APS Elementary Location Working Group 4/12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"I don't think there are very many ASFS parents that want the school to stay where it is and I think the majority of people want the community to stay together which would having a neighborhood school at key would pretty much guarantee. Most asfs parents zoned for the school have been largely absent from the discussion -- there's been a lot of engagement from the asfs parents who live in cherrydale, but that is a minority in the school (only 10-15 kids live in that walk zone currently attend the school, its really maybe 10 families total). "

I actually think a majority of ASFS parents want the school to stay where it is. Obviously those who are in the "walk zone" (which is not just the Cherrydale folks but the Quincy folks as well) who want ASFS to stay a neighborhood school but don't forget about the Lyons Village folks who live across from Kirkwood. Even though they are in Lyons Village they could (and probably would) argue that they should follow ASFS if it went to Key. Problem is, they are currently zoned for Taylor and if the schools are swapped, there are no guarantees that they wouldn't be sent to Taylor vs. the "new" ASFS at the Key building. They also have a good chance of staying at ASFS if there is no swap but Key moves out, i.e., if Key and ASFS both become neighborhood schools, then they are primed to argue that they should stay at ASFS since they are physically closer. If the schools stay put, i.e., the status quo, they are primed to argue that they are right across from ASFS and that should be their "neighborhood" school. It's really only those (vocal) Lyons Village families that live right next to Key that are advocating that ASFS and Key swap.


I suspect that's why many of the ASFS parents have been quiet. They are smart and hedging their bets-- if they come out advocating for a swap and it doesn't happen, they've just shot themselves in the foot when it comes time to redraw the boundaries. A lot of them can (and probably will) remain at ASFS regardless of what happens so why choose sides now?

All of Lyon's Village is in the Key walk zone. It would be hard to argue against going to a neighborhood school at Key since they would have to give you a bus to ASFS whereas historically you don't need a bus to Key. I can see arguing for the status quo if you like going to Taylor, but I'm not sure you would be part of a status quo ASFS boundary since they might put the people north of Wilson to Taylor and south of Wilson go to ASFS.

Do you mean south of Wilson going to long branch, now that Fleet opens up seats there?
This is pure conjecture..
Long branch pulls in the ashlawn units from Virginia square that are closer to Ballston. Taylor pulls in all of Lyon village and top half of current key zone. Asfs pulls in its walk zone and areas south of Wilson in current key zone.
Even with long branch losing kids to fleet, it’s still over capacity. And its lot is teeny tiny. You can’t fit more than 1 trailer there (or at least more than the number there right now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"I don't think there are very many ASFS parents that want the school to stay where it is and I think the majority of people want the community to stay together which would having a neighborhood school at key would pretty much guarantee. Most asfs parents zoned for the school have been largely absent from the discussion -- there's been a lot of engagement from the asfs parents who live in cherrydale, but that is a minority in the school (only 10-15 kids live in that walk zone currently attend the school, its really maybe 10 families total). "

I actually think a majority of ASFS parents want the school to stay where it is. Obviously those who are in the "walk zone" (which is not just the Cherrydale folks but the Quincy folks as well) who want ASFS to stay a neighborhood school but don't forget about the Lyons Village folks who live across from Kirkwood. Even though they are in Lyons Village they could (and probably would) argue that they should follow ASFS if it went to Key. Problem is, they are currently zoned for Taylor and if the schools are swapped, there are no guarantees that they wouldn't be sent to Taylor vs. the "new" ASFS at the Key building. They also have a good chance of staying at ASFS if there is no swap but Key moves out, i.e., if Key and ASFS both become neighborhood schools, then they are primed to argue that they should stay at ASFS since they are physically closer. If the schools stay put, i.e., the status quo, they are primed to argue that they are right across from ASFS and that should be their "neighborhood" school. It's really only those (vocal) Lyons Village families that live right next to Key that are advocating that ASFS and Key swap.


I suspect that's why many of the ASFS parents have been quiet. They are smart and hedging their bets-- if they come out advocating for a swap and it doesn't happen, they've just shot themselves in the foot when it comes time to redraw the boundaries. A lot of them can (and probably will) remain at ASFS regardless of what happens so why choose sides now?

All of Lyon's Village is in the Key walk zone. It would be hard to argue against going to a neighborhood school at Key since they would have to give you a bus to ASFS whereas historically you don't need a bus to Key. I can see arguing for the status quo if you like going to Taylor, but I'm not sure you would be part of a status quo ASFS boundary since they might put the people north of Wilson to Taylor and south of Wilson go to ASFS.

Do you mean south of Wilson going to long branch, now that Fleet opens up seats there?

It’s Lyon Village, not “Lyon’s Village” or “Lyons Village.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

Isn’t Campbell Title I because of the large number of VPI students that are guaranteed to continue?

So here's part of the issue with moving any option school that far north: what VPI-eligible families live anywhere near there? Option schools are all supposed to have VPI classrooms, so where are they going to find VPI kids near Nottingham?

