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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

I have seen the reports but in reality Nottingham has the whole fifth grade in trailers this year. So it's not really under capacity in any practical sense. I believe Spanish is on a cart too.

[Anonymous]

We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

Take a close look at the "Actual Reed Walkzone" everything not in the walkzone could be bused elsewhere.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ES_Reed_WZ_Policy_Final.pdf

Stop spreading rumors. Everything south of Lee will be at Reed.

I see you’re still desperately clinging to the Lee-Highway-as-Berlin-Wall argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously. Give me a break. This upper and lower business is a non-starter and APS knows that so don't waste your time with this. I have middle school and elementary children so you are asking me to be involved in yet another PTA, attend events at multiple elementary schools in addition to middle schools, sorry, no that does not work. And don't worry yourself with diversity - you don't need upper and lower schools to ensure this - these are much more diverse areas than other NA by comparison. It will be plenty diverse at both sites. If you care so much about this precious diversity, what are you doing to diversify Jamestown, Discovery, Taylor, Nottingham, and on and on.

If young families are worried about "losing the science" why would they just not work to advocate for a science focus at the new neighborhood school. Key Science Focus Elementary (KSFS) coming to a neighborhood near you!

This is exactly what the ASFS community (the part who will end up at Key) should be doing. Great opportunity to push for ASFS #2. Maybe minus the science lab though - too political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Some Key, ATS, and McK parents seem to think that these school changes either require their approval or (absent the approval) that APS should honor a list of demands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So you’ll be invested until you won’t be invested?

I'm not even sure what this means.
Honestly this entire exchange is why I avoid discussions like this both on this board and in real life. There are a few ASFS posters on this board who seriously are just so mean. You beat up on anyone who tries to have a rational discussion with you.
Moving walkers from Highland east (and honestly from 10th street up) out of Key isn't going to happen. All those native spanish speakers who have been coming to school board meetings for years at this point saying they need to be able to walk to school, their need for walking to school doesn't end when immersion moves. Those guys aren't going to Long Branch, or Drew, or H-B or whereever else you want to send them.
I support the moves, but honestly you are doing a real disservice to your cause by arguing that the areas around Key can go somewhere else. Its as bad as the maps that McKinley and Key are putting out. Lots of people have pointed out that demographics are going to be an issue when they draw the key boundary. You can't just ignore that by saying that you'll bus the rich kids out to make room for Rosslyn. Some kids in Rosslyn are going to have to go somewhere other than Key, maybe that's asfs, maybe that's taylor, maybe that's long branch. I don't know and neither do you.
And yes, I do have an issue with busing and making completely white schools (which if you have ASFS start at Barton and go west, is what you get). Everyone should. Its one thing if you have housing patterns that caused it like the rest of north arlington, its another if you had a really nice, diverse school and you ruined it through policy decisions and poor planning. Which is what they did to ASFS. Key if they draw the boundary you are envisioning (bryan street east) has a FRL over 50%, even before some of the CAH opens up.
You need to start thinking of some creative solutions, either that or become ok with the demographics focused map they put out (which put north of wilson at Key, and south of Wilson at asfs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

DP, Yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

Is this request in writing somewhere/what specific “requests” are they making?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So you’ll be invested until you won’t be invested?

I'm not even sure what this means.
Honestly this entire exchange is why I avoid discussions like this both on this board and in real life. There are a few ASFS posters on this board who seriously are just so mean. You beat up on anyone who tries to have a rational discussion with you.
Moving walkers from Highland east (and honestly from 10th street up) out of Key isn't going to happen. All those native spanish speakers who have been coming to school board meetings for years at this point saying they need to be able to walk to school, their need for walking to school doesn't end when immersion moves. Those guys aren't going to Long Branch, or Drew, or H-B or whereever else you want to send them.
I support the moves, but honestly you are doing a real disservice to your cause by arguing that the areas around Key can go somewhere else. Its as bad as the maps that McKinley and Key are putting out. Lots of people have pointed out that demographics are going to be an issue when they draw the key boundary. You can't just ignore that by saying that you'll bus the rich kids out to make room for Rosslyn. Some kids in Rosslyn are going to have to go somewhere other than Key, maybe that's asfs, maybe that's taylor, maybe that's long branch. I don't know and neither do you.
And yes, I do have an issue with busing and making completely white schools (which if you have ASFS start at Barton and go west, is what you get). Everyone should. Its one thing if you have housing patterns that caused it like the rest of north arlington, its another if you had a really nice, diverse school and you ruined it through policy decisions and poor planning. Which is what they did to ASFS. Key if they draw the boundary you are envisioning (bryan street east) has a FRL over 50%, even before some of the CAH opens up.
You need to start thinking of some creative solutions, either that or become ok with the demographics focused map they put out (which put north of wilson at Key, and south of Wilson at asfs).

At the top of your previous post you stated, “I am invested[.]”. At the end you stated, “Glad I don’t have to pay attention to it.” Neighborhood Key will probably be at least a forty percent FARMs school. That’s good. Part of Lyon Village will also have to go there (barring flight to private). That’s good too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

DP, Yes!

+1. I am an APS employee and parent and I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

DP, Yes!

+1. I am an APS employee and parent and I agree.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

Yes

Yes x 1000