Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

My money is on Punt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop breaking quotes, it makes your posts unreadable.

I am sorry.

Those huge text blocks are unreadable to me and take up half the page. You know what was said.

The problem isn't that you're taking out text (of course I remember what was said previously), it's that you're taking about too many of the "[ quote = Anonymous ]" blocks at the beginning along with it. By the time I get to your new commentary, it's in tiny font with one or more preceding posts in the same text block, making it annoying to figure out where someone else's comment ended and yours started. When I encounter this, I typically just skip reading the post entirely (as well as anything quoting it, because it has the same issue).

Agreed. It's rare anyone has such an original thought here that it's worth parsing through that.

We need a minimize quote function.

And yes, we're all just spinning here.

It's not that hard, just only delete as many opening quote tags as you're deleting closing quote tags. If you're not sure you've done it correctly, click on "Preview" and check before clicking "Submit."

[Anonymous]

https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

How does this work in terms of releasing proposals/possibilities? Before the 8/28 work session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

How can you tell that from this announcement? I came away from it thinking they weren't going to move option schools at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

How can you tell that from this announcement? I came away from it thinking they weren't going to move option schools at all.

Same here, sadly. There is no destination school for Immersion on that list, unless you think Barcroft or Ashlawn is the chosen one. I suppose that's possible, but seems unlikely to me at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

OK, stupid questions

-How can you tell there is a plan? They didn't include CS because they are planning to make it immersion the next round, so why bother changing now?

- Why would they add Ashlawn and not Barrett (as well)? The other schools on the list are all adjacent to each other, but then they jump right over Barrett for Ashlawn?

- It seems like you can figure out for some schools at least which part of the boundary they are going to change - is that right? For example, for Ashlawn, the only school also on the boundary list for this revision is ASF, so the only part of the Ashlawn boundary that would be in play is the far right part by ASF (nothing on the McKinley/Barrett/Carlin Springs sides because those boundaries aren't in play so Ashlawn wouldn't take kids from/give kids to those schools)? Similarly, Barcroft boundary wouldn't be able to have any change on the Carlin Springs side, because Carlin Springs isn't in play?

Just trying to wrap my head around all of this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

How can you tell that from this announcement? I came away from it thinking they weren't going to move option schools at all.

they are NOT going to move option schools - that is clear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

How can you tell that from this announcement? I came away from it thinking they weren't going to move option schools at all.

they are NOT going to move option schools - that is clear

Each phase is limiting breathing room for Nottingham. The writing is on the wall and it is just a matter of time before ATS/IB takes over Nottingham....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.apsva.us/post/aps-defines-scope-and-timing-of-fall-2018-elementary-school-boundary-process/

Interesting that the list for this fall is the green and yellow zones, except that they've dropped Carlin Springs from the list and added Ashlawn. They have a plan for moving option schools.

They’ve had a plan all along.

How can you tell that from this announcement? I came away from it thinking they weren't going to move option schools at all.

they are NOT going to move option schools - that is clear

Each phase is limiting breathing room for Nottingham. The writing is on the wall and it is just a matter of time before ATS/IB takes over Nottingham....

If anything, I think this new plan makes it less likely they move ATS to Nottingham. With them drawing hard boundaries for ASFS this fall, they'll have to not just commit to but implement (per their stated plan) the would-be Key zone planning units and much of SA to their schools during this phase, before they've opened even the possibility of looking at the NW boundaries. I think it's more likely they make movements this fall toward getting immersion into Barcroft/Carlin Springs, and then they're going to deal with excess seats in NW by having all of Carlin Springs zoned to Ashlawn in 2020 (hence why Carlin Springs was removed from potential consideration for this fall).

[Anonymous]

Nottingham is irrelevant right now because nothing is going to even be discussed over there for another two years, so even if they will move ATS there it's not going to be debated now. Anyone talking about Nottingham in this process is trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham is irrelevant right now because nothing is going to even be discussed over there for another two years, so even if they will move ATS there it's not going to be debated now. Anyone talking about Nottingham in this process is trolling.

It would only be relevant if they move Key now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham is irrelevant right now because nothing is going to even be discussed over there for another two years, so even if they will move ATS there it's not going to be debated now. Anyone talking about Nottingham in this process is trolling.

It would only be relevant if they move Key now.

That still doesn't make Nottingham relevant. If you feel otherwise, lay out the steps for how Key brings Nottingham into the mix in this process despite the staff saying Nottingham-area boundaries are not up for consideration in this phase. If you just float out some general, "Oh, it could happen," I'm going to ignore you.