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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.

+100

+10000, their map makes sense for them. It makes the entire county pay the price for them to keep their school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

I didn't even look at the presentation. I'm MdK in 14100 (youngest kid will be gone by time the changes happen). Haven't been a part of the PTA since they screwed us over in previous boundary processes. The sentiment is strong in our PU. I'm just watching for entertainment factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

Well, they are saying it's possible without moving programs. They didn't say it was more sensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

I didn't even look at the presentation. I'm MdK in 14100 (youngest kid will be gone by time the changes happen). Haven't been a part of the PTA since they screwed us over in previous boundary processes. The sentiment is strong in our PU. I'm just watching for entertainment factor.

How did they screw you in the previously boundary process? Not doubting they did, I just don't know the history there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.

Hmmm. Would these be the same two small units that were split from the Alcova Heights neighborhood and sent to Fleet -- ironically, in consideration of demographics? If so, moving them back to Barcroft just makes Fleet even wealthier and Barcroft even poorer. Thought they were concerned that demographics weren't being considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

I didn't even look at the presentation. I'm MdK in 14100 (youngest kid will be gone by time the changes happen). Haven't been a part of the PTA since they screwed us over in previous boundary processes. The sentiment is strong in our PU. I'm just watching for entertainment factor.

How did they screw you in the previously boundary process? Not doubting they did, I just don't know the history there.

They refused to get involved. AT ALL. Would not advocate to keep any planning units at McK. Their non involvement is part of the reason we ended up so overcroweded.

Shocking to see the 180 turnound. To be fair, it's a completely new PTA but I still hold a grudge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.

Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!

Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.

Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.

Hmmm. Would these be the same two small units that were split from the Alcova Heights neighborhood and sent to Fleet -- ironically, in consideration of demographics? If so, moving them back to Barcroft just makes Fleet even wealthier and Barcroft even poorer. Thought they were concerned that demographics weren't being considered.

Sure looks like it.

[Anonymous]

Letter from McKinley PTA to other PTAs:

Dear PTA Colleague,


I’m McKinley’s PTA president, and I’m reaching out to you about the APS 2021 Elementary School Planning initiative.

As you probably know, McKinley is the only neighborhood school slated to close in both of APS’s proposed options. But my motivation in writing to you is not “Help me keep my school community together!” My motivation is a real worry about a different community—the one we all belong to.

The process that APS and the School Board are using to decide elementary school moves, and subsequently, boundary changes, should worry all of us.

When APS released its two proposals, there were some members of the McKinley community who wanted to jump directly to media coverage and FOIA requests—and they wanted the PTA to lead that charge. I told them that it was the PTA’s job (any PTA’s job) to keep parents informed, ensure that good data were being used to make decisions, and ensure that decisions stemmed from a fair and transparent process. I stressed that it was not the PTA's role to advocate for specific alternatives that would negatively impact other schools. I urged my community to trust the process, respect staff, and engage thoughtfully.

It’s become apparent to me and many others across the system that both data and process are flawed—and so, wearing my PTA hat, I’m now reaching out to my counterparts at other schools and at the CCPTA. If the School Board goes ahead with a February 6 vote on school moves, I’m worried about what this portends for our shared future.

I’m outlining some specific concerns below, which are echoed in the attached flyers. My ask is this: we, collectively, need to let APS and the School Board know that this is not the kind of process and community engagement we want to see enshrined as standard operating procedure. Right now the School Board is hearing from only those schools immediately affected by Option 1—and may be inclined to dismiss our process concerns because they feel like we are motivated by self-preservation.

The School Board needs to hear from all of us that this process is not OK.

