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

[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.

It sounds to me that Montessori just has some "would like to have" requests, then, and they are not Montessori-specific items.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think it really makes any difference - all the citizen-generated proposed maps have the same ridiculous issues; so you can be talking about any of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

[Anonymous]

They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

[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).

Abingdon is overcrowded and Drew is under enrolled so someone from Abingdon will have to go to Drew there’s no question about it at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

Are you sure this accurate for Tuckahoe? The playground at Tuckahoe park is not the school playground and the only blacktop is immediately adjacent to the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

Are you sure this accurate for Tuckahoe? The playground at Tuckahoe park is not the school playground and the only blacktop is immediately adjacent to the building.

Right. But the school uses the county playground and county owned field all the time for recess and PE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

Are you sure this accurate for Tuckahoe? The playground at Tuckahoe park is not the school playground and the only blacktop is immediately adjacent to the building.

Right. But the school uses the county playground and county owned field all the time for recess and PE.

Interesting. My kids go to Tuckahoe- I guess their experience is not representative, but they have been on the Tuckahoe playground a handful of times in the past few years for recess. They do have gym class on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

Are you sure this accurate for Tuckahoe? The playground at Tuckahoe park is not the school playground and the only blacktop is immediately adjacent to the building.

Right. But the school uses the county playground and county owned field all the time for recess and PE.

Fourth and fifth grade go to Tuckahoe Park every day for recess. I think third grade goes every other or something like that.

Interesting. My kids go to Tuckahoe- I guess their experience is not representative, but they have been on the Tuckahoe playground a handful of times in the past few years for recess. They do have gym class on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

+1

The maps and chart seem to support the move.

And from a quick glance the #s seem OK. Looks like they fixed the McKinley walker # snafu?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

+1

The maps and chart seem to support the move.

And from a quick glance the #s seem OK. Looks like they fixed the McKinley walker # snafu?

Ah, the maps and data were posted by a Key parent. I thought she was just interested in increasing diversity, which she talks about frequently. Makes sense now.