the Key/ASFS building switch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That column in Arl Now was a joke. Barely mentioned (if at all) that the issue is that damn school isn't in its boundary. I live nowhere near there and my kids are in middle school. Swap these damn schools already and give us a rest from the entitled mob in Courthouse and Clarendon.

Maybe because it’s not a real issue.

Except that APS designated ASF a neighborhood school starting this year, but didn't adjust the boundaries (rather, just used Key's). The easier solution would be to just draw boundaries around the school.

But that’s just a paper “issue”. It wasn’t an issue two years ago and it’s not a real issue today.

It is a real issue. If the schools don't swap, APS can't keep anything resembling the existing boundaries for ASFS because the transportation costs are too high. I guarantee you they ran boundary scenarios for that region with and without the swap before announcing the decision, and so most likely at least one driving factor behind this is that the boundaries are really problematic if the schools stay where they are, and far better if they swap. Hashing all of that out in the 2020 boundary process would become unmanageably complex, though, so they want to nail down this variable in advance.

How many bus routes can they remove? 2-3? Peanuts.

It’s not a real issue.

Which 2-3 ASFS teachers would you like to lay off to cover those 2-3 additional bus routes?

1 elementary school bus route = 1 elementary school teacher?

Yes, according to Murphy and the SB in the joint statement issued last spring, the cost of operating a bus route for a full school year is roughly the same as that of employing a teacher for one year.

Ok. Get rid of FLES.

And then we'll have to renegotiate the contracts for all of the grade-level teachers to cover the additional instructional time they'll be responsible for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That column in Arl Now was a joke. Barely mentioned (if at all) that the issue is that damn school isn't in its boundary. I live nowhere near there and my kids are in middle school. Swap these damn schools already and give us a rest from the entitled mob in Courthouse and Clarendon.

Maybe because it’s not a real issue.

Except that APS designated ASF a neighborhood school starting this year, but didn't adjust the boundaries (rather, just used Key's). The easier solution would be to just draw boundaries around the school.

But that’s just a paper “issue”. It wasn’t an issue two years ago and it’s not a real issue today.

It is a real issue. If the schools don't swap, APS can't keep anything resembling the existing boundaries for ASFS because the transportation costs are too high. I guarantee you they ran boundary scenarios for that region with and without the swap before announcing the decision, and so most likely at least one driving factor behind this is that the boundaries are really problematic if the schools stay where they are, and far better if they swap. Hashing all of that out in the 2020 boundary process would become unmanageably complex, though, so they want to nail down this variable in advance.

How many bus routes can they remove? 2-3? Peanuts.

It’s not a real issue.

Which 2-3 ASFS teachers would you like to lay off to cover those 2-3 additional bus routes?

1 elementary school bus route = 1 elementary school teacher?

Yes, according to Murphy and the SB in the joint statement issued last spring, the cost of operating a bus route for a full school year is roughly the same as that of employing a teacher for one year.

Ok. Get rid of FLES.

And then we'll have to renegotiate the contracts for all of the grade-level teachers to cover the additional instructional time they'll be responsible for.

Ok. Sounds this “issue” was solved.

[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:That column in Arl Now was a joke. Barely mentioned (if at all) that the issue is that damn school isn't in its boundary. I live nowhere near there and my kids are in middle school. Swap these damn schools already and give us a rest from the entitled mob in Courthouse and Clarendon.

Maybe because it’s not a real issue.

Except that APS designated ASF a neighborhood school starting this year, but didn't adjust the boundaries (rather, just used Key's). The easier solution would be to just draw boundaries around the school.

But that’s just a paper “issue”. It wasn’t an issue two years ago and it’s not a real issue today.

It is a real issue. If the schools don't swap, APS can't keep anything resembling the existing boundaries for ASFS because the transportation costs are too high. I guarantee you they ran boundary scenarios for that region with and without the swap before announcing the decision, and so most likely at least one driving factor behind this is that the boundaries are really problematic if the schools stay where they are, and far better if they swap. Hashing all of that out in the 2020 boundary process would become unmanageably complex, though, so they want to nail down this variable in advance.

