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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

But it also means that if a neighborhood school’s attendance zone isn’t up for consideration this round, that school can’t become an option site this round because they’re not contemplating relocating any of those units to other attendance zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

I think you are seeing something that is not there. I don't read into this in the same manner as you suggest. It has been clearly stated that no option schools are changing/moving in 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

I think you are seeing something that is not there. I don't read into this in the same manner as you suggest. It has been clearly stated that no option schools are changing/moving in 2019.

Where?

[Anonymous]

What we have here, folks, is a failure to communicate properly. Muddled press releases followed by pseudo-listening, babble, talk, more pseudo-listening, whining, confusion, walk backs, talk, blah, blah, blah. Arlington is the dumbest “smart” place ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

Maybe they can direct new students coming into the school from a PU that has already been rezoned elsewhere, allowing families who already have kids in a rezoned PU to stay and not be moved a second time with round 2. Sort of phasing a PU's rezoning? But they would never do that - too complicated and splitting up a PU.

[Anonymous]

Never say never. It’s actually an interesting idea. I do think people are guessing what the plan is and reading their own bias into the interpretation.

Interesting that Abingdon is mentioned twice. Maybe because of Drew rezone Abingdon will be under capacity for 2019 then room for more kids from Carlin Springs in 2020. It makes sense to give Drew a true walk zone and expand into Abingdon and snake around Oakridge.

[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.

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!

I am not sure about the first two questions. I truly can't figure out whether this suggests one thing or another about them moving option schools (or not)

It does seem that for some of the schools you can figure out which part of the boundary may change based on whether all adjacent areas are in play for this revision too. If Carlin Springs isn't part of this round, then it seems like the PUs for Barcroft on the Carlin Springs side won't be affected when they adjust Barcroft. Same with the whole east side of the Ashlawn boundary - if the other schools around that side of the boundary aren't on the list to have boundary adjustments this round, I don't see how they can change that side of the Ashlawn zone.