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

[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.

This. Also, when we were at Long Branch we were told the PTA couldn't do anything to improve the playground because that playground is actually county property. The school property ends at the blacktop. So we'd have had to take it up with the county if we wanted something changed there (as was done with the improved baseball diamond).

[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.

But ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS guidelines do NOT allow it.

And I think CCPTA discourages it as well. I've seen that presentation, and some of the information is a bit contradictory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:did you all notice that the Key map- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GB-Boundaries-map.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15jHLhIUR9iTQNwupmlbhFiUBv4cJoCvMOLUj5qZK_s0iPWGzDxipOqyU

appears to have planning unit 24110 going to McKinley as a neighborhood school???? A planning unit that is currently in bounds for ASFS- would have to be bused past ASFS, past Glebe, past Barrett, past Ashlawn, past Reed- to get to McKinley as its neighborhood school??
HOW can they say this is better???? this is disgusting.

I'm sure this question has been posed to the proponents of this map. Can anyone point to their answer? I'm sure there are other problems with this map when you dig into the data (as there are with all maps, since there are no perfect solutions), but this one is so glaringly obvious that I'm certain many people have raised the issue. What the map proponents saying in response?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:did you all notice that the Key map- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GB-Boundaries-map.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15jHLhIUR9iTQNwupmlbhFiUBv4cJoCvMOLUj5qZK_s0iPWGzDxipOqyU

appears to have planning unit 24110 going to McKinley as a neighborhood school???? A planning unit that is currently in bounds for ASFS- would have to be bused past ASFS, past Glebe, past Barrett, past Ashlawn, past Reed- to get to McKinley as its neighborhood school??
HOW can they say this is better???? this is disgusting.

I'm sure this question has been posed to the proponents of this map. Can anyone point to their answer? I'm sure there are other problems with this map when you dig into the data (as there are with all maps, since there are no perfect solutions), but this one is so glaringly obvious that I'm certain many people have raised the issue. What the map proponents saying in response?

The Key person answered that question AND hasn't posted the spreadsheet yet. Probably realizes she made a few errors and doesn't want to share...

If you're going to say "The parent developed maps do address overcrowding and diversity as well as or better than Proposal 1" then you need to back it up with data.

[Anonymous]

^ sorry - she has NOT answered that question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I can't speak to how Henry approached it, but Montessori has 160 primary students who are in classrooms where the doors let out to the blacktop and they don't take the primary classes around to the playground. The kids play on the blacktop. And, while I agree that the playground is perfectly fine for 3 and 4 year olds, and many children play there during non-school hours, there is a sign up that says it's designed for ages 5 to 12 so I guess that's the restriction that APS and/or MPSA is following. I also agree that APS should fund the equipment, my understanding is that APS said no funds were available.

[Anonymous]

Things that are wrong with the Key map:
1. Empties Long Branch to make room for Rosslyn. Moves Long Branch kids to McKinley. Rosslyn to Long Branch actually makes sense -- its actually a shorter bus ride than they have now since you can take Rt 50. The Long Branch walk zone is very small because they never got up in arms about trying to expand it (which is a sign of what a great, healthy community they are). They are moving kids that are within a half mile (people who legitimately walk some portion of the time) of the school to another one over two miles away.
2. Takes planning units north of 50 into Fleet. This will never be ok.
3. Moves parts of Abingdon that fought it last time into Drew.
4. Is Mckinley contiguous? Looks like it barely is.
Honestly, they could have made this look better by trying to keep McKinley contiguous and Ashlawn contiguous. The middle of the county is a mess, but they don't care (the person who did the map lives in Cherrydale).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I can't speak to how Henry approached it, but Montessori has 160 primary students who are in classrooms where the doors let out to the blacktop and they don't take the primary classes around to the playground. The kids play on the blacktop. And, while I agree that the playground is perfectly fine for 3 and 4 year olds, and many children play there during non-school hours, there is a sign up that says it's designed for ages 5 to 12 so I guess that's the restriction that APS and/or MPSA is following. I also agree that APS should fund the equipment, my understanding is that APS said no funds were available.