How many bus routes can they remove? 2-3? Peanuts.

It’s not a real issue.

Which 2-3 ASFS teachers would you like to lay off to cover those 2-3 additional bus routes?

1 elementary school bus route = 1 elementary school teacher?

Yes, according to Murphy and the SB in the joint statement issued last spring, the cost of operating a bus route for a full school year is roughly the same as that of employing a teacher for one year.

Ok. Get rid of FLES.

And then we'll have to renegotiate the contracts for all of the grade-level teachers to cover the additional instructional time they'll be responsible for.

Ok. Sounds this “issue” was solved.

Renegotiating for more instructional time means paying them more, so just eliminating FLES doesn’t save meaningful money. You need bigger classes to reduce teacher compensation expenses.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:That column in Arl Now was a joke. Barely mentioned (if at all) that the issue is that damn school isn't in its boundary. I live nowhere near there and my kids are in middle school. Swap these damn schools already and give us a rest from the entitled mob in Courthouse and Clarendon.

Maybe because it’s not a real issue.

Except that APS designated ASF a neighborhood school starting this year, but didn't adjust the boundaries (rather, just used Key's). The easier solution would be to just draw boundaries around the school.

But that’s just a paper “issue”. It wasn’t an issue two years ago and it’s not a real issue today.

It is a real issue. If the schools don't swap, APS can't keep anything resembling the existing boundaries for ASFS because the transportation costs are too high. I guarantee you they ran boundary scenarios for that region with and without the swap before announcing the decision, and so most likely at least one driving factor behind this is that the boundaries are really problematic if the schools stay where they are, and far better if they swap. Hashing all of that out in the 2020 boundary process would become unmanageably complex, though, so they want to nail down this variable in advance.

How many bus routes can they remove? 2-3? Peanuts.

It’s not a real issue.

Which 2-3 ASFS teachers would you like to lay off to cover those 2-3 additional bus routes?

1 elementary school bus route = 1 elementary school teacher?

Yes, according to Murphy and the SB in the joint statement issued last spring, the cost of operating a bus route for a full school year is roughly the same as that of employing a teacher for one year.

Ok. Get rid of FLES.

And then we'll have to renegotiate the contracts for all of the grade-level teachers to cover the additional instructional time they'll be responsible for.

Ok. Sounds this “issue” was solved.

Renegotiating for more instructional time means paying them more, so just eliminating FLES doesn’t save meaningful money. You need bigger classes to reduce teacher compensation expenses.

Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

oh yeah totally-- I can't figure out who is arguing that this is a 'non-issue.' Someone who wants to stay at Key, in immersion, and would happily cut all other option programs, buses for high schoolers, and FLES for the county in order to keep their preferred location?

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care where my kid goes, but the swap isn’t actually “fixing” anything. It will be a large hassle and expense for what? Not much, when you actually take a step back.

2-3 bus routes? There are biggest budget fish to fry.

Like they say, if it ain’t broke...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

The staff is deeeeeep down this path. They already convinced Pat to force it through so no turning back now. I’m just pointing out that if you step back and take a look, it’s a lot of money and hassle for very little gain. There is no real life issue that this is addressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

The staff is deeeeeep down this path. They already convinced Pat to force it through so no turning back now. I’m just pointing out that if you step back and take a look, it’s a lot of money and hassle for very little gain. There is no real life issue that this is addressing.

If they really had balls they would dissolve ATS, which serves only to concentrate involved parents and has no real curriculum reason to exist and move Immersion there. That would solve a lot of boundary anomalies and the ATS kids could be absorbed in their home schools since most of them are from zoned being redrawn for Reed. Seriously, think about it.

