Anonymous wrote:Cherrydalers suck!

Please. We live in Cherryvale and perfectly happy at Taylor. All of my kid's closest friends happen to live close to key and asfs so he'll lose his closest friends. We did not lobby for any of this. Even the families I know who live close to asfs told me they preferred to stay at Taylor so not all of us want this.

Anonymous wrote:And what are they going to do in 2020 when they need more seats in the NW? Jamestown can't expand boundaries, Discovery can't take trailers (don't buy that) and Reed will be maxed out b/c of size.

Go look at the Facilities Optimization study and tell me where you'd put trailers on Discovery. There is literally no green space other than the narrow, steep hill between the building and the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Wow.

In all fairness, it doesn't mean they've had it marked from the start. There aren't dates on when they made their assessments, and I'm going to assume they did so after having reviewed all of the data. Big mistake posting this.

What it means that even though the staff has saying publicly that they're not considering which program should go where at this stage, they're only looking for optimal sites, they had in fact come up with their preferred arrangement of all of the programs within the sites before they released the first round of analysis. They lied about their process, which makes all of their other public statements suspect as well. It certainly make sense now why they overlooked their errors on Nottingham, they'd already decided they wanted it for ATS/IB and if the first pass got them the result they wanted, they weren't going to scrutinize it too closely.

This process is a total sham. The last modified timestamp on the Excel Spreadsheet is 4/12/2018 3:12pm. Lisa, Zachary Larnard, Tara and Gladis had decided on April 12th that Nottingham would become IB/ATS. Why do we even have an engage process? APS Sucks.

Does APS have an IG? Would the SB even care or are they in on these shenanigans. What is the process for...?

The link seems to be broken (File Not Found). Any idea what happened to it?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

The staff realized people had found the document and pulled it off the server. Here is a screen shot of the key tab:

And just to clarify, this tab was created *before* the first draft presentation, not after. They already knew their target result when they did the first round.

And what are they going to do in 2020 when they need more seats in the NW? Jamestown can't expand boundaries, Discovery can't take trailers (don't buy that) and Reed will be maxed out b/c of size.

Cherrydalers suck!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Wow.

In all fairness, it doesn't mean they've had it marked from the start. There aren't dates on when they made their assessments, and I'm going to assume they did so after having reviewed all of the data. Big mistake posting this.

What it means that even though the staff has saying publicly that they're not considering which program should go where at this stage, they're only looking for optimal sites, they had in fact come up with their preferred arrangement of all of the programs within the sites before they released the first round of analysis. They lied about their process, which makes all of their other public statements suspect as well. It certainly make sense now why they overlooked their errors on Nottingham, they'd already decided they wanted it for ATS/IB and if the first pass got them the result they wanted, they weren't going to scrutinize it too closely.

This process is a total sham. The last modified timestamp on the Excel Spreadsheet is 4/12/2018 3:12pm. Lisa, Zachary Larnard, Tara and Gladis had decided on April 12th that Nottingham would become IB/ATS. Why do we even have an engage process? APS Sucks.

Does APS have an IG? Would the SB even care or are they in on these shenanigans. What is the process for...?

The link seems to be broken (File Not Found). Any idea what happened to it?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

The staff realized people had found the document and pulled it off the server. Here is a screen shot of the key tab:

I'm actually very impressed by this analysis. I think it is thoughtful and transparent.
I'm also really glad they have stepped away from not saying what option school goes where- and are acknowledging that location makes a difference.
I'm glad that they have made it clear that they are considering changes to the East/West framework- I think a lot of the discussion has been paralyzed by assuming that would not change.
I'm glad they have made it clear that the driving motivation is the need for more seats in the North East, and the abundance of seats in the North West.
There is a lot here that shows they listened to community concerns- they didn't come out in the same place but the listened (e.g. immersion needs to be near spanish speaking families which does not equal immersion needs to be on Key blvd.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine Key is having a collective heart attack right now. I do not see any realistic probability that it will remain in its current location.

Not as big as the ‘heart attack’ ASFS looked to be having (see, e.g., petition) when it looked like Key was going option without a building switch. But that’s in the past. Key was rope-a-doped, arguably.

They'll have the heart attack when the SB finally breaks it to them that the science lab won't move with them.

Eh, Key has an amazing playground, green grass and better field space. SB will be out of money to renovate playground or turf after all this shenanigans, so everyone is giving up something.

Yes, a majority Latino school seems like it is being taken for the benefit of a majority of whites.

There will be ~2% more whites at Key. It looks more diverse to me after the change:

Key now -> Key after

Hispanic
52 -> 27
Asian
4 -> 17
White
33 -> 35
Black
5 -> 11

Disadvantaged
43 -> 40

It’s benefiting the whites in Cherrydale which i think was PPs point.

Meh. ASFS is no better than Taylor. And it will be more diverse than Taylor.

I don’t think the Cherrydale folks are influential enough to make this change. I think it was APS staff’s decision.

Anonymous wrote:Will current Key students who live in the new Key boundary be compelled to go to the relocated Key Immersion at ATS or wherever? Or could they switch to the new nonimmersion Key, which seems like it will also be very diverse, per a pp’s projections?