Good point. Any option school they move to Nottingham would become much paler and more affluent, which isn’t a good look. The only thing that makes Nottingham at all compelling as an option site is the difficult of filling all of the seats at Tuckahoe after Reed opens. But for that, Nottingham would be effectively off the table.

And if they make Nottingham option, they are going to have to fill McKinley with kids North of Lee Highway. So those kids will bus past Reed.

It is infuriating with the criteria staff presented that Reed isn’t being considered as an option site.

You can’t ask a community to give a year of their lives to planning a school under the promise that it will be their neighborhood school and then go back on your word. It would destroy community trust in the school board and people would be rightfully outraged at having been taken advantage of like that.

You are hilarious! What about the years and years the Nottingham community has spent planning things for its school. And hasn’t it had a promise of a neighborhood school for much longer? Reed’s promise was recently. But that doesn’t mean other schools didn’t have that same promise. The promise should be irrelevant and it should be looked at just like everyone else.

Simmer, you're talking to another Nottingham parent here. Yes, lots of us have given many hours and resources to Nottingham over the years, but we did/do those things because our children, as students there, benefit from our efforts immediately. If Nottingham becomes an option school, I'll take my volunteering to our new school and my kids won't miss out on the benefits of my effort. Westover, on the other hand, was asked by the School Board to volunteer time and create committees for the specific purpose of planning a school to fit that community where the benefit wasn't going to be seen by anyone from years. Pulling that out from under them only after they've done their part but before they've received any of the promised benefit would be truly bad faith.

Further, no one promised us anything about Nottingham staying a neighborhood school. You may argue that the promise was implied by the fact that it's historically been a neighborhood school, but that same argument applies to every single neighborhood school in APS. Clearly that's going to change for someone, and Nottingham has no special claim of promise or of neighborhood status beyond any other neighborhood schools. Westover, on the other hand, has had an explicit promise from the SB that after the community's work is done, Reed would become a neighborhood school for them.

Look, I'd just as soon see Nottingham stay a neighborhood school because I know the change would be disruptive and who wants disruption? But if I take a step back and try to look at it all objectively, thinking about what's best for APS as a whole without bias toward any particular school, I can see the arguments for Nottingham becoming an option school very clearly. There are arguments against it as well and people should feel free to make them, but I'm not going to make any argument that basically amounts to, "Screw the rest of you, I only care about me and mine." Let's be better than that.

but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, to reiterate, this isn't about creating more seats. It never was. Only construction creates new seats. It's about using the seats we have most efficiently.

And yet, there's zero attention on balancing DEMAND to help distribute students efficiently. this process is going to increase school segregation because our neighborhoods are segregated; walkability just maps that to the boundaries. That will in turn only make the "good" schools more in demand/crowded, the "bad" ones less in demand/underenrolled.

This process should have started with the stated goal of making every neighborhood school at least an acceptable choice for everyone zoned to it. That's my south Arlington showing. North Arlington doesn't want to integrate in a meaningful way; see Arlington forest, for example.

What is your point about Arlington Forest? I'm assuming you are talking about the part of the neighborhood which is north of 50 and sends kids to Barrett and Kenmore (which are 61% and 51% FARMS, respectively). If Arlington Forest was not in those districts imagine the numbers.... Those schools need more pockets like Arlington Forest to attend to balance them out. We don't know of any families in Arlington Forest advocating for the neighborhood to be redistricted - some families opt out of the neighborhood schools but most willingly send their kids to those schools - for most families they are accepts less . So what's your point? In what way is Arlington Forest not integrated?

[Anonymous]

*acceptable -- not accepts less

[Anonymous]

PP was not talking about Barrett and Kenmore, Arlington forest can’t get out of those schools. But there was an effort to move that neighborhood to Wakefield last year and it was a total uproar. Don’t even try and deny that north of 50 screamed bloody murder until the proposal was dropped. All out war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

Isn’t Campbell Title I because of the large number of VPI students that are guaranteed to continue?

So here's part of the issue with moving any option school that far north: what VPI-eligible families live anywhere near there? Option schools are all supposed to have VPI classrooms, so where are they going to find VPI kids near Nottingham?

Good point. Any option school they move to Nottingham would become much paler and more affluent, which isn’t a good look. The only thing that makes Nottingham at all compelling as an option site is the difficult of filling all of the seats at Tuckahoe after Reed opens. But for that, Nottingham would be effectively off the table.

And if they make Nottingham option, they are going to have to fill McKinley with kids North of Lee Highway. So those kids will bus past Reed.

It is infuriating with the criteria staff presented that Reed isn’t being considered as an option site.

You can’t ask a community to give a year of their lives to planning a school under the promise that it will be their neighborhood school and then go back on your word. It would destroy community trust in the school board and people would be rightfully outraged at having been taken advantage of like that.

You are hilarious! What about the years and years the Nottingham community has spent planning things for its school. And hasn’t it had a promise of a neighborhood school for much longer? Reed’s promise was recently. But that doesn’t mean other schools didn’t have that same promise. The promise should be irrelevant and it should be looked at just like everyone else.

