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

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
[quote] Neighborhood Key will be integrated because of the neighborhood, Immersion at ATS will be integrated because of the location and program, and ATS at McKinley will be waaay more diverse than neighborhood McKinley. Moving schools creates an additional diverse neighborhood school vs no moves.[/quote]

Escuela Key is already diverse, ATS is already diverse. Drawing boundaries across Rt 50 could make McKinley diverse. No need to do this "lego block" shuffling and move 3 schools in the process.

[/quote]

So instead move neighborhood kids all over the place so Key can continue to attract 35 Spanish speaking K students every year? Sounds fair. [/quote]

Or face the reality that more seats are simply needed in the area. Better utilization of county resources is not shuffling entire schools to different buildings and making the decision to do this in 3 months. This is your taxpayer money too. [/quote]

This conversation has been going on for two years. Why?  Because staff was trying to ADDRESS OVERCROWDING AND KNEW THERE AREN'T ENOUGH SEATS IN THE AREA. So, Staff wanted to move Key two years ago.  NO! the people cried.  Staff proposed to swap.  NO! the people cried.  There is not going to be another school built for several years and something has to be done to manage overcrowding in that area as well as unbalanced enrollments across the district.  So, staff is back to moving Key.  NO! the people cry.  We're fine! Key cries.  The crowding elsewhere can continue until you build a new school! Key's argument cries.  OR! proclaim Key and McKinley, boundary changes alone can deal with overcrowding! Why, yes, they can, Key and McKinley! respond the masses that comprise the rest of Arlington County.  HOWEVER, they plead, those boundaries are inconvenient and ridiculous for all of us and all our OUR children AND will need to be redrawn YET AGAIN in just another year or two instead of 5-10 when your new school is built!

The intellectually superior triumvirate of Key, McKinley, and ATS have never once considered the impacts of their proposals and arguments beyond 2021-22.  Even if their boundary scenarios were equally feasible to what will come out of proposal 1, the impacts of enrollment balancing are shorter-lived....with a lifespan of like 2 years max.  But, it doesn't matter for Key because they no longer have neighborhood preference and the countywide lottery can cap their enrollment and therefore their level of crowdedness.  Therefore, all is right with their plan and APS is racist and anti-immersion.[/quote]

Yep, this.  People act like this process came out of nowhere and the staff just started from scratch this fall, but that’s a fiction.  The staff has been analyzing this for two years, and has probably been working on this particular proposals at least since last spring.  If nothing else, two years of analysis have told them that Key has to move, it’s just a matter of where.  There may be a certain element of musical chairs here, that Proposal 1 is where they were when they ran out of time to keep going.  I think McKinley has a credible basis to argue that it was blindsided here (although that’s not dispositive of anything for me), but Key definitely does not, and I don’t think ATS does either.  Both of those schools could have accepted that APS was going to move them and chosen to work with APS on finding the best alternative site for their programs.  Instead, they dug in their heels and implicitly decided to leave it up to APS as to where they would go.  Their current unhappiness is the direct result of their own choices.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics