the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

I'm curious if anyone read the memo from Lisa Stengle to the School Board dated Aug 13th seeking the board approval for this switch and laying out the rationale, as well as answers to school board questions.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/08-13-18-FLA-SB-Input-on-ESB-Proposal.pdf
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/08-13-18-FLA-SB-Input-on-ESB-Proposal.pdf
If found it fascinating. A few takeaways;
1. Even though there was no formal school board vote on this- it appears this is being done with their approval.
2. The number of spanish speaking walkers currently attending Key is incredibly small- there are 40 walkers to Key, of which 13 are hispanic (not necessarily spanish dominant- but hispanic.)
3. The staff is partially motivated by diversity considerations- if they draw a walkzone around ASFS, it will be almost all non-FARMS, and will have to kick out the far eastern planning units which are FARMS dominant- either busing them past Key and ASFS to Taylor or Long Branch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious if anyone read the memo from Lisa Stengle to the School Board dated Aug 13th seeking the board approval for this switch and laying out the rationale, as well as answers to school board questions.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/08-13-18-FLA-SB-Input-on-ESB-Proposal.pdf
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/08-13-18-FLA-SB-Input-on-ESB-Proposal.pdf
If found it fascinating. A few takeaways;
1. Even though there was no formal school board vote on this- it appears this is being done with their approval.
2. The number of spanish speaking walkers currently attending Key is incredibly small- there are 40 walkers to Key, of which 13 are hispanic (not necessarily spanish dominant- but hispanic.)
3. The staff is partially motivated by diversity considerations- if they draw a walkzone around ASFS, it will be almost all non-FARMS, and will have to kick out the far eastern planning units which are FARMS dominant- either busing them past Key and ASFS to Taylor or Long Branch.

This was a big political risk. Would have made the local paper.

[Anonymous]

I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

There should be for those who are listening to the Key folks who are trying to use their (small) Latino/ED families who currently walk to Key as justification for not moving. The convenience they seek is for THEM, the wealthy non-Latino families who want to be close to their current school and/or Metro. Moving Immersion to ASFS will not make it any less inaccessible for the majority of Latino/ED families who live in Arlington, because those families don't live along the Orange Line anyway. And yes, not swapping would result in yet another very wealthy, very white neighborhood school at ASFS. By swapping, they can get two somewhat diverse schools: one that is ethnically/linguistically/economically diverse by design, and one that is diverse because it pulls from a neighborhood that is itself more diverse than most of North Arlington (with the exception of Buckingham).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

well yes and no. I guess I'm somewhat agnostic on the swap- and I found it fairly persuasive. If you are opposed to the swap b/c it is going to adversely impact you personally- there is nothing in that document that will convince you it is a good idea. If you were inclined to oppose the swap b/c you took the statements of the Key parents speaking to the school board at face value- specifically- that the swap was being done b/c of wealthy white Lyon Village parents at the expense of poor voiceless immigrants- there are definitely facts in those documents to refute those statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

well yes and no. I guess I'm somewhat agnostic on the swap- and I found it fairly persuasive. If you are opposed to the swap b/c it is going to adversely impact you personally- there is nothing in that document that will convince you it is a good idea. If you were inclined to oppose the swap b/c you took the statements of the Key parents speaking to the school board at face value- specifically- that the swap was being done b/c of wealthy white Lyon Village parents at the expense of poor voiceless immigrants- there are definitely facts in those documents to refute those statements.

Dp- I was glad to see that. I suspected they were full of sh#t, and no surprise...

[Anonymous]

I think they’re screwing up procedurally. For everyone applauding this as a great move, we’re going to be right back at square one if opponents of the swap successfully challenge the super’s justification for bypassing conventional procedures associated with significant changes to school assignments. If the data unambiguously favors the change, what’s the harm in allowing public comment and school board voting? Presumably it would pass easily and not be an issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re screwing up procedurally. For everyone applauding this as a great move, we’re going to be right back at square one if opponents of the swap successfully challenge the super’s justification for bypassing conventional procedures associated with significant changes to school assignments. If the data unambiguously favors the change, what’s the harm in allowing public comment and school board voting? Presumably it would pass easily and not be an issue?

Whether or not a technical, formal community-input process was conducted, it isn't like the community had not already provided input on the matter. People made their voices heard back in the spring when they first started evaluating best locations for option and neighborhood schools. This wasn't just suddenly dropped from the sky out of nowhere and done without any indication it was a consideration.

I applaud Staff for having the guts to actually make a decision. Our SB can't seem to do that, and we need to start making some decisions. Someone will always be unhappy with any decision. People need to just accept it and move on. You don't have to like it.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, technicalities and formalities need to be followed. They either did or did not comply with the procedural requirements. It’s not enough to comply in spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, technicalities and formalities need to be followed. They either did or did not comply with the procedural requirements. It’s not enough to comply in spirit.

