character development through core values and social emotional growth and community service. This doesn’t mean that you can’t teach phonics, have homework, have one teacher, tuck in shirts or do anything else in the ATS program as I currently understand it. The students keep a portfolio of work outlining their growth over the years and in 5th grade do a research/based bigger group project. No reason a school can’t be traditional and IB that I’m aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be perfectly possible to implement an IB curriculum while keeping many facets of the Traditional model. It doesn’t have to be either/or. Basically IB just means the teachers and administrators need special training and the curriculum is divided up into units of inquiry. There’s also a huge focus on character development through core values and social emotional growth and community service. This doesn’t mean that you can’t teach phonics, have homework, have one teacher, tuck in shirts or do anything else in the ATS program as I currently understand it. The students keep a portfolio of work outlining their growth over the years and in 5th grade do a research/based bigger group project. No reason a school can’t be traditional and IB that I’m aware of.

This is a great explanation, thank you.