the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no “program” at asfs. I might be giving away who I am here, but I have a middle schooler and a couple of younger kids. The school today is very different from where it was ten years ago. There are no science songs being sung in kindergarten. A lot of the veteran teachers who had been there for decades have left in the past two years. The teacher turn over at that school is really ridiculous, I think 20 teachers left last year. My younger kids are not getting any sort of extra science exposure that is meaningful enough for the amount of anger people are expressing here. The program is so crappy right now that I can’t imagine them trying to say it could get worse. My third grader doesn’t know what a simple machine is, she can’t list the steps in the scientific method. It’s not stem or steam or anything beyond a vanilla elementary school.
I was there when they made the big push to remodel investigation station. At the time people thought it was strange and over the top, but ms b pushed extensively for it. She’s the one who sent out all those fundraising emails. Based off of other people’s comments here, the push makes sense since she was likely getting pressure to convert the lab to classrooms. If that’s true, it’s really despicable that she was allowed to do that.

If being a “vanilla elementary school” means ASFS is now “crappy,” maybe instead of focusing so much on ASFS’s program, we should put whatever money is available for things like moving a science lab into elevating the programs in all of the “crappy” “vanilla elementary schools” instead.

Then why are you fighting so hard? If it's so crappy, you should be over the moon for boundary changes. Odd how your message shifts depending on the way the APS wind is blowing these days. Wait til they change their minds again and we'll see you claiming how amazing it is that you couldn't possibly go to any other school than that one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We go to what is apparently a "crappy" "vanilla elementary school" that is not ASFS, and there's no chance we're going to be zoned for any schools over there because we don't live over there. My consistent position through this has been that the swap makes sense from a system-wide standpoint given all the practical constraints, and that the histrionics on both sides are ridiculous. How has my message shifted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does this thread even exist right now? I thought APS was doing boundary changes for SA now and focusing the Key/Science Focus mess later?

Someone on ArlNow is stirring the pot with the recent article.

And some twit on AEM is stirring the pot by posting it there.

If you don’t have anything constructive to add, just pipe it until January. Actually, save those comments for January too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discovery got a new playground because it was a NEW school. Just like Fleet will get a new playground. APS replaces playgrounds about every 20 years.

The slide was a stupid gimmick proposed by the architects and isn’t even used!

Discovery is a perfect example of inequities but no one cares about that one. They only care about what Science Focus has because of capacity challenges. Why on earth they didn't make that one an option school is beyond me. Is it right that some schools like Discovery have 5x the playground space than other schools (all much nicer and newer), 2 brand new huge state of the art Art Rooms? No, it's not equitable but no one bothers to go after their "nice things" because the school was built in an area where we do not need seats. Those short-sided approaches have to stop. We can't afford to keep making school siting mistakes.

Discovery does not have 5x the playground space other schools have (and their playground space doesn't have contiguous green space, so playing options at recess are limited). The other poster is correct that Discovery has more structures because it had to work in narrow bands right along the building that didn't allow for the installation of one of the larger types of climbing structures that have been installed at other elementaries in the past ten years. Instead they had to do more smaller structures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're still talking about this because come January, the ASFS/Key parents will be up in arms again (if they aren't already) and basically consume all of APS' time on this issue. All APS had to do was say hey, we're not going to touch the boundaries until 2020 when we get ready for Reed (even though that means ASFS sits outside its attendance zone for a few years), and then engage in meaningful data crunching/boundary options, etc. Instead, Murphy laid down the law hoping to settle folks down so they could get through the SA process. Such approach, though, clearly backfired. Folks who didn't or shouldn't care about what happens at Key and ASFS now care because Murphy could do the same to them. Remember, Murphy has the power to move option programs wherever he wants without School Board approval. No school is safe from such a unilateral decision.

Key and ASFS do not exist in a bubble. What happens at those schools does, directly or indirectly, affect the rest of us, and so we do have an interest in seeing the issue resolved in a sensible way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no “program” at asfs. I might be giving away who I am here, but I have a middle schooler and a couple of younger kids. The school today is very different from where it was ten years ago. There are no science songs being sung in kindergarten. A lot of the veteran teachers who had been there for decades have left in the past two years. The teacher turn over at that school is really ridiculous, I think 20 teachers left last year. My younger kids are not getting any sort of extra science exposure that is meaningful enough for the amount of anger people are expressing here. The program is so crappy right now that I can’t imagine them trying to say it could get worse. My third grader doesn’t know what a simple machine is, she can’t list the steps in the scientific method. It’s not stem or steam or anything beyond a vanilla elementary school.
I was there when they made the big push to remodel investigation station. At the time people thought it was strange and over the top, but ms b pushed extensively for it. She’s the one who sent out all those fundraising emails. Based off of other people’s comments here, the push makes sense since she was likely getting pressure to convert the lab to classrooms. If that’s true, it’s really despicable that she was allowed to do that.

We agree to disagree on this one. My kids have all had science-rich experiences (middle schoolers and younger ones the same) much different than what you describe. I was also there as well and I do not recall people thinking anything was strange. We were rallying around common goals and honoring a dear friend in the process. Your accusations posted here are hurtful for people and you also neglect to acknowledge how insensitive your comments are. There are people who could loose jobs but yet you only care about your child and throwing accusations around. Please think before you post public comments like this.