It really comes down to whether or not it falls under the Boundary policy. If it does, obviously the rules were not followed. However, it appears that it really isn’t a boundary change. There are no lines being changed, just the location. I think there will be another push to move immersion further west when Reed opens, but this is legal and will be enough to buy time to redraw S Arlington. I also think there will be an effort to change some wording in the policy to prevent this from being used again in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they’re screwing up procedurally. For everyone applauding this as a great move, we’re going to be right back at square one if opponents of the swap successfully challenge the super’s justification for bypassing conventional procedures associated with significant changes to school assignments. If the data unambiguously favors the change, what’s the harm in allowing public comment and school board voting? Presumably it would pass easily and not be an issue?

Whether or not a technical, formal community-input process was conducted, it isn't like the community had not already provided input on the matter. People made their voices heard back in the spring when they first started evaluating best locations for option and neighborhood schools. This wasn't just suddenly dropped from the sky out of nowhere and done without any indication it was a consideration.

I applaud Staff for having the guts to actually make a decision. Our SB can't seem to do that, and we need to start making some decisions. Someone will always be unhappy with any decision. People need to just accept it and move on. You don't have to like it.

Glad they looked at the data and made a rational decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, technicalities and formalities need to be followed. They either did or did not comply with the procedural requirements. It’s not enough to comply in spirit.

They did follow technicalities and formalities. The policy is that the superintendent has the ability to make program moves. They could change the policy if people are upset enough, thats what precipitated the whole revision to enrollment and transfers.
Agree or disagree, we saw last spring what happens if you let the community have too much input. Analysis paralysis and lynch mob mentalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, technicalities and formalities need to be followed. They either did or did not comply with the procedural requirements. It’s not enough to comply in spirit.

It really comes down to whether or not it falls under the Boundary policy. If it does, obviously the rules were not followed. However, it appears that it really isn’t a boundary change. There are no lines being changed, just the location. I think there will be another push to move immersion further west when Reed opens, but this is legal and will be enough to buy time to redraw S Arlington. I also think there will be an effort to change some wording in the policy to prevent this from being used again in the future.

exactly- this is about buying time. This is kind of stated in the report too- they note that they have being beseiged all summer by ASFS parents with strongly held differing views about how to draw an appropriate boundary around ASFS. They can't make the South Arlington boundary process about ASFS for two reasons- 1) they need to focus on South Arlington and 2) it ties their hands too much for when Reed comes on line.
Also- they can't see a solution wherein Key stays where it is. There is no practical way to draw a boundary around ASFS that would include the eastern rosslyn high FARMS units. That's okay if they are going to Key- but they are not right now, (there are a lot more languages in those FARMS units that just Spanish), and they don't want to ship them to Taylor or Long Branch.
They may end up with both ASFS and Key as neighborhood schools- but there is value in making clear that the Staff has no plans to leave Key where it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

There should be for those who are listening to the Key folks who are trying to use their (small) Latino/ED families who currently walk to Key as justification for not moving. The convenience they seek is for THEM, the wealthy non-Latino families who want to be close to their current school and/or Metro. Moving Immersion to ASFS will not make it any less inaccessible for the majority of Latino/ED families who live in Arlington, because those families don't live along the Orange Line anyway. And yes, not swapping would result in yet another very wealthy, very white neighborhood school at ASFS. By swapping, they can get two somewhat diverse schools: one that is ethnically/linguistically/economically diverse by design, and one that is diverse because it pulls from a neighborhood that is itself more diverse than most of North Arlington (with the exception of Buckingham).

Blah, blah, blah. This benefits the rich Lyon Vilage people who want a walkable non immersion school. Live right, vote left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed it, but my initial reaction is that if you support the swap, I don't think there's much in there that's a surprise. If you are against the swap, I don't think there's anything in there that will convince you otherwise.

There should be for those who are listening to the Key folks who are trying to use their (small) Latino/ED families who currently walk to Key as justification for not moving. The convenience they seek is for THEM, the wealthy non-Latino families who want to be close to their current school and/or Metro. Moving Immersion to ASFS will not make it any less inaccessible for the majority of Latino/ED families who live in Arlington, because those families don't live along the Orange Line anyway. And yes, not swapping would result in yet another very wealthy, very white neighborhood school at ASFS. By swapping, they can get two somewhat diverse schools: one that is ethnically/linguistically/economically diverse by design, and one that is diverse because it pulls from a neighborhood that is itself more diverse than most of North Arlington (with the exception of Buckingham).

Blah, blah, blah. This benefits the rich Lyon Vilage people who want a walkable non immersion school. Live right, vote left.

certainly by all means don't let facts and data and reasoned discussion get in the way of your rhetoric. The staff report absolutely refutes what you are saying- but don't let that stop you.