the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Key have an irreplaceable tile mural that was built by their community?

And a lovely reminder of the school's history it will be for whomever attends it in years to come.

Unless it gets painted over with lots of pictures of money.

[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.

What “laws and stuff”?

[Anonymous]

I think the lab will become a non-factor in all of this. Key needs to become a neighborhood school because now all of its walkers aren’t guaranteed admission to immersion. And it has a ton of kids in close proximity.

ASFS should house immersion either. I agree that this isn’t the last movement they will contemplate for immersion. Once people throw a fit next fall about it, they will come up with another plan and do a massive boundary change in 2020 to be effective in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What “laws and stuff”?

As a starting point, APS policy D-15, which incorporates an evaluation of whether the privately funded project will foster or exacerbate inequities between schools. Presumably that ties into the Fourteenth Amendment, but I’ll leave that to the lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Here's a cut and paste of the relevant sections of Policy D-15

ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Policy D-15 External Funding - Commercial Activities

Arlington Public Schools accepts, and monitors the use of, funds, and goods from sources other
than Arlington County and the Commonwealth of Virginia providing such resources enhance and
do not impede instructional programs, student activity programs, and ancillary programs
sponsored, administered and/or supported by the Arlington Public Schools . . .

Private Funding for Building and Grounds Improvements
Arlington Public Schools allows private contributions to finance building and grounds
improvements directed toward the specific goals and objectives of an individual school or of
Arlington Public Schools. Arlington Public Schools reserves the right to refuse any contribution.
In making decisions whether to grant approval for facility improvement (above existing School
Board approved guidelines) using private funds in whole or part, the following shall be
considered:
1. Whether the improvement benefits the school and/or school system.
2. Whether the improvement will cause unanticipated consequences, including future
financial liability in annual operating costs.
3. Whether the improvement would foster of exacerbate inequity among schools, including
exploration of whether others schools would want a similar feature, the desirability and
comparison of “extras” among schools, and maintenance of a systematic attractiveness
and appeal of all public schools county-wide.


Private Funding for Building and Grounds Improvements
Proposals for projects to be done using private funding in excess of $1,000 will be reviewed
according to the criteria stated above. Depending upon the anticipated cost of the project, the
following approval processes will be used:
1. Projects estimated at less than or equal to $15,000 will be reviewed and
approved/accepted by the principal and then by the Superintendent (or designee).
2. Projects estimated between $15,001 and $100,000 will be reviewed and
approved/accepted by the principal, the Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and
Operations (or designee) and by the Superintendent (or designee)
3. Projects estimated at greater than or equal to $100,001 will be reviewed and
approved/accepted by the principal, the Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and
Operations (or designee), by the Superintendent (or designee) and by the School Board.

It shall be the responsibility of the principal to ensure the interests of the school community are
considered throughout the review and approval process.

Following approval of projects with an estimated cost of $15,000 or more a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) or document will be written and signed by the donor and the School
Board or Superintendent. Such document shall be based on the donor’s proposal and shall set
forth the details of Arlington Public Schools’ agreements as to the use of the funds and
development of the project. For projects under $15,000 the principal will send the donor a
letter/form accepting and acknowledging the gift.

Private funding sources may include donations or endowment to Arlington Public Schools from
the following:
1. Parent-teacher and parent advisory groups,
2. Other parent sponsored groups such as booster clubs, students, or alumni groups,
3. Individuals,
4. Private organizations (including businesses and non-profit foundations) that provide
funds without an exchange of rights, and
5. Commercial or other organizations that provide benefits in return for specified
considerations.

All facility improvements (including in-kind contributions) financed with private contributions
become the property of the Arlington Public Schools.

[Anonymous]

^^ So at the very least now we know that any gripes about the lab "belonging" to ASFS and the parents who paid for it are just gripes, once that lab got donated, it belonged to APS and they can do whatever they want with it.

It also appears, based on the price-tag, that the School Board had to vote to approve the lab being put into the current ASFS building. So any inequalities or gripes other schools had about ASFS getting such a fancy lab should have been addressed then. I'm sure someone can dig up the old School Board minutes or the MOU that had to be created to justify why ASFS should get the lab. This policy was adopted in 2007, and I'm sure ASFS, APS, and the School Board absolutely followed the policy before allowing the lab to be built, right???

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

The policy was adopted on October 4, 2007, and the lab was built in honor of Noah Simon's wife, who died in 2013.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

The policy was adopted on October 4, 2007, and the lab was built in honor of Noah Simon's wife, who died in 2013.

So if ASFS and APS didn't follow the policy then to install such an expensive lab, then why should the taxpayers now be expected to foot the bill to move it? If anything, the School Board should vote to limit the moving costs for the lab-- it should get the same amount $$ as it takes to move any other classroom in APS (I think APS budgeted 10 boxes per classroom?). Or ASFS can fundraise to move it. Schools should not be allowed to install such expensive frills without any checks and balances and then demand that APS move or recreate such an extravagant frill (especially since the move seems to be motivated, in part, in making the community that built the lab happy by bringing ASFS to their neighborhood).

[Anonymous]

I would be very surprised if they didn’t follow the policy and procedurally check some boxes. Assuming they jumped through the proper hoops, i would be curious if they made any statement reflecting that they had actually considered the potential for inequitable impact when approving the funds. With respect to modest donations I don’t think it would be a big deal if they just rubber stamp a donation. This had to stand out as unusually large, though, suggesting more careful condideration. Otherwise, why even bother having a policy governing donations (unless you’re merely trying to give the appearance of respecting the equal rights of all students rather than actually meeting that standard)? I wonder how many private donations of this magnitude have ever come before the school board or superintendent.

Or maybe I’m way off base and there was a robust vetting that simply wasn’t on my radar - I have no personal knowledge of what actually happened..

[Anonymous]

If they built it, raised funds or anything without following APS policy, using taxpayer dollars to move it so it continues to benefit the same community should not be allowed. Their extras cannot become everyone’s burden. People will come up with endless lists of other things that money could be used for elsewhere in the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

The policy was adopted on October 4, 2007, and the lab was built in honor of Noah Simon's wife, who died in 2013.

No, it was not. Some donations were made in her honor but the lab was not built in her honor.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully policy was followed. It would look really bad for APS not to enforce procedures that are intended as safeguards against private funding resulting in school inequality,and have that come out incident to displacing the immersion program for the benefit of the same community that previously bought themselves superior educational facilities. I do expect they followed procedure, however, given that they couldn’t have moved forward without all sorts of permissions relating to the installation of equipment on school property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

The policy was adopted on October 4, 2007, and the lab was built in honor of Noah Simon's wife, who died in 2013.

No, it was not. Some donations were made in her honor but the lab was not built in her honor.

Yes it was - you people are unbearable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if that policy was in effect when the lab was built? It doesn’t seem like policy was followed since the school board didn’t vote on it. It seems like the principle didn’t follow protocol since she was aware of and assisted the fund raising efforts.

The policy was adopted on October 4, 2007, and the lab was built in honor of Noah Simon's wife, who died in 2013.

No, it was not. Some donations were made in her honor but the lab was not built in her honor.

Yes it was - you people are unbearable

I sat in the freaking PTA meetings for the lab remodel and got all of the fundraising emails. I was her friend. Not once did I hear that the lab was in her honor, just that some people made donations in her honor. What did I miss???