APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

[Anonymous]

I am so sick and tired of entitled Arlington parents and all the lobbying they do regarding school boundaries and potential school moves. I just want APS to do their job and shut all them down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am starting to worry that the no movers will prevail and then it will be a very rough boundary process for everyone else next year. While the no movers sit tight and happy.

The no-movers are loud, but they are also illogical and transparently selfish. None of them can answer pointed questions about the problems in their "data" or explain how, exactly, no moves are better for the county. If the school board votes no against the staff and asst superintendent's recommendation, they are going to have a full scale mutiny on their hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So other than complaining about too many buses and Key walkers being bused, in your long paragraph you never actually offered an alternative???

Anywyays, no movers will prevail so it’s all moot anyways.

I do not live in the area and I will 100% pressure APS to keep all the walkers at Key and have Rossyln bussed to the closest school they fit at. The point of these moves is to maximize walkers. I think APS will/should maximize walkers at every school then the PU that are bused are the ones in play for being moved around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

Are they just forwarding the same petition, or are there multiple petitions circulating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

Are they just forwarding the same petition, or are there multiple petitions circulating?

Probably the same one. I’ve seen FB friends of mine posting it upwards of a half dozen times in just the last 36 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am starting to worry that the no movers will prevail and then it will be a very rough boundary process for everyone else next year. While the no movers sit tight and happy.


The no-movers are loud, but they are also illogical and transparently selfish. None of them can answer pointed questions about the problems in their "data" or explain how, exactly, no moves are better for the county. If the school board votes no against the staff and asst superintendent's recommendation, they are going to have a full scale mutiny on their hands.

If the school board votes no against the staff and caves to public pressure, again, then every future boundary decision will be like this, only worse. Ever since APS caved to Arlington Forest in the high school realignment, special interests have gotten more and more vocal, louder, uglier, hysterical, and more likely to use "racism" as a cover for their own individual preferences. If they don't hold the course here and set an example that this behavior doesn't work, Arlington Schools are going to become corrupt ungovernable messes. Its actually pretty terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am starting to worry that the no movers will prevail and then it will be a very rough boundary process for everyone else next year. While the no movers sit tight and happy.


The no-movers are loud, but they are also illogical and transparently selfish. None of them can answer pointed questions about the problems in their "data" or explain how, exactly, no moves are better for the county. If the school board votes no against the staff and asst superintendent's recommendation, they are going to have a full scale mutiny on their hands.

If the school board votes no against the staff and caves to public pressure, again, then every future boundary decision will be like this, only worse. Ever since APS caved to Arlington Forest in the high school realignment, special interests have gotten more and more vocal, louder, uglier, hysterical, and more likely to use "racism" as a cover for their own individual preferences. If they don't hold the course here and set an example that this behavior doesn't work, Arlington Schools are going to become corrupt ungovernable messes. Its actually pretty terrifying.

Yep. Worked for Fairlington United too. Though it seems only for 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

Are they just forwarding the same petition, or are there multiple petitions circulating?

Probably the same one. I’ve seen FB friends of mine posting it upwards of a half dozen times in just the last 36 hours.

It’s been posted multiple times on AEM over the course of several days and still only has a little over 700 signatures. Between all of the parents at McK, ATS, and Key plus all of the potential supporters these people could rope in to sign (I’ve seen grandparents and aunts in the comment section), that is a very small number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

For someone not invested you sure wrote a lot.

As for fiscally responsible, busing Rosslyn kids to Key and Key walkers to ASFS etc is FAR FAR cheaper than buying land and building a neighborhood elementary school closer to Rosslyn. That’s the reality we are dealing with. You could argue that buying land in Rosslyn would be a better long term investment but cash flow wise its a hard sell.

So other than complaining about too many buses and Key walkers being bused, in your long paragraph you never actually offered an alternative???

Anywyays, no movers will prevail so it’s all moot anyways.

I am invested in that the Key is in my neighborhood, and I've been at ASFS for the past 8+ years. That and we should all be invested, you can't spend money like this and then complain about them having to defund crew or take away the outdoor lab.
Anywyays, I did offer an alternative -- have an upper and lower school. Have ASFS be the upper school, Key be the lower school. You are only adding half as many buses. You can revisit the decision in a few years if it isn't working out well, you won't have rezoned anyone outside of a walk zone at that point, so you can divy up boundaries at that point. It would be better to wait a few years to see how many kids follow immersion before drawing boundaries anyways. I think it may be the only way to avoid sending parts of Rosslyn to Taylor, and it helps with demographics. You'd avoid a lot of the pain of boundaries too -- everyone I've talked to with younger kids at ASFS is extremely unhappy about "losing the science". Its going to be a real mess when they get to that stage. Glad I don't have to pay attention to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

Are they just forwarding the same petition, or are there multiple petitions circulating?

Probably the same one. I’ve seen FB friends of mine posting it upwards of a half dozen times in just the last 36 hours.

It’s been posted multiple times on AEM over the course of several days and still only has a little over 700 signatures. Between all of the parents at McK, ATS, and Key plus all of the potential supporters these people could rope in to sign (I’ve seen grandparents and aunts in the comment section), that is a very small number.

The signers don't even understand what is proposed. It's NOT a boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am starting to worry that the no movers will prevail and then it will be a very rough boundary process for everyone else next year. While the no movers sit tight and happy.


The no-movers are loud, but they are also illogical and transparently selfish. None of them can answer pointed questions about the problems in their "data" or explain how, exactly, no moves are better for the county. If the school board votes no against the staff and asst superintendent's recommendation, they are going to have a full scale mutiny on their hands.

If the school board votes no against the staff and caves to public pressure, again, then every future boundary decision will be like this, only worse. Ever since APS caved to Arlington Forest in the high school realignment, special interests have gotten more and more vocal, louder, uglier, hysterical, and more likely to use "racism" as a cover for their own individual preferences. If they don't hold the course here and set an example that this behavior doesn't work, Arlington Schools are going to become corrupt ungovernable messes. Its actually pretty terrifying.

Yep. Worked for Fairlington United too. Though it seems only for 2 years.

Right, but it didn’t “work” for Keep Henry Together who had far more time to organize, lobby the board, print up t shirts, speak at board meeting, etc.

It works for some, not others. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, no matter how loud you yell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

How do they fill Tuckahoe (and, to a lesser extent, Nottingham) after sending the walkers to Reed from those planning units south of Lee? FWIW, I'm not a "no mover." I'm just genuinely curious and perhaps haven't studied the data enough to know the answer if there's an obvious one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am getting really nervous by the number of ‘no move’ petition pleas popping up on my Facebook newsfeed. All from wealthy McK families incidentally. I really hope all of the posters here who support the move are writing to the school board. I’ve written twice before but I am about to send my 3rd email.

+1. It just popped up in two groups I'm in. Both are South Arlington focused groups. We really need to keep writing to support the moves.

Are they just forwarding the same petition, or are there multiple petitions circulating?

Probably the same one. I’ve seen FB friends of mine posting it upwards of a half dozen times in just the last 36 hours.

It’s been posted multiple times on AEM over the course of several days and still only has a little over 700 signatures. Between all of the parents at McK, ATS, and Key plus all of the potential supporters these people could rope in to sign (I’ve seen grandparents and aunts in the comment section), that is a very small number.

The signers don't even understand what is proposed. It's NOT a boundary change.

This is what I have seen. Friends have signed it and I asked them about it and they had no clue what it was about and just signed it because they thought they were taking a stand in favor of data and against racism.