Simmer, you're talking to another Nottingham parent here. Yes, lots of us have given many hours and resources to Nottingham over the years, but we did/do those things because our children, as students there, benefit from our efforts immediately. If Nottingham becomes an option school, I'll take my volunteering to our new school and my kids won't miss out on the benefits of my effort. Westover, on the other hand, was asked by the School Board to volunteer time and create committees for the specific purpose of planning a school to fit that community where the benefit wasn't going to be seen by anyone from years. Pulling that out from under them only after they've done their part but before they've received any of the promised benefit would be truly bad faith.

Further, no one promised us anything about Nottingham staying a neighborhood school. You may argue that the promise was implied by the fact that it's historically been a neighborhood school, but that same argument applies to every single neighborhood school in APS. Clearly that's going to change for someone, and Nottingham has no special claim of promise or of neighborhood status beyond any other neighborhood schools. Westover, on the other hand, has had an explicit promise from the SB that after the community's work is done, Reed would become a neighborhood school for them.

Look, I'd just as soon see Nottingham stay a neighborhood school because I know the change would be disruptive and who wants disruption? But if I take a step back and try to look at it all objectively, thinking about what's best for APS as a whole without bias toward any particular school, I can see the arguments for Nottingham becoming an option school very clearly. There are arguments against it as well and people should feel free to make them, but I'm not going to make any argument that basically amounts to, "Screw the rest of you, I only care about me and mine." Let's be better than that.

but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

Sorry you got busted, McKinley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

Sorry you got busted, McKinley.

You’re wrong, but then those who blindly lash out in embarrassment usually are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

Sorry you got busted, McKinley.

You’re wrong, but then those who blindly lash out in embarrassment usually are.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

DP. It's telling you don't deny that's the sentiment around McKinley.

[Anonymous]

The soon to be reed community was asked to join committees because they successfully lobbied to get reed as a neighborhood school. The SB was very much considering reed as an option School. I have had 2 SB members confess to me that the decision on reed was premature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

Isn’t Campbell Title I because of the large number of VPI students that are guaranteed to continue?

So here's part of the issue with moving any option school that far north: what VPI-eligible families live anywhere near there? Option schools are all supposed to have VPI classrooms, so where are they going to find VPI kids near Nottingham?

Good point. Any option school they move to Nottingham would become much paler and more affluent, which isn’t a good look. The only thing that makes Nottingham at all compelling as an option site is the difficult of filling all of the seats at Tuckahoe after Reed opens. But for that, Nottingham would be effectively off the table.

And if they make Nottingham option, they are going to have to fill McKinley with kids North of Lee Highway. So those kids will bus past Reed.

It is infuriating with the criteria staff presented that Reed isn’t being considered as an option site.

You can’t ask a community to give a year of their lives to planning a school under the promise that it will be their neighborhood school and then go back on your word. It would destroy community trust in the school board and people would be rightfully outraged at having been taken advantage of like that.

You are hilarious! What about the years and years the Nottingham community has spent planning things for its school. And hasn’t it had a promise of a neighborhood school for much longer? Reed’s promise was recently. But that doesn’t mean other schools didn’t have that same promise. The promise should be irrelevant and it should be looked at just like everyone else.

Simmer, you're talking to another Nottingham parent here. Yes, lots of us have given many hours and resources to Nottingham over the years, but we did/do those things because our children, as students there, benefit from our efforts immediately. If Nottingham becomes an option school, I'll take my volunteering to our new school and my kids won't miss out on the benefits of my effort. Westover, on the other hand, was asked by the School Board to volunteer time and create committees for the specific purpose of planning a school to fit that community where the benefit wasn't going to be seen by anyone from years. Pulling that out from under them only after they've done their part but before they've received any of the promised benefit would be truly bad faith.

Further, no one promised us anything about Nottingham staying a neighborhood school. You may argue that the promise was implied by the fact that it's historically been a neighborhood school, but that same argument applies to every single neighborhood school in APS. Clearly that's going to change for someone, and Nottingham has no special claim of promise or of neighborhood status beyond any other neighborhood schools. Westover, on the other hand, has had an explicit promise from the SB that after the community's work is done, Reed would become a neighborhood school for them.

Look, I'd just as soon see Nottingham stay a neighborhood school because I know the change would be disruptive and who wants disruption? But if I take a step back and try to look at it all objectively, thinking about what's best for APS as a whole without bias toward any particular school, I can see the arguments for Nottingham becoming an option school very clearly. There are arguments against it as well and people should feel free to make them, but I'm not going to make any argument that basically amounts to, "Screw the rest of you, I only care about me and mine." Let's be better than that.

but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

Nice try, troll. I definitely believe your anonymous report!

[Anonymous]

Nottingham knows that they should stay neighborhood. They know Reed should be neighborhood. The school that can't justify it is Jamestown, but neither is strong enough to sway the SB.