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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Pretty sure I saw a fb post that Montessori is doing a fundraiser for playground equipment. Is that allowed? They don’t like the Old Henry playground


Looks like they got special permission from APS to fundraise.


This was a bit of an unusual situation in that the existing Henry playground isn't age-appropriate for the primary Montessori students. The primary kids aren't allowed to go on the regular playground and instead have their recess on a bare blacktop. So the fundraising is to be able to buy some portable play equipment so that there is *something* for those kids to play with/on.

I live a block from that school and let my 4 year old and 2 year old play on that playground regularly. What exactly are they complaining about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

That may be and is also a flixable problem. The problem with McK is nearly 800 children have about 1/4 of the playspace that ATS children have. McK needs another playspace. Sounds like Fleet does too. Due to sports, I've seen some S. Arl playgrounds that are great and some that are not so great but they are big and there is room for growth (of the playground).

I think our kids don't really need an IPad each but I do think they need to runaround outside.

ATS is complaining about play space? Maybe they should make do with their current building then.
If they want to grow their program, they need a bigger building. Tough cookies, McK is the building we have to give. The entitlement is amazing.

No, a self-identified McKinley parent complained about it's playground. ATS doesn't want to move, it just isn't creating the stir that Key is. Consider paying attention before jumping to calling others entitled.

Yes. I'm a McK parent who has often complained about the dangerous playground b/c its dangerous and b/c APS makes stupid decisions like the non-accessible playground at Fleet. It is also not ok that SA schools have broken playgrounds.

And a note on bussing: APS can't find enough bus drivers so the bussing has go to stop!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

[Anonymous]

Proximity only is important for Spanish speakers in Rosslyn. It does not matter if probity is improved for Spanish speakers near Barrett. Proximity only matters for the few planning units that walk to McKinley. It does not matter who else gets bussed to make their numbers work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

Fascinating - we were told we could NOT buy playground equipment but we could do other small enhancements - "fitness" equipment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

Fascinating - we were told we could NOT buy playground equipment but we could do other small enhancements - "fitness" equipment.

Hmm. We were also told we could not buy equipment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

Fascinating - we were told we could NOT buy playground equipment but we could do other small enhancements - "fitness" equipment.

What school? One thing to consider is that new playground equipment can only be installed with the approval of the school, and PTAs are not allowed to take on maintenance responsibility for playground equipment. It’s possible it was nixed because your administration had some concerns about the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

That may be and is also a flixable problem. The problem with McK is nearly 800 children have about 1/4 of the playspace that ATS children have. McK needs another playspace. Sounds like Fleet does too. Due to sports, I've seen some S. Arl playgrounds that are great and some that are not so great but they are big and there is room for growth (of the playground).

I think our kids don't really need an IPad each but I do think they need to runaround outside.

ATS is complaining about play space? Maybe they should make do with their current building then.
If they want to grow their program, they need a bigger building. Tough cookies, McK is the building we have to give. The entitlement is amazing.

No, a self-identified McKinley parent complained about it's playground. ATS doesn't want to move, it just isn't creating the stir that Key is. Consider paying attention before jumping to calling others entitled.

Yes. I'm a McK parent who has often complained about the dangerous playground b/c its dangerous and b/c APS makes stupid decisions like the non-accessible playground at Fleet. It is also not ok that SA schools have broken playgrounds.

And a note on bussing: APS can't find enough bus drivers so the bussing has go to stop!

Yes - which is partly why APS has proposed to move schools to minimize busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

Fascinating - we were told we could NOT buy playground equipment but we could do other small enhancements - "fitness" equipment.

I just looked at the slides - this is a generic presentation from the VA PTA organization.

From what I understand, APS PTAs can't buy much technology or playground equipment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

While it is allowed with PTA rules APS is not on board. You have to get permission and an upkeep plan as it becomes APS property and their responsibility once installed.

Also APS replaces school playgrounds on a rotating basis. So they target to do X number of playgrounds a summer. So it is on a rotation schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

Fascinating - we were told we could NOT buy playground equipment but we could do other small enhancements - "fitness" equipment.

What school? One thing to consider is that new playground equipment can only be installed with the approval of the school, and PTAs are not allowed to take on maintenance responsibility for playground equipment. It’s possible it was nixed because your administration had some concerns about the plan.

The PTA was able to fund smaller "fitness" equipment. Probably couldn't afford to replace the giant play structure anyway - they are $$$$.

[Anonymous]

PTAs aren't supposed to pay for extras on things that should be provided by APS. I would say playgrounds are under that category

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

They're not. But guidelines and rules don't apply to the wealthy and the PTAs and their principals find ways around them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure I saw a fb post that Montessori is doing a fundraiser for playground equipment. Is that allowed? They don’t like the Old Henry playground

Looks like they got special permission from APS to fundraise.

This was a bit of an unusual situation in that the existing Henry playground isn't age-appropriate for the primary Montessori students. The primary kids aren't allowed to go on the regular playground and instead have their recess on a bare blacktop. So the fundraising is to be able to buy some portable play equipment so that there is *something* for those kids to play with/on.

What is different about Montessori primary students that they require different playground equipment than the former Henry primary students?
Even if there is a legitimate unique need - IT IS APS' RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE BASIC EQUIPMENT AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL'S CURRICULUM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought PTAs weren't allowed to buy playground equipment.

This is incorrect. Here is a useful presentation from CCPTA about what PTA funds can and cannot be used for:

https://ccpta.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2018/11/What-Should-PTAs-Be-Funding-VA-District-presentation.pdf

"Raise funds for playground equipment" is specifically included in the list of things PTAs can do on slide 15.

But ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS guidelines do NOT allow it.