APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's really interesting is that if you just read the comments in this thread without knowing what actually happened in the election, you get the impression the Cherrydale people flocked to the meeting to vote out Rosslyn people and get a Cherrydale-centered PTA board that would push for a walk zone. In reality, it appears that it was Rosslyn people who flocked to the meeting to vote out Cherrydale-area board members in favor of Rosslyn people.

A Cherrydale centered PTA with participants who did not have students attending the school.

Further, that Cherrydale focused PTA were lottery parents; do think of the Rosslyn PTA members were advocating to the school board to remove lottery families, there would not have been a similar response?

Isn't that what Rosslyn PTA members want to do now? From what I've read on this thread, they seem to hate them all and want them removed from the school?

I've heard the new PTA is advocating for removing current students from the school to reduce the capacity strain.

I assume you have a source for that information and aren't posting rank speculation?

Probably trying to remove the students who keep sneaking into PTA meetings.

Probably trying to remove those crazy folks who want to walk to school!!!

I've heard the new PTA was taking into account the concerns of those kids at Turnberry Towers and the Odyssey who were feeling a little cramped at "their" school.

What is your compulsion to troll like an asshole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's really interesting is that if you just read the comments in this thread without knowing what actually happened in the election, you get the impression the Cherrydale people flocked to the meeting to vote out Rosslyn people and get a Cherrydale-centered PTA board that would push for a walk zone. In reality, it appears that it was Rosslyn people who flocked to the meeting to vote out Cherrydale-area board members in favor of Rosslyn people.

A Cherrydale centered PTA with participants who did not have students attending the school.

Further, that Cherrydale focused PTA were lottery parents; do think of the Rosslyn PTA members were advocating to the school board to remove lottery families, there would not have been a similar response?

Isn't that what Rosslyn PTA members want to do now? From what I've read on this thread, they seem to hate them all and want them removed from the school?

I've heard the new PTA is advocating for removing current students from the school to reduce the capacity strain.

I assume you have a source for that information and aren't posting rank speculation?

Probably trying to remove the students who keep sneaking into PTA meetings.

Probably trying to remove those crazy folks who want to walk to school!!!

I've heard the new PTA was taking into account the concerns of those kids at Turnberry Towers and the Odyssey who were feeling a little cramped at "their" school.

I heard the new PTA was above doing actual work or showing up to meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so far into stupid territory now, I feel like I lose brain cells every time I open this thread.

This is why they need to draw those boundaries now, so we can all stop wasting our time with this insanity.

No, that just gives us two rounds of stupid on ASFS. Now and in two years when they refine it before Reed opens.

That's why the entire boundary needs to be done for 2019. No reason to extend the pain.

That will mean the boundaries to be implemented for 2021 will be based on projections that are three years out of date at that point. They have been very explicit on this, any boundaries drawn now for 2021 will be checked again in 2020 to make sure they are still appropriate at that time. Again with the stupid.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You hear the echo chamber? Sounds loud to me.

Projections are fairly stable. They might make a couple planning unit refinements here and there for 2021 to ASFS, but the big change will be in 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so far into stupid territory now, I feel like I lose brain cells every time I open this thread.

This is why they need to draw those boundaries now, so we can all stop wasting our time with this insanity.

No, that just gives us two rounds of stupid on ASFS. Now and in two years when they refine it before Reed opens.

That's why the entire boundary needs to be done for 2019. No reason to extend the pain.

That will mean the boundaries to be implemented for 2021 will be based on projections that are three years out of date at that point. They have been very explicit on this, any boundaries drawn now for 2021 will be checked again in 2020 to make sure they are still appropriate at that time. Again with the stupid.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You hear the echo chamber? Sounds loud to me.

Projections are fairly stable. They might make a couple planning unit refinements here and there for 2021 to ASFS, but the big change will be in 2019.

Where are you getting this info? I thought the lastest was that NVD wanted a the staff to come back with a full county solution framework by August, but the staff was otherwise looking at minor changes in 2019 for the ASFS area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so far into stupid territory now, I feel like I lose brain cells every time I open this thread.

This is why they need to draw those boundaries now, so we can all stop wasting our time with this insanity.

No, that just gives us two rounds of stupid on ASFS. Now and in two years when they refine it before Reed opens.

That's why the entire boundary needs to be done for 2019. No reason to extend the pain.

That will mean the boundaries to be implemented for 2021 will be based on projections that are three years out of date at that point. They have been very explicit on this, any boundaries drawn now for 2021 will be checked again in 2020 to make sure they are still appropriate at that time. Again with the stupid.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You hear the echo chamber? Sounds loud to me.

Projections are fairly stable. They might make a couple planning unit refinements here and there for 2021 to ASFS, but the big change will be in 2019.

Are you new here? Do you not remember the whole McKinley boundary debacle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so far into stupid territory now, I feel like I lose brain cells every time I open this thread.

This is why they need to draw those boundaries now, so we can all stop wasting our time with this insanity.

No, that just gives us two rounds of stupid on ASFS. Now and in two years when they refine it before Reed opens.

That's why the entire boundary needs to be done for 2019. No reason to extend the pain.

That will mean the boundaries to be implemented for 2021 will be based on projections that are three years out of date at that point. They have been very explicit on this, any boundaries drawn now for 2021 will be checked again in 2020 to make sure they are still appropriate at that time. Again with the stupid.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You hear the echo chamber? Sounds loud to me.

Projections are fairly stable. They might make a couple planning unit refinements here and there for 2021 to ASFS, but the big change will be in 2019.

Where are you getting this info? I thought the lastest was that NVD wanted a the staff to come back with a full county solution framework by August, but the staff was otherwise looking at minor changes in 2019 for the ASFS area.

No one knows what is ultimately going to happen here because there are too many permutations. But it is unlikely that ASFS is going to get a full rezoning implemented for 2019 because right now there isn't anywhere to send most of the displaced students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Nottingham.

No, I'm talking about the Tuckahoe letter from the winter. Nottingham has very few families on the south side of Lee Highway whereas Tuckahoe has a lot. That doesn't mean either PTA should disregard a portion of their community, but it was more egregious coming from Tuckahoe. Plus, it was striking that for Tuckahoe, everyone who signed that letter (which wasn't the full board) was within the Tuckahoe walk zone but not the walk zone of any other school, so their personal interests clearly were aligned with the letter.

If you look at the people who did the majority of the work on behalf of Nottingham, interestingly, most of them either live south of Lee Highway or are in the area that's closer to Discovery and might get rezoned there either way. Early on there were a few people from the area walkable only to Nottiingham and not also to Tuckahoe or Discovery who expressed concern about whether those people (not all of whom were board members, and not all board members were heavily involved) might actually undermine the effort to keep Nottingham a neighborhood school to suit their own interests, because the ones from south of Lee would want to ensure they could go to Reed and the ones closer to Discovery would want more of Nottingham to move with them if they had to move.

Can you explain what people did for their "work on behalf of Nottingham"? I'm not trolling, I'm honestly ignorant of how this all works and I'm curious what exactly people did and how this all went down. I've read many of these threads and seen statements like this, but I haven't seen it spelled out what work people actually did.

[Anonymous]

Old PTA had two Cherrydale officers, no Rosslyn officers.
New PTA has no Cherrydale officers, one Rosslyn officers.

Rest are from LV & Clarendon I think - not sure where everyone lives.

Most likely for fall 2019: move out any PUs that wouldn't be in the new "Key" and/or new "ASFS" zone. Very few PUs would be affected IMO.

It can't really be fixed until Key is a neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old PTA had two Cherrydale officers, no Rosslyn officers.
New PTA has no Cherrydale officers, one Rosslyn officers.

Rest are from LV & Clarendon I think - not sure where everyone lives.

Most likely for fall 2019: move out any PUs that wouldn't be in the new "Key" and/or new "ASFS" zone. Very few PUs would be affected IMO.

It can't really be fixed until Key is a neighborhood.