I was also at ASFS at the time of fundraising for remodeling the lab (and for many years before) and there definitely were some parents and teachers who thought it was strange and way too extravagant. I remember the first PTA meetings that it was discussed; it was like this private group of maybe no more than 2 fathers who reached out to the principal about seeking significant amounts of private and corporate donations to remodel the lab and then it was presented to the PTA as a done deal that actually did not need PTA approval or involvement. I don't really care what happens to the lab; it's not that great though it looks good. I am much more concerned about what happens to the 20 years worth of PTA fundraising that created the courtyard and the gardens for specific purposes related to curriculum but I would guess whatever goes in the building next will use and care for them.

[Anonymous]

There’s a habitat in the front of asfs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a habitat in the front of asfs?

I believe it shows the four regions of VA? That’s something other kids can use, but would be nice to recreate at Key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a habitat in the front of asfs?

I believe it shows the four regions of VA? That’s something other kids can use, but would be nice to recreate at Key.

Where is this? The front steps? The area around the atrium?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a habitat in the front of asfs?

I believe it shows the four regions of VA? That’s something other kids can use, but would be nice to recreate at Key.

Where is this? The front steps? The area around the atrium?

If you’re facing the front steps, it’s to the left.

[Anonymous]

i don’t think anyone is “whining” about the lab. I think there’s just a general outrage at the private wealth on display in one public school within a district where there are some pretty big pockets of poverty. And to see comments about how any school could get a corporate sponsor to fund a $200,000 project if only they would put in the effort shows an amazing lack of awareness of the economic realities in other communities, especially when seeing that many of the donations at ASFS came from parents. Now that the lab has become somewhat of a lightning rod within the larger conversation about the swap, it’s fair to start asking whether the magnitude of that privately funded improvement project was improper. This is a public school system. If you want your child to have the best that money can buy, private schools offer just that. Public schools, however, are constrained when it comes to accepting private funding that is being dedicated to only one school rather than the school system at large. There are laws and stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i don’t think anyone is “whining” about the lab. I think there’s just a general outrage at the private wealth on display in one public school within a district where there are some pretty big pockets of poverty. And to see comments about how any school could get a corporate sponsor to fund a $200,000 project if only they would put in the effort shows an amazing lack of awareness of the economic realities in other communities, especially when seeing that many of the donations at ASFS came from parents. Now that the lab has become somewhat of a lightning rod within the larger conversation about the swap, it’s fair to start asking whether the magnitude of that privately funded improvement project was improper. This is a public school system. If you want your child to have the best that money can buy, private schools offer just that. Public schools, however, are constrained when it comes to accepting private funding that is being dedicated to only one school rather than the school system at large. There are laws and stuff.

This exactly. It seems like most of the arguments here about the swap are people saying that there shouldn’t be aps money spent on maintaining and moving a large private investment in the school. I think everyone agrees with this, especially since the schools pta had a $43k surplus last year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i don’t think anyone is “whining” about the lab. I think there’s just a general outrage at the private wealth on display in one public school within a district where there are some pretty big pockets of poverty. And to see comments about how any school could get a corporate sponsor to fund a $200,000 project if only they would put in the effort shows an amazing lack of awareness of the economic realities in other communities, especially when seeing that many of the donations at ASFS came from parents. Now that the lab has become somewhat of a lightning rod within the larger conversation about the swap, it’s fair to start asking whether the magnitude of that privately funded improvement project was improper. This is a public school system. If you want your child to have the best that money can buy, private schools offer just that. Public schools, however, are constrained when it comes to accepting private funding that is being dedicated to only one school rather than the school system at large. There are laws and stuff.

You don’t need $200k to create a rich learning environment. Find a sponsor (seriously, they are out there) and focus on the important stuff (AKA, not the $$$ hanging solar system).

For $20k, you can get 80% of the function.

If everyone wants STEM, ASFS should build curriculum blocks to share with other schools.

Instead of squashing a good thing (thoughtful learning environments, community donations investing in our schools), let’s leverage it and make it more equitable.

[Anonymous]

I just saw the September 2018 enrollment data is up. Interesting that Key and ASFS enrollment is down slightly from last Sept. The most striking thing to me is that Key has 23 fewer kindergarteners this year. That's an entire class! I know this was the last year the old policy was in place--I wonder if the uncertainty over the future location of the program affected people's decisions or if APS deliberately admitted fewer kids to the program? Or just a fluke?

Data here: https://www.apsva.us/statistics/monthly-enrollment/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Other schools are safe b/c no other school is outside of its boundary. Murphy can't move ATS to Nottingham without the SB b/c that would require redoing the Nottingham boundaries and the boundaries around ATS. This only works for ASFS. And that's why they can do it.

Murphy can absolutely move ATS to Nottingham, and then the School Board can vote on the boundaries around Nottingham and ATS, which it is already slated to do in 2020. Remember, ASFS had no boundaries until THIS year. The vote by the School Last year made Key an option only school thereby excluding neighborhood kids who lived in the Key attendance zone from attending. The School Board never addressed the boundary conundrum that was created by changing the options and transfer policy. Rather, sometime over the summer, APS went online and replaced all the "Key" Attendance Zone maps to say the "ASFS" Attendance Zone maps even though there was never a vote to designate the old Key zone as the new ASFS zone (in fact, some of the walk zone maps had (and may still have) ASFS' boundaries covering the Taylor and Jamestown areas because they were all part of the old Team model).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just saw the September 2018 enrollment data is up. Interesting that Key and ASFS enrollment is down slightly from last Sept. The most striking thing to me is that Key has 23 fewer kindergarteners this year. That's an entire class! I know this was the last year the old policy was in place--I wonder if the uncertainty over the future location of the program affected people's decisions or if APS deliberately admitted fewer kids to the program? Or just a fluke?

Data here: https://www.apsva.us/statistics/monthly-enrollment/

Interesting. Maybe then we don’t need the swap.