Reply to APS elementary planning initiative called off

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS elementary planning initiative called off"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]APS will have to fix the Key/ASF mess- have you seen the 2018-2019 boundary map? How can you have a neighborhood school attendance zone that doesn’t actually include its neighborhood school?

All they have to do is send some planning units to Longbranch (that will have some relief/space when Fleet opens) and some to Taylor. As for kids having to ride a bus 2.3 miles vs. 2.6 miles, that makes a lot more sense than busing every Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon student to ASF and then busing the almost 300 kids who live around ASF to Taylor. Why pay for all those extra buses just so Rosslyn can stay at ASF? Because Rosslyn has apartments with poor people? So does Virginia Square and Bsllston. And what is wrong with adding some diversity to Taylor, or going to Longbranch? The folks in Clarendon and Courthouse might actually prefer a shorter commute to Longbranch.

Bottom line, boundaries are going to change. ASF/Key obviously need a lot of change now that APS got rid of the team model. The sooner probably the better given that eventually they are going to have to include ASF in its attendance zone. The only reason to wait to do anything is to guarantee those who currently attend ASF get to stay a bit longer at the expense of those who live around ASF. [/quote]

This is a parody post, right?  It’s weak, and slightly pathetic.[/quote]

You know someone has made a valid point when the immediate response is to start name-calling.  [/quote]
New poster, but I thought it was a parody too.
I wish people would stop saying you can move kids to long branch.  Yes, some of that school will be rezoned to fleet, but only enough to relieve the immediate over crowding there.  If they do anything with asfs, it will be to move people to Taylor.  
They also said they aren’t touching the Ashlawn boundary in 2019.  So Ashlawn lads you’re still at Ashlawn for the next three years.  
[/quote]

Since when have you ever been able to rely on what "they" (ie APS) says?  NVD gave pretty clear direction to come back with a whole-County, one-time solution for ES boundaries this fall.[/quote]

That was something she wanted them to look at the feasibility of, not a determination that it will happen (especially since she's only one vote out of five). Further, there are two different parts of the process that people are conflating here. The first is when they draw the new map(s), and the second is when that map will be implemented; NVD was talking about the former, not the latter. Whether they draw full the map this fall or in 2020, they cannot implement most of the portion affecting ASFS until Reed opens in 2021 because they have no place to move students in the meantime. Even if they draw a full map this fall, most likely they will go back to their original plan of looking at the most current data and projections again in 2020 to see if any tweaks should be made to the map before the final phase of implementation in 2021.

And here's the thing, the staff is going to draw a full map this summer/fall no matter what they show the public. They're going to draw one keeping the current school locations, and they're going to draw one based on where they think the option schools should go (maybe two versions of this if they think there are two strong proposals). They will do this so that they can make sure that whatever they do with the green-zone schools they're definitely rezoning this fall won't needlessly constrain them for the next phase. To the extent these maps reveal planning units in the yellow zone that can be moved in 2019 to give relief without creating new problems or limiting options for the 2020 redraw, they will publish those as well. But there is little value to them publishing a full rezoning map this fall because all that will add to the process is a whole lot of extra fighting about whether a planning unit should go to McKinley or Reed, Nottingham or Tuckahoe, only to have that decision possibly revisited (and thus fight the same battle all over again) two years later when they look at whether any tweaks should be made before those changes are implemented.

I get why some people want changes to happen sooner, but we need to deal in reality when setting our expectations or we just make the process even more contentious for no productive purpose.[/quote]

I understand your point, I just disagree.  You are advocating for the perfect solution for the NW quadrant in 2021 while limiting the ability to balance enrollment of the entire system for two more years and a suboptimal system end solution.  I'd rather rip the band aid off in 2019, and create a more equitable system-wide solution.  I agree for two years McKinley, Nottingham, Discovery, and Tuckahoe will be burdened disproportionately.  But it's only for two years and their strain will be much less than that of many other schools across Arlington have experienced for several years.[/quote]

I wasn't advocating for anything there, I was laying out the considerations for why I don't think the school board will do what you want them to do. What you are proposing would be very expensive, a logistical nightmare, would potentially violate APS transfer policy, so I wouldn't pin my hopes on it if I were you.[/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