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

[Anonymous]

I think most of Arlington supports this plan. And its my understanding that a lot of the schools are making that known to the SB and staff. People are tired of dragging this out and tired of the selfishness of small pockets of parents making it impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion about what is good for the majority. A lot of schools are pushing to take this process back from the crazies who want to second guess every move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no kids, but I have lived in the area for 30 and attended K-12 at a nearby district.


Can someone give me a brief rundown of what is going on with relocating/redistricting

Interesting. SO why is this debate so heated? Are people worried about their kids losing friends or possibly meeting some new ones of color? Lowering of academic expectations? Overcrowding?


One thing I do know (at least when I graduated in the mid 2000's). Our immediate area had Langley, Mclean, Madison, George Mason, WL, Woodson, and Yorktown providing education up to, if not exceeding the standard of the local private schools (O'Connell, Potomac, PVI). I realize I am ignoring the under preforming Jeb Stuart/Justice, Falls Church and maybe to a lesser extent Marshall. Although, I have heard Marshall is in much better shape than it was 15 years ago. I know families have different beliefs and traditions, but purely on an academic standing, it felt like a I knew many kids who's parents wasted 30k a year in these private schools. There were a few interestingly drawn boundaries back then that Im not sure still exist. The most interesting was just Southwest of the City of Falls Church where you have a little neighborhood called Westwood Park. It made no sense to send these kids to Mclean when Marshall, Falls Church, Stuart/Justice and even Mason ( I know different school district) were much closer.

Is there concern that these new plans may diminish the exceptional public school system Arlington, and most of Northern Virginia has?

TBH, only parts of arlington and Fairfax school districts are “exceptional”. The places you admittedly ignore are just as numerous and probably more so that the cloistered, high performing high schools you name. Those places are exceptional because they all have very low FRL rates, and their SOL scores reflect not quality of instruction but family income of the student bossy. It’s the same across the country.

All that said, it has little to do with this debate, which is mostly about UMC north Arlingtonians fighting for whatever plan is most convenient to them personally.

Exceptional was a bit of an overstatement, but I would still maintain our "worst" schools are better than the majority or public HS across the country. And yes, it probably has to do with wealth of the average family. I know plenty of people who feel they are lower middle class by only making $80000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can’t fill Reed, McKinley and Ashlawn with neighborhood kids. That’s why one of them has to go. tuckahoe doesn’t get you there. Neither does Nottingham. They are too small. ATS doesn’t get to have its teeny tiny exclusive school. It’s not HB and arguing to keep it small is absurd and being led primarily by ATS parents for their kids’ convenience.

This stuff about ATS is bizarre. There are 558 K-5 students, right in the middle, not "teeny tiny." I haven't heard anyone argue ATS needs to be small (and I'm on the listserve).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t fill Reed, McKinley and Ashlawn with neighborhood kids. That’s why one of them has to go. tuckahoe doesn’t get you there. Neither does Nottingham. They are too small. ATS doesn’t get to have its teeny tiny exclusive school. It’s not HB and arguing to keep it small is absurd and being led primarily by ATS parents for their kids’ convenience.

This stuff about ATS is bizarre. There are 558 K-5 students, right in the middle, not "teeny tiny." I haven't heard anyone argue ATS needs to be small (and I'm on the listserve).

DP - agree. the previous poster clearly hasn't followed closely. ATS is concerned about being eliminated in the instructional pathways in the future, being made into/replaced by a different program.

[Anonymous]

558 K-5 At ATS. So you think they should just dump the pre K classes?! That’s how ATS remains diverse! The have to go someplace that can take the pre K classes

[Anonymous]

ATS parents aren't asking to keep it small. It's central location keeps is accessible to many in the county that are interested. There is space for expansion at its current location, which should be considered more seriously, and certainly demand at its current location (based on wait list numbers).

[Anonymous]

ATS is not being eliminated. I want to shout that from the rooftops to stop all the ridiculous chatter and petition work. It's not in the IPP b/c "traditional" is not a recognized instructional model, like IB or Montessori. That doesn't mean it's going away, it just had no place in the chart. Also, APS is moving it to a larger building to grow.

Snarky side note: I feel concerned that ATS might not be teaching reading and listening comprehension since the parents can't understand what, "We are closing ATS," means.

[Anonymous]

Also, ATS is not complaining super loud about overcrowding, but there are two full grades in trailers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS is not being eliminated. I want to shout that from the rooftops to stop all the ridiculous chatter and petition work. It's not in the IPP b/c "traditional" is not a recognized instructional model, like IB or Montessori. That doesn't mean it's going away, it just had no place in the chart. Also, APS is moving it to a larger building to grow.

Snarky side note: I feel concerned that ATS might not be teaching reading and listening comprehension since the parents can't understand what, "We are closing ATS," means.

A comprehensive plan about instructional pathways for the entire school district that is completely mum about one of its most popular option schools is highly suspect. It was willfully left out. It’s not a leap to conclude that, and to press the powers-that-be for clarification.

That said, as an ATS parent I am happy with reports that the IPP will be amended to include ATS. McKinley is still a central location and will allow for in-demand growth. Never even saw the petition mentioned. Petitions by angry/worried parents are not worth the cloud-space they’re written on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no kids, but I have lived in the area for 30 and attended K-12 at a nearby district.


Can someone give me a brief rundown of what is going on with relocating/redistricting

Interesting. SO why is this debate so heated? Are people worried about their kids losing friends or possibly meeting some new ones of color? Lowering of academic expectations? Overcrowding?


One thing I do know (at least when I graduated in the mid 2000's). Our immediate area had Langley, Mclean, Madison, George Mason, WL, Woodson, and Yorktown providing education up to, if not exceeding the standard of the local private schools (O'Connell, Potomac, PVI). I realize I am ignoring the under preforming Jeb Stuart/Justice, Falls Church and maybe to a lesser extent Marshall. Although, I have heard Marshall is in much better shape than it was 15 years ago. I know families have different beliefs and traditions, but purely on an academic standing, it felt like a I knew many kids who's parents wasted 30k a year in these private schools. There were a few interestingly drawn boundaries back then that Im not sure still exist. The most interesting was just Southwest of the City of Falls Church where you have a little neighborhood called Westwood Park. It made no sense to send these kids to Mclean when Marshall, Falls Church, Stuart/Justice and even Mason ( I know different school district) were much closer.

Is there concern that these new plans may diminish the exceptional public school system Arlington, and most of Northern Virginia has?

TBH, only parts of arlington and Fairfax school districts are “exceptional”. The places you admittedly ignore are just as numerous and probably more so that the cloistered, high performing high schools you name. Those places are exceptional because they all have very low FRL rates, and their SOL scores reflect not quality of instruction but family income of the student bossy. It’s the same across the country.

All that said, it has little to do with this debate, which is mostly about UMC north Arlingtonians fighting for whatever plan is most convenient to them personally.

Exceptional was a bit of an overstatement, but I would still maintain our "worst" schools are better than the majority or public HS across the country. And yes, it probably has to do with wealth of the average family. I know plenty of people who feel they are lower middle class by only making $80000 a year.

That’s just your east coast bias. School quality is always about income. That’s why Alexandria elementaries 10 minutes from Arlington are ranked among the worst in the state. There’s nothing in the water here, and the schools aren’t doing anything different or better than in, say, Indiana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a McKinley parent, but I really don't understand why McKinley was picked over Tuckahoe. Many Tuckahoe students would be rezoned to Reed anyway. Tuckahoe would fit into Reed better, and any overflow would go into under capacity Nottingham and Discovery. Tuckahoe has less walkers so less walkers would be turned into bus riders. Plus, who cares if they can't expand option schools there - they are option schools whose capacity can be controlled! While I completely agree some of the Save McKinley folks are going off the rails, they have raised valid points, especially about APS's flawed assumptions and data analysis. The problem is that they are being aggressive and undermining their own valid arguments.

Agreed

Plus there's this nonsense about how there are so few walkers now... but 40 percent COULD be walkers. Um, OK...if they could be...why aren't they?!

Not every neighborhood school could handle 10-13 buses. That is a huge part of which locations make good option programs. I would argue the schools (for the most part) staff included on the PPT and said they won't work don't work just because of walkers. It is more than that, how many buses can the space handle? How much parking (remember a lot of parents drive to ATS and I don't doubt the same is true with Key). Do they have space to accomodate trailers for the current number of classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a McKinley parent, but I really don't understand why McKinley was picked over Tuckahoe. Many Tuckahoe students would be rezoned to Reed anyway. Tuckahoe would fit into Reed better, and any overflow would go into under capacity Nottingham and Discovery. Tuckahoe has less walkers so less walkers would be turned into bus riders. Plus, who cares if they can't expand option schools there - they are option schools whose capacity can be controlled! While I completely agree some of the Save McKinley folks are going off the rails, they have raised valid points, especially about APS's flawed assumptions and data analysis. The problem is that they are being aggressive and undermining their own valid arguments.

Agreed

McKinley is (somewhat) more accessible to the rest of the County for an option school than Tuckahoe.

McKinley is very close to ATS and can handle the bus traffic. It can also handle the number of classrooms ATS will need to have in upper grades moving forward because they added a K class (this or last year?) so now the next grade up grows each year through 5th one year at a time. So while it is currently 590ish students it will be adding 3-4 classrooms (1st-5th) over the next 4 years bringing the total of kids up by 100. So a 700 kid school is needed. Even with trailers Tuckahoe can't handle that as they aren't zoned for additional trailers than the two out front. Other schools can with trailers but of the schools thrown out there McKinley is the best fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:558 K-5 At ATS. So you think they should just dump the pre K classes?! That’s how ATS remains diverse! The have to go someplace that can take the pre K classes

Stop with the Fake News. ATS can handle 753 or even 897 students. Key liars need to to grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is not being eliminated. I want to shout that from the rooftops to stop all the ridiculous chatter and petition work. It's not in the IPP b/c "traditional" is not a recognized instructional model, like IB or Montessori. That doesn't mean it's going away, it just had no place in the chart. Also, APS is moving it to a larger building to grow.

Snarky side note: I feel concerned that ATS might not be teaching reading and listening comprehension since the parents can't understand what, "We are closing ATS," means.

A comprehensive plan about instructional pathways for the entire school district that is completely mum about one of its most popular option schools is highly suspect. It was willfully left out. It’s not a leap to conclude that, and to press the powers-that-be for clarification.

That said, as an ATS parent I am happy with reports that the IPP will be amended to include ATS. McKinley is still a central location and will allow for in-demand growth. Never even saw the petition mentioned. Petitions by angry/worried parents are not worth the cloud-space they’re written on.

+1 from another ATS parent. I think that the IPP was drafted with the intention of phasing out the traditional model at ATS, possibly with the intention of morphing the school into an elementary IB program at some future date. I think that's still a possibility, but there is now a greater likelihood that ATS retains its traditional focus. But make no mistake that it is this IPP issue that has animated the ATS community thus far during this option school move debate. The PTA and the broader school community are open to increasing the size of the school, and moving to McKinley (which isn't to say that some parents don't object, but they are not in the majority).

[Anonymous]

The ATS parents circulating the SaveATS petition look like idiots and are distracting from the conversation because ATS doesn't need to be saved. It's not disappearing. FFS