Old PTA had two Cherrydale officers, no Rosslyn officers = factually incorrect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Nottingham.

No, I'm talking about the Tuckahoe letter from the winter. Nottingham has very few families on the south side of Lee Highway whereas Tuckahoe has a lot. That doesn't mean either PTA should disregard a portion of their community, but it was more egregious coming from Tuckahoe. Plus, it was striking that for Tuckahoe, everyone who signed that letter (which wasn't the full board) was within the Tuckahoe walk zone but not the walk zone of any other school, so their personal interests clearly were aligned with the letter.

If you look at the people who did the majority of the work on behalf of Nottingham, interestingly, most of them either live south of Lee Highway or are in the area that's closer to Discovery and might get rezoned there either way. Early on there were a few people from the area walkable only to Nottiingham and not also to Tuckahoe or Discovery who expressed concern about whether those people (not all of whom were board members, and not all board members were heavily involved) might actually undermine the effort to keep Nottingham a neighborhood school to suit their own interests, because the ones from south of Lee would want to ensure they could go to Reed and the ones closer to Discovery would want more of Nottingham to move with them if they had to move.

Can you explain what people did for their "work on behalf of Nottingham"? I'm not trolling, I'm honestly ignorant of how this all works and I'm curious what exactly people did and how this all went down. I've read many of these threads and seen statements like this, but I haven't seen it spelled out what work people actually did.

It sounds so much less sexy when you realize it means that those people just showed up at open office hours, wrote letters, and spoke at school board meetings. The same things other schools did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean Nottingham.

No, I'm talking about the Tuckahoe letter from the winter. Nottingham has very few families on the south side of Lee Highway whereas Tuckahoe has a lot. That doesn't mean either PTA should disregard a portion of their community, but it was more egregious coming from Tuckahoe. Plus, it was striking that for Tuckahoe, everyone who signed that letter (which wasn't the full board) was within the Tuckahoe walk zone but not the walk zone of any other school, so their personal interests clearly were aligned with the letter.

If you look at the people who did the majority of the work on behalf of Nottingham, interestingly, most of them either live south of Lee Highway or are in the area that's closer to Discovery and might get rezoned there either way. Early on there were a few people from the area walkable only to Nottiingham and not also to Tuckahoe or Discovery who expressed concern about whether those people (not all of whom were board members, and not all board members were heavily involved) might actually undermine the effort to keep Nottingham a neighborhood school to suit their own interests, because the ones from south of Lee would want to ensure they could go to Reed and the ones closer to Discovery would want more of Nottingham to move with them if they had to move.

Can you explain what people did for their "work on behalf of Nottingham"? I'm not trolling, I'm honestly ignorant of how this all works and I'm curious what exactly people did and how this all went down. I've read many of these threads and seen statements like this, but I haven't seen it spelled out what work people actually did.

It sounds so much less sexy when you realize it means that those people just showed up at open office hours, wrote letters, and spoke at school board meetings. The same things other schools did.

+1. People like to make it out like Nottingham worked some witchcraft, but it was the same kind of stuff everyone did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's really interesting is that if you just read the comments in this thread without knowing what actually happened in the election, you get the impression the Cherrydale people flocked to the meeting to vote out Rosslyn people and get a Cherrydale-centered PTA board that would push for a walk zone. In reality, it appears that it was Rosslyn people who flocked to the meeting to vote out Cherrydale-area board members in favor of Rosslyn people.

A Cherrydale centered PTA with participants who did not have students attending the school.

Further, that Cherrydale focused PTA were lottery parents; do think of the Rosslyn PTA members were advocating to the school board to remove lottery families, there would not have been a similar response?

Isn't that what Rosslyn PTA members want to do now? From what I've read on this thread, they seem to hate them all and want them removed from the school?

Very likely that is what they want now, but its a response to the pre-emptive actions from Cherrydale community members making space for themselves at the expense of current Rosslyn students. A bit different; Rosslyn parents were part of the group recommending the Buck site, which is an inclusive approach to make space for all who want to attend their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are so far into stupid territory now, I feel like I lose brain cells every time I open this thread.

This is why they need to draw those boundaries now, so we can all stop wasting our time with this insanity.

No, that just gives us two rounds of stupid on ASFS. Now and in two years when they refine it before Reed opens.

That's why the entire boundary needs to be done for 2019. No reason to extend the pain.

That will mean the boundaries to be implemented for 2021 will be based on projections that are three years out of date at that point. They have been very explicit on this, any boundaries drawn now for 2021 will be checked again in 2020 to make sure they are still appropriate at that time. Again with the stupid.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You hear the echo chamber? Sounds loud to me.

Projections are fairly stable. They might make a couple planning unit refinements here and there for 2021 to ASFS, but the big change will be in 2019.

Projections are fine, but they can't project what the decision will be on moving options schools, which politically they want to make the decision close to implementation time so less time for backpedaling. They can decide in 2018 to move Key to Nottingham in 2021, but that's 3 years of gnashing teeth and matched t-shirts at every school board meeting. If they just table No Arlington, MAYBE move a few southern ASFS boundary PUs to LB if Fleet gives it breathing room, that's all they can do until the final decision on option locations is set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's really interesting is that if you just read the comments in this thread without knowing what actually happened in the election, you get the impression the Cherrydale people flocked to the meeting to vote out Rosslyn people and get a Cherrydale-centered PTA board that would push for a walk zone. In reality, it appears that it was Rosslyn people who flocked to the meeting to vote out Cherrydale-area board members in favor of Rosslyn people.

A Cherrydale centered PTA with participants who did not have students attending the school.

Further, that Cherrydale focused PTA were lottery parents; do think of the Rosslyn PTA members were advocating to the school board to remove lottery families, there would not have been a similar response?

Isn't that what Rosslyn PTA members want to do now? From what I've read on this thread, they seem to hate them all and want them removed from the school?

Very likely that is what they want now, but its a response to the pre-emptive actions from Cherrydale community members making space for themselves at the expense of current Rosslyn students. A bit different; Rosslyn parents were part of the group recommending the Buck site, which is an inclusive approach to make space for all who want to attend their neighborhood school.

Absolutely incorrect. The whole Buck idea was originally thought of and advocated for those who live near the school. They were advocating to expand the school onto Buck last year during the Options and Transfer process, before the Rosslyn folks even understood what was going on. The fact is the Rosslyn/Courthosue crew is an angry and vindictive group who have said and done some really nasty things to several really good people. These same people who were ironically advocating for them. So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's really interesting is that if you just read the comments in this thread without knowing what actually happened in the election, you get the impression the Cherrydale people flocked to the meeting to vote out Rosslyn people and get a Cherrydale-centered PTA board that would push for a walk zone. In reality, it appears that it was Rosslyn people who flocked to the meeting to vote out Cherrydale-area board members in favor of Rosslyn people.

A Cherrydale centered PTA with participants who did not have students attending the school.

Further, that Cherrydale focused PTA were lottery parents; do think of the Rosslyn PTA members were advocating to the school board to remove lottery families, there would not have been a similar response?

Isn't that what Rosslyn PTA members want to do now? From what I've read on this thread, they seem to hate them all and want them removed from the school?

Very likely that is what they want now, but its a response to the pre-emptive actions from Cherrydale community members making space for themselves at the expense of current Rosslyn students. A bit different; Rosslyn parents were part of the group recommending the Buck site, which is an inclusive approach to make space for all who want to attend their neighborhood school.

Absolutely incorrect. The whole Buck idea was originally thought of and advocated for those who live near the school. They were advocating to expand the school onto Buck last year during the Options and Transfer process, before the Rosslyn folks even understood what was going on. The fact is the Rosslyn/Courthosue crew is an angry and vindictive group who have said and done some really nasty things to several really good people. These same people who were ironically advocating for them. So sad.

Maybe, but there was definitely a contingent of folks from Cherrydale campaigning for Rosslyn to bus to Taylor, who were very vocal on this board and in SB meetings.