Here are some things that should cause collective concern:
· The FAC was not consulted in the development of APS’s two proposals.
· APS invited the community to submit alternatives, but in its December 9 meeting dismissed these alternatives in a public meeting, without prior notification to the individuals who had spent hundreds of hours developing these scenarios. To date, APS has provided the authors no detailed justification for rejecting their ideas.
· In the same December 9 meeting, APS announced it would not be recommending any alternative scenarios to the School Board—closing the door a full month before it was due to deliver its recommendation(s) to the School Board.
· Several of the priorities cited in the official boundary change policy aren’t being factored into the school moves—most notably, diversity. And yet we know that decisions made about school moves will constrain what we are able to do down the road to balance demographics.
· There’s been no analysis on how option program moves would impact the diversity of those student populations; instead, APS assumes that 100% of those students would move to the new school sites.
· APS’s Option 1 generates 276 new, needed neighborhood seats in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor—but this is built on the assumption that 100% of Key Immersion students will move with the program to the ATS building, and it does not factor in any changes that might result from subsequent boundary changes.
· There is a community-developed scenario that adjusts boundaries without any school moves. It generates 161 new seats in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and involves reassigning only 14% of students to a new school. APS received this proposal in early December but hasn’t responded to it. The proposal does a relatively good job addressing capacity. Diversity is a big unknown, but only because APS hasn’t released the Planning Unit-level demographic data that would enable this analysis to be done.
· The data that APS originally released as rationale for its two proposals, notably “Analysis of Students Moving” and the Zone map, have subsequently been dismissed by some staff and Board members as not particularly compelling or useful. In its absence, we’re asking: What data are APS presenting to show that Option 1 is the best path forward? What data will School Board members use to decide how to vote? We don’t know. What I’ve heard from APS is: “While many want this to be a data only exercise, there are many more pieces that we are balancing for all students and families.”
· The APS team tasked with doing the 2021 Elementary Planning is at 50% capacity. This is one of the reasons given for needing to separate out school moves from boundary changes, rather than running 2-3 different scenarios in parallel from start to finish, as has been suggested. We’ve heard that there isn’t the internal bandwidth to do this. It seems to many of us that this would be a good time to bring in consultant(s) to help—and yet this hasn’t been done.

I’m planning to be at the January CCPTA meeting to explore whether and how it might be appropriate for CCPTA to play a role. If you’ll be there, too, I hope to meet you in person and am happy to answer questions about anything I’ve written here—also happy to email or talk by phone before then.

I’m hoping that this letter provides food for thought. Maybe it will compel you, individually or as a school PTA organization, to step forward and let the School Board know that this isn’t a process you’d want for your school—or for any of us.

In the meantime, I wish you the happiest of holidays and I thank you for your consideration.

[Anonymous]

Good luck getting other schools on board with that map you put out, McKinley!

[Anonymous]

Why even bother having a school board and staff if type a nerds with attitude in a heavily legalistic county just whine about everything? Just go colonize your own planet.

[Anonymous]

McKinley doesn't want to "negatively impact other schools" but is happy to throw the new school under the bus by pushing to delay this decision.

Screw you, McKinley. It's not ALL about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKinley doesn't want to "negatively impact other schools" but is happy to throw the new school under the bus by pushing to delay this decision.

Screw you, McKinley. It's not ALL about you.

Don't forget that it's also thrown Tuckahoe, Nottingham and Long Branch under the bus in their other proposals. This letter is also particularly rich given their "we're not getting involved" position when it was Tuckahoe and Nottingham being targeted less than two years ago in a process that had multiple demonstrated data and analytical errors.

[Anonymous]

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.


Hmmm. Would these be the same two small units that were split from the Alcova Heights neighborhood and sent to Fleet -- ironically, in consideration of demographics? If so, moving them back to Barcroft just makes Fleet even wealthier and Barcroft even poorer. Thought they were concerned that demographics weren't being considered.

Sure looks like it.

Its actually 3 PUs they moved from Fleet. The 2 across Glebe from the school and they moved the Gilliam Place CAF PU. They basically made Fleet 200 kids underenrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.


Hmmm. Would these be the same two small units that were split from the Alcova Heights neighborhood and sent to Fleet -- ironically, in consideration of demographics? If so, moving them back to Barcroft just makes Fleet even wealthier and Barcroft even poorer. Thought they were concerned that demographics weren't being considered.

Sure looks like it.

Its actually 3 PUs they moved from Fleet. The 2 across Glebe from the school and they moved the Gilliam Place CAF PU. They basically made Fleet 200 kids underenrolled.

Gilliam Place is not filled up yet, I don't think. I believe APS is expecting many more from Gilliam than they got this year - it should be similar to Arlington Mill Residences, if not more. Fleet's enrollment will be going up.