Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think TT is calling out the hypocrisy of the Keep key on Key folks crying crocodile tears over the units South of LEe HIghway going to Taylor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think TT is calling out the hypocrisy of the Keep key on Key folks crying crocodile tears over the units South of LEe HIghway going to Taylor.

That's fair. Don't know her well but she argues well for voting "yes" even though she has reservations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Given the inputs I heard from yesterday's hearing, I have the impression that SB will approve the current recommended map with a slight modification of grandfathering policy. I was surprised that none of the south of Wilson Blvd. spoke up at yesterday's meeting to have their PU included within the Key zone. Some of them are literally just 2 streets away, like 5 mins walking distance.

I thought there was at least one from one of those PU's who complained about the current proposal.

Yeah, there was at least one who sounded hella pissed and maybe another one or two who were calmer. I totally understand why she's angry. Unfortunately there is no way to do the zone around Key that doesn't screw someone over, but they really are getting hosed.

They raised a HUGE fuss during the middle school boundary at how being zoned for TJ was cruel for their children who had to leave friends (even though they had ALWAYS been zoned for TJ before, just ASFS had split resort of kids between SW and WB). Assume staff didn’t want water works taking them from beloved ASFS.

She’s been all over the map about what she wants and why— ultimately always wanted to be at Key but as ASFS (huge proponent of the Swap). Really pushed the upper/lower idea to keep all of ASFS together. She absolutely has a point that it’s ridiculous to start ASFS off as overcapacity while Key (and Taylor) are under-capacity but I think APS is going to do the ultimate screw over and send them to Long Branch in a few years. Have to wonder if it’s not payback for how pushy they were during the middle school boundary process (and this process).

The upper/lower was coming from Lyon Village, it was because no one wants to intentionally create a title 1 school within a half mile of a school with close to no f/rl kids at it. That’s not equity, especially since you are not even honoring the walk zone of said title 1 school. In fact you are bussing the rich kids out of the title 1 school (and not even by choice— it’s how they drew the boundary).
The woman you’re talking about above (“she”) won’t be affected by the next boundary process, her youngest is in fourth grade. The woman who cried in middle schools a few years ago has her youngest in sixth grade this year, she won’t be affected by any rezoning unless they don’t grandfather eighth graders.
I’m not sure why you think anyone in courthouse-Clarendon was especially pushy this go around— I read exactly three emails in what is published on engage. The civic association letter just calls out that they are violating stability by moving those planning units twice (since no one else from ASFS is staying there, they are being really hypocritical by not calling it a move).

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think TT is calling out the hypocrisy of the Keep key on Key folks crying crocodile tears over the units South of LEe HIghway going to Taylor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will be the PUs on the chopping block the next time around? It looks like ASFS & Key are going to be overcrowded in just a couple years, but what PUs could they remove from those schools, and where would they go? I mean they're moving a lot of PUs out of Taylor for this round--could those possibly be sent back in the next round? I just don't see how they leave themselves any good options in the future.

There are no good options even if you start with a clean slate. Even with Key back to neighborhood there’s still a fundamental mismatch between building locations and where students live. Arlington County has been upzoning and adding density along the metro lines for decades and there’s been no corresponding addition of schools there.

I don’t understand this lady’s latest map for 2022. It’s straight crazy. It also moves a LOT more PUs into Fleet, makes multiple islands, looks like for ASFS and Abingdon, dips into Abingdon’s walk zone to bus some of Shirlington to Drew, and moves more high poverty PUs into Barcroft while taking out all the SFHs of Alcova Heights and putting them at Fleet, sure to make Fleet overcrowded even faster. All so that Lyon Village doesn’t “get” Key? Makes no sense.

You can't believe anything she says unless she's telling you the best bicycle route from point a to point b. Everything else is extremely suspect.

Sorry, but what are you guys referencing?

There's a lady and her Key Krew (tm) on a crusade to convince APS to not approve the boundaries tonight allegedly because we need to a more comprehensive analysis. Her real motivation is to try to get the boundaries delayed a year and get the new board to overturn the school moves decision. She is throwing up all kind of crazy ideas and maps to support her cause on the Arlington Education Matters Facebook group and also helped source an article on Arlnow.com (and is also commenting on said article in support of her ideas). The anonymous sidebar conversation happens here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Given the inputs I heard from yesterday's hearing, I have the impression that SB will approve the current recommended map with a slight modification of grandfathering policy. I was surprised that none of the south of Wilson Blvd. spoke up at yesterday's meeting to have their PU included within the Key zone. Some of them are literally just 2 streets away, like 5 mins walking distance.

I thought there was at least one from one of those PU's who complained about the current proposal.

Yeah, there was at least one who sounded hella pissed and maybe another one or two who were calmer. I totally understand why she's angry. Unfortunately there is no way to do the zone around Key that doesn't screw someone over, but they really are getting hosed.

They raised a HUGE fuss during the middle school boundary at how being zoned for TJ was cruel for their children who had to leave friends (even though they had ALWAYS been zoned for TJ before, just ASFS had split resort of kids between SW and WB). Assume staff didn’t want water works taking them from beloved ASFS.

She’s been all over the map about what she wants and why— ultimately always wanted to be at Key but as ASFS (huge proponent of the Swap). Really pushed the upper/lower idea to keep all of ASFS together. She absolutely has a point that it’s ridiculous to start ASFS off as overcapacity while Key (and Taylor) are under-capacity but I think APS is going to do the ultimate screw over and send them to Long Branch in a few years. Have to wonder if it’s not payback for how pushy they were during the middle school boundary process (and this process).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone PLEASE ask these "pause the boundary process" people how they can possibly be supporting any proposal that leaves a brand new school empty next year while other schools are overcrowded? People flip out when one school is at 83% and another is at 107%. These people are proposing we leave a brand new shiny elementary school at 0%. They're actually proposing that. And no, we do not need random extra space for DL, or whatever they're suggesting. We need permanent seats for kids.

Please someone call them on it. I'm not on AEM, or I would do it myself.

It's not worth it. They aren't going to win this fight and there's no convincing them that they are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:Could someone PLEASE ask these "pause the boundary process" people how they can possibly be supporting any proposal that leaves a brand new school empty next year while other schools are overcrowded? People flip out when one school is at 83% and another is at 107%. These people are proposing we leave a brand new shiny elementary school at 0%. They're actually proposing that. And no, we do not need random extra space for DL, or whatever they're suggesting. We need permanent seats for kids.

Please someone call them on it. I'm not on AEM, or I would do it myself.