Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we trying to save Key on Key for 2 grades of kids who got in during the Key as neighborhood school era? If everyone else is countywide option, it shouldn’t matter where the school goes.

The options policy went into effect 3 years ago, so only the Key 2nd graders and above got in as “neighbored” and not as the countywide option. Since current 4th and 5th graders are not affected by the 2021 process, only 2 grades at Key (2nd and 3rd) are neighborhood. Everyone else got in as countywide option.

APS hasn’t broken down the numbers by grade, but Key has over 60% transfers in from outside the key neighborhood based on last years numbers. That likely will increase every year based on the new policy. Key actually has kids fro every elementary in Arlington, not just eastern schools. Significant transferring in schools:
- Barrett 49
- Glebe 55
- Long Branch 83
- Patrick Henry 41
- Taylor 90 (likely higher because they were in the “team”)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Transfer-Report-2018-19-1.pdf#page4

ATS will be a lot closer for a ton of current Key students. Sad that fact is being obscured.

I think most people who have been following this closely are fully aware of the above, as is the Staff and the SB.
I've said it before- the most vocal strident voices for "keep key on key" largely do not live in the Key/ASFS neighborhood. The location of Key works for them, for a mix of reasons, and they will not have the option to stay there if it becomes a neighborhood school.
Also- and this is something keep Key on Key advocates hate to admit, many of the natives Spanish speakers who live close to Key are not sold on the benefits of immersion. The advocates are deathly afraid that those families will choose to stay at the Key neighborhood school rather than move to the ATS building. Even more likely the more welcoming the Key neighborhood school is to them. The English speaking families think they have to have the Spanish speaking families for their immersion model to work.

Anonymous wrote:Ready to rip the bandaid off tomorrow and then move on to speculating / stressing about the boundary debates.

I wonder how long that will take? Is there a certain time it HAS to be resolved, like X months before Reed opens? We're in a PU that will certainly be affected and I'd rather know sooner than later where DC will be going.

Anonymous wrote:Why are we trying to save Key on Key for 2 grades of kids who got in during the Key as neighborhood school era? If everyone else is countywide option, it shouldn’t matter where the school goes.

The options policy went into effect 3 years ago, so only the Key 2nd graders and above got in as “neighbored” and not as the countywide option. Since current 4th and 5th graders are not affected by the 2021 process, only 2 grades at Key (2nd and 3rd) are neighborhood. Everyone else got in as countywide option.

APS hasn’t broken down the numbers by grade, but Key has over 60% transfers in from outside the key neighborhood based on last years numbers. That likely will increase every year based on the new policy. Key actually has kids fro every elementary in Arlington, not just eastern schools. Significant transferring in schools:
- Barrett 49
- Glebe 55
- Long Branch 83
- Patrick Henry 41
- Taylor 90 (likely higher because they were in the “team”)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Transfer-Report-2018-19-1.pdf#page4

ATS will be a lot closer for a ton of current Key students. Sad that fact is being obscured.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

The swap would not have been a boundary change because ASFS' boundary would have remained the same. They just would have gone to a different building.

Do you think they would have stopped the swap if they hadn’t looked at the projections and realized they needed two neighborhood schools? I’m not sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

OMG - this guy has spammed me 3x time. Each time you send me an email I'm less likely to vote for you!

There are a couple of people on AEM calling him out for spamming them when they never gave him their email addresses.

Yeah, he got me too. I asked where they got my email address but got no response, naturally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

OMG - this guy has spammed me 3x time. Each time you send me an email I'm less likely to vote for you!

There are a couple of people on AEM calling him out for spamming them when they never gave him their email addresses.

Yeah, he got me too. I asked where they got my email address but got no response, naturally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

OMG - this guy has spammed me 3x time. Each time you send me an email I'm less likely to vote for you!

There are a couple of people on AEM calling him out for spamming them when they never gave him their email addresses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

OMG - this guy has spammed me 3x time. Each time you send me an email I'm less likely to vote for you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Key No Moves Data Dude* is running for school board and has signed a letter asking the SB to not move on the move. Here's some of it:

We write today representing a larger group of concerned parents of Arlington Public School (APS) students. Like hundreds of other parents, I urge you not to take further action on the Superintendent’s recommendations for school moves, which is scheduled for a full Board vote on February 6, 2020. The Superintendent’s proposal seeks to move both option and neighborhood schools, resulting in the relocation of thousands of APS elementary school students, ahead of a planned boundary change for elementary schools across Arlington in 2020. While the proposal is phrased as a “pre-boundary phase,” it is, in reality, a boundary change both because of the number of students moved and because the moves will require boundaries to be changed. In fact, the proposal to move schools has been presented side-by-side with a proposal that does not move schools, but changes boundaries. And because this pre-boundary phrase has not complied with the boundary phase process codified in Arlington School Board Policy B-2.1

*I think this name is descriptive without being disparaging. Also, I'm not using his name but guess that would be ok since he's running for office.

I guess he missed that his own proposals would reassign half of McKinley's current students, while moving McKinley to Reed allows three-quarters of its students to stay together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

The swap would not have been a boundary change because ASFS' boundary would have remained the same. They just would have gone to a different building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He may be right. If they were just switching ATS with Key they could say it’s an option location issue, but declaring that all of McKinley’s planning units are being reassigned sounds more like a boundary change. What procedural defect is being claimed? Even though they’ve called it not a boundary process, it does seem like they’ve given tons of notice and opportunity to comment etc., and presumably that’s basically what is required. That, and a school board vote. The proposed swap was procedurally defective because they let the superintendent declare it a go, when it probably qualified as a boundary change thus necessitating a school board vote. Does the failure to call it a boundary decision create a problem?

Here's what the policy says you need to do for a boundary change:

When the Superintendent has determined that one or more of the conditions above exists and that boundary changes should be considered, the Superintendent shall recommend to the SchoolBoard the process for consideration of boundary changes. The recommended framework shall include:

1.The proposed schedule for the boundary change process,
2.Identification of the schools and communities to be affected, and
3.A community engagement plan and process to keep affected schools and communities informed throughout the consideration of boundary changes.

The School Board shall act on the recommendation

So yeah, they've done that.

The one question I have is why they’ve refused to call this a boundary change. Are there annoying procedural requirements you can avoid by treating it as something other than a boundary process? Or maybe they’re just trying to be very clear about this being a 2-step process. I’m not familiar enough with school board rules to know if they were trying to bypass something or if this really is just semantics. Aside from calling it not a boundary change, they seem to have followed the rule quoted above.