[Anonymous]

All of these APS threads contain misinformation at times, but the ASFS/Key threads are really in a league of their own in terms of both how many misstatements are made and the extent to which people will stomp their feet and insist that their misstatements are correct even in the face of concrete evidence othwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

oh yeah totally-- I can't figure out who is arguing that this is a 'non-issue.' Someone who wants to stay at Key, in immersion, and would happily cut all other option programs, buses for high schoolers, and FLES for the county in order to keep their preferred location?

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

Someone from Cherrydale. That's who. Wants both ASFS and Key and all option programs dissolved. His kid(s) didn't get into ASFS and he still isn't over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. If the overall budget needs to be trimmed then look at low-hanging fruit.

Cut buses for HS. Let them take public transportation.

Cut the option programs - lots of buses there.

Stop over-paying contractors for construction.

I’m sure there are some administrative inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

We aren’t fixing the overall APS budget problems with these 2-3 buses.

Non-issue.

oh yeah totally-- I can't figure out who is arguing that this is a 'non-issue.' Someone who wants to stay at Key, in immersion, and would happily cut all other option programs, buses for high schoolers, and FLES for the county in order to keep their preferred location?

Go ahead and make that argument to the staff, I’m sure they’ll find it very informed and compelling.

Someone from Cherrydale. That's who. Wants both ASFS and Key and all option programs dissolved. His kid(s) didn't get into ASFS and he still isn't over it.

Wrong. The swap would technically “benefit” my kid, but I don’t think it’s worth all of the expense and headaches because fundamentally there isn’t a real issue to solve. Just an issue generated — on paper — by the SB/staff when they changed a few policies.

There are other real issues in the county but they won’t be solved by this swap. It’s wasteful.

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the school located at the Key property when you strip it of the program that made it popular and helped balance the demographics. I don’t think the “wow” factor of ASFS will travel to the new location - the lab ain’t coming, folks, and that exclusive feel will dissipate as people realize this is more of a school reassignment than whatever the term swap may have conveyed. Any bets on how many years post-swap before the Rosslyn crowd or the Lyon Village crowd starts arguing that is imperative that their planning units get reassigned to Taylor? This whole thing is a farce, and the voice of a few is taking s sledgehammer to two great schools unde the guise of wanting to save the cost of two bus routes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens to the school located at the Key property when you strip it of the program that made it popular and helped balance the demographics. I don’t think the “wow” factor of ASFS will travel to the new location - the lab ain’t coming, folks, and that exclusive feel will dissipate as people realize this is more of a school reassignment than whatever the term swap may have conveyed. Any bets on how many years post-swap before the Rosslyn crowd or the Lyon Village crowd starts arguing that is imperative that their planning units get reassigned to Taylor? This whole thing is a farce, and the voice of a few is taking s sledgehammer to two great schools unde the guise of wanting to save the cost of two bus routes.

I don’t see that ever happening.

[Anonymous]

Listening to the Key speakers from thursday night it appears that Key has altered its message from 'don't you dare move us and this is a conspiracy against us' to 'can we talk about this as part of the Reed boundary process happening in 2020?' Since I think this is exactly what the APS Staff wants to do- I think they will be successful in this ask.
Actually, despite all the agony I think APS Staff has been brilliantly strategic in this one.
1. Cherrydale who lives around ASFS was clamoring for a rezoning to get zoned to ASFS. Staff didn't want to do this as part of the current South Arlington process b/c there was no easy way to do it and it was going to severely tie their hands for the 2020 process. So they came up with the swap.
This meant that they delayed the Cherrydale we are in the walkzone crowd by saying that building is going choice.
It's not that the staff wants to swap- its that they know they need Key as neighborhood and they suspect they need ASFS as well. They also suspect that they are going to struggle to fill Reed without emptying Tuckahoe and Nottingham.
Now- the Staff can 'give in' to the Key request to do this as part of the boundary process in 2020.
It's exactly what they want to do.