I think you always have the right to enroll in your neighborhood school, so there is nothing that would compel people to follow the program. Honestly a lot of people probably wouldn’t make the move and the program would have to rebuild. Long term it would be fine and the Key neighborhood as a whole better off with a close school, though current Key families suffer.

Anonymous wrote:Will current Key students who live in the new Key boundary be compelled to go to the relocated Key Immersion at ATS or wherever? Or could they switch to the new nonimmersion Key, which seems like it will also be very diverse, per a pp’s projections?

It's an option school. You can't be compelled to attend. You can always go to your neighborhood school.

Will current Key students who live in the new Key boundary be compelled to go to the relocated Key Immersion at ATS or wherever? Or could they switch to the new nonimmersion Key, which seems like it will also be very diverse, per a pp’s projections?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine Key is having a collective heart attack right now. I do not see any realistic probability that it will remain in its current location.

Not as big as the ‘heart attack’ ASFS looked to be having (see, e.g., petition) when it looked like Key was going option without a building switch. But that’s in the past. Key was rope-a-doped, arguably.

They'll have the heart attack when the SB finally breaks it to them that the science lab won't move with them.

Eh, Key has an amazing playground, green grass and better field space. SB will be out of money to renovate playground or turf after all this shenanigans, so everyone is giving up something.

Yes, a majority Latino school seems like it is being taken for the benefit of a majority of whites.

Ha, no. No one at ASFS wanted to move. It was Cherrydale parents who orchestrated this. They get the cool new lab but have kind of lackluster outdoor space.

Agree current Key families are getting shaft.

BS, there were plenty of posters on this board claiming that current ASFS parents wanted to move to the Key building and take all the science stuff with them. I suspect they were the ASFS families who lived closest to Key and knew that if the Key building became a neighborhood school they’d be zoned to it.

I was one of those posters and we aren't at either school. I just knew that Key was definitely turning neighborhood and I thought it would be better a better outcome for current ASFS families, and less disruptive and expensive than moving multiple schools. ASFS didn't realize what was happening and kept thinking they'd get to stay by arguing for a being a neighborhood school with a boundary. The overwhelming majority of them will not get to stay, because they are in the Key walk zone and outside of any neighborhood boundary that could be drawn around ASFS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I couldn't resist digging into it now. From what I'm seeing, and assuming IB refers to ATS (because ATS otherwise isn't listed), it looks like Tara, Gladis and Lisa have all had Nottingham marked for ATS from the start. Maybe the IB label means they are contemplating rebranding ATS as an IB elementary school as part of the move?

It looks like they've also been in agreement all along that Campbell should stay EL and immersion should be at Carlin Springs. They originally thought the other immersion program should be at ASFS, but I guess they realized that wasn't going to be workable. So ATS was potentially on the table to become neighborhood?

It is hard to accept anything they say after seeing that. So, so dishonest.

Could someone please post the full link? I'm not seeing the -1.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Wow.

In all fairness, it doesn't mean they've had it marked from the start. There aren't dates on when they made their assessments, and I'm going to assume they did so after having reviewed all of the data. Big mistake posting this.

What it means that even though the staff has saying publicly that they're not considering which program should go where at this stage, they're only looking for optimal sites, they had in fact come up with their preferred arrangement of all of the programs within the sites before they released the first round of analysis. They lied about their process, which makes all of their other public statements suspect as well. It certainly make sense now why they overlooked their errors on Nottingham, they'd already decided they wanted it for ATS/IB and if the first pass got them the result they wanted, they weren't going to scrutinize it too closely.

This process is a total sham. The last modified timestamp on the Excel Spreadsheet is 4/12/2018 3:12pm. Lisa, Zachary Larnard, Tara and Gladis had decided on April 12th that Nottingham would become IB/ATS. Why do we even have an engage process? APS Sucks.

Does APS have an IG? Would the SB even care or are they in on these shenanigans. What is the process for...?

The link seems to be broken (File Not Found). Any idea what happened to it?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Data-Table-04122018-Web.xlsx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine Key is having a collective heart attack right now. I do not see any realistic probability that it will remain in its current location.

Not as big as the ‘heart attack’ ASFS looked to be having (see, e.g., petition) when it looked like Key was going option without a building switch. But that’s in the past. Key was rope-a-doped, arguably.

They'll have the heart attack when the SB finally breaks it to them that the science lab won't move with them.

Eh, Key has an amazing playground, green grass and better field space. SB will be out of money to renovate playground or turf after all this shenanigans, so everyone is giving up something.

Yes, a majority Latino school seems like it is being taken for the benefit of a majority of whites.

Ha, no. No one at ASFS wanted to move. It was Cherrydale parents who orchestrated this. They get the cool new lab but have kind of lackluster outdoor space.

Agree current Key families are getting shaft.

BS, there were plenty of posters on this board claiming that current ASFS parents wanted to move to the Key building and take all the science stuff with them. I suspect they were the ASFS families who lived