Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the segment from the meeting in question. It didn't so much seem like they were trying to make all of the decisions this fall so much as get a map of where things are headed to help with the decision this fall. I think it will be good to see a full map of what the boundaries will look like in 2021 with all the schools online and no option program location changes. That should be fairly revealing as to whether we need to revisit the location review or not.

I don't think too many people question that a location review is needed (or at the very least would be beneficial), the problem is that people have different views on what the goals and priorities of the review should be, so how much of an appetite does the SB have to wade through those battles.

Location review is a non-starter. When you start moving programs and essentially closing schools (such as Nottingham was on the docket), then you get a hug political turnout with public outrage, and most other schools are sympathetic to not closing schools so its a widespread issue.

It only makes sense to make option programs at schools that are severely under enrolled (as a co-neighborhood program and slowly roll out the neighbor population) or new schools (such as Reed, but SB already promised that to the neighborhood so who knows if that is feasible).

So the staff should just cut the idea of location changes now, and just make a plan for 2021 for ASFS/McKinely so schools can plan accordingly.

Does anyone know if Taylor/Jamestown transfer to ASFS will get to stay until 2021?

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the segment from the meeting in question. It didn't so much seem like they were trying to make all of the decisions this fall so much as get a map of where things are headed to help with the decision this fall. I think it will be good to see a full map of what the boundaries will look like in 2021 with all the schools online and no option program location changes. That should be fairly revealing as to whether we need to revisit the location review or not.

I don't think too many people question that a location review is needed (or at the very least would be beneficial), the problem is that people have different views on what the goals and priorities of the review should be, so how much of an appetite does the SB have to wade through those battles.

I just watched the segment from the meeting in question. It didn't so much seem like they were trying to make all of the decisions this fall so much as get a map of where things are headed to help with the decision this fall. I think it will be good to see a full map of what the boundaries will look like in 2021 with all the schools online and no option program location changes. That should be fairly revealing as to whether we need to revisit the location review or not.

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

I think what we're seeing is that the staff and SB are at odds with each other over how to handle all of this. The staff still really wants to do the location review and is trying to keep all of their options open on that front because they know they don't have the time this fall to do a full location review with community input and then also do boundary redrawing by the November deadline. The SB is more concerned with addressing overcrowding, even at the expense of the location review.

Anonymous wrote:That was the June 7 Staff Power point present just before the Board request (at the meeting) for a proposal that changes everything.
So it appears everything is back on the table. More info in August?

Yes, the SB did theoretically put everything back on the table because they'd like to find an overcrowding solution for ASFS and McKinley sooner if possible, but in the meeting discussion the staff pushed back hard on that idea because they still want to do the location review. If they do the whole thing this fall, it will either mean abandoning the location review entirely, or basically presenting the location review final proposal as a fait accompli this fall so they have time to finish the accompanying boundary revisions by November. They are certainly capable of doing the latter, but it would make them raging hypocrites given how much they all emphasized the need to be honest and transparent with the community and not pull bait-and-switches.

That was the June 7 Staff Power point present just before the Board request (at the meeting) for a proposal that changes everything.
So it appears everything is back on the table. More info in August?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

So it seems like they decided to not move key at all and make ASFS neighborhood? Redrawing those boundaries will be hard, will they send Rosslyn to Long Branch it only add a bit of Cherrydale?

Here's the detail on the powerpoint from the meeting on the 7th:

Arlington Science Focus (ASF)
•The 2018 boundary process could address projected overutilization and the fact that the school site is outside of its attendance zone, but would limit planning units that can be included in future process for Reed
•Limited planning units may be included in the Fall 2018 boundary process: all others would be reviewed as part of the Spring 2020 boundary process
•Waiting until 2020 elementary school boundary process would allow more data about new Kindergarten cohort, transfer rate, and impact of new Options & Transfer policy

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ES-Boundary-Scope-June-7-SB-Meeting-Final-PPT-to-Post.pdf page 4

It looks to me that they will try to do the bare minimum and wait until the next cycle to make the decision whether to move Key or do major splits to the planning units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

So it seems like they decided to not move key at all and make ASFS neighborhood? Redrawing those boundaries will be hard, will they send Rosslyn to Long Branch it only add a bit of Cherrydale?

Why would Roslyn go to Longbranch?

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

So it seems like they decided to not move key at all and make ASFS neighborhood? Redrawing those boundaries will be hard, will they send Rosslyn to Long Branch it only add a bit of Cherrydale?

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

It makes perfect sense to have an idea of the big picture framework while they do Fleet boundaries this fall, but the public communication has been sub par.

Hmm. Except folks may have missed this little gem in recent APS document.

Note: At the June 7 School Board meeting, staff was asked to develop a proposal that would include all
elementary schools open through 2021; this will be considered at an August School Board work session. This
could change the timeframe and process described here so please check online for updated information.

From this document:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Fall-2018-ES-Boundary-Process-Handout_DRAFT-June-2018-to-Post.pdf

Do they just get their jollies by starting and stopping this process? Unreal.

Anonymous wrote:So is this happening in November? It will include Fleet boundaries, but what about ASFS/Key issues?

ASFS won’t be addressed in any meaningful way in this round. Only Fleet, Oakridge, Drew, Hoffman-Boston and Randolph are getting full redraws this fall to go into effect for 2019-2020. ASFS is among the schools that might see small changes in connection with that redraw (so sensible boundaries can be drawn for the schools getting full redraws), but the staff intends to change as little as possible to give themselves more flexibility for the next round in the fall of 2020 to go into effect when Reed opens in 2021-22, due to the policy of not moving students between neighborhood schools more than once at a given school level. The speculation is that the staff wants to come back to the option school relocation process at that point, and so has left out of this first round any schools that might be potential option school sites.

So is this happening in November? It will include Fleet boundaries, but what about ASFS/Key issues?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need the Reed seats. Canceling would just continue the CF.

They also need high school seats that they don't have the money to build properly.

I know. But they haven't even started the planning. *sigh* They'd have the money if the county was willing to participate.

Given the cuts the county has made in their proposed CIP, I think it will be a hard sell to get them to give more money to APS. Maybe they'll give land for future projects, but I don't know that extra funding is in the works right now

The idea that they WOULDNT give the land is insane.
You can rent land outside of Arlington to park buses.

But then they have to incur lease expenses and limit their future options. It's not a given that the county will give APS land, especially not without something in return.

How about in return, we don’t storm their offices and meetings - making their lives a living hell.

Empty threat given that it's never happened in the past. More people need to speak up to the county before they're going to take this seriously, it can't be the same two or three people over and over again.

Disagree. This is the proven arlington way. The issues is that people haven’t been effected yet. People truly don’t believe shifts, online learning, lesser schools will actually come to pass. Give it a year or two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need the Reed seats. Canceling would just continue the CF.

They also need high school seats that they don't have the money to build properly.

I know. But they haven't even started the planning. *sigh* They'd have the money if the county was willing to participate.

Given the cuts the county has made in their proposed CIP, I think it will be a hard sell to get them to give more money to APS. Maybe they'll give land for future projects, but I don't know that extra funding is in the works right now

The idea that they WOULDNT give the land is insane.
You can rent land outside of Arlington to park buses.

But then they have to incur lease expenses and limit their future options. It's not a given that the county will give APS land, especially not without something in return.

How about in return, we don’t storm their offices and meetings - making their lives a living hell.

Empty threat given that it's never happened in the past. More people need to speak up to the county before they're going to take this seriously, it can't be the same two or three people over and over again.