I work in a APS pre-K program. When our new playground was installed the entire staff had to tour the equipment and they were very clear that the age limits were to be enforced. I believe it is an insurance issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things that are wrong with the Key map:
1. Empties Long Branch to make room for Rosslyn. Moves Long Branch kids to McKinley. Rosslyn to Long Branch actually makes sense -- its actually a shorter bus ride than they have now since you can take Rt 50. The Long Branch walk zone is very small because they never got up in arms about trying to expand it (which is a sign of what a great, healthy community they are). They are moving kids that are within a half mile (people who legitimately walk some portion of the time) of the school to another one over two miles away.
2. Takes planning units north of 50 into Fleet. This will never be ok.
3. Moves parts of Abingdon that fought it last time into Drew.
4. Is Mckinley contiguous? Looks like it barely is.
Honestly, they could have made this look better by trying to keep McKinley contiguous and Ashlawn contiguous. The middle of the county is a mess, but they don't care (the person who did the map lives in Cherrydale).

Another community proposal map did this and ended up with a weird snake-like, zig-zag border for Ashlawn.

I don't think that McKinley border is contiguous. There's an island around McKinley, i.e. the current walk zone people who don't want to move + a long slice through the center of the county so kids who are pretty much across the street from Key can bus across the county to McKinley. People should be ashamed to advocate for this map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that are wrong with the Key map:
1. Empties Long Branch to make room for Rosslyn. Moves Long Branch kids to McKinley. Rosslyn to Long Branch actually makes sense -- its actually a shorter bus ride than they have now since you can take Rt 50. The Long Branch walk zone is very small because they never got up in arms about trying to expand it (which is a sign of what a great, healthy community they are). They are moving kids that are within a half mile (people who legitimately walk some portion of the time) of the school to another one over two miles away.
2. Takes planning units north of 50 into Fleet. This will never be ok.
3. Moves parts of Abingdon that fought it last time into Drew.
4. Is Mckinley contiguous? Looks like it barely is.
Honestly, they could have made this look better by trying to keep McKinley contiguous and Ashlawn contiguous. The middle of the county is a mess, but they don't care (the person who did the map lives in Cherrydale).

Another community proposal map did this and ended up with a weird snake-like, zig-zag border for Ashlawn.

I don't think that McKinley border is contiguous. There's an island around McKinley, i.e. the current walk zone people who don't want to move + a long slice through the center of the county so kids who are pretty much across the street from Key can bus across the county to McKinley. People should be ashamed to advocate for this map.

Is the Key map the one that the no moves website is claiming is the best option and being ignored by APS?

[Anonymous]

No action or information item on the agenda that just went out for tomorrow’s board meeting, which means there’s no about-face yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that are wrong with the Key map:
1. Empties Long Branch to make room for Rosslyn. Moves Long Branch kids to McKinley. Rosslyn to Long Branch actually makes sense -- its actually a shorter bus ride than they have now since you can take Rt 50. The Long Branch walk zone is very small because they never got up in arms about trying to expand it (which is a sign of what a great, healthy community they are). They are moving kids that are within a half mile (people who legitimately walk some portion of the time) of the school to another one over two miles away.
2. Takes planning units north of 50 into Fleet. This will never be ok.
3. Moves parts of Abingdon that fought it last time into Drew.
4. Is Mckinley contiguous? Looks like it barely is.
Honestly, they could have made this look better by trying to keep McKinley contiguous and Ashlawn contiguous. The middle of the county is a mess, but they don't care (the person who did the map lives in Cherrydale).

Another community proposal map did this and ended up with a weird snake-like, zig-zag border for Ashlawn.

I don't think that McKinley border is contiguous. There's an island around McKinley, i.e. the current walk zone people who don't want to move + a long slice through the center of the county so kids who are pretty much across the street from Key can bus across the county to McKinley. People should be ashamed to advocate for this map.

Is the Key map the one that the no moves website is claiming is the best option and being ignored by APS?

I think so, but haven't seen any data to support that.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, the more crazy maps they put out the more they provide justification for the move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the more crazy maps they put out the more they provide justification for the move.

+100

[Anonymous]

In the other map posted, people literally across the street from key are going to reed! These maps really make the staff point that they need to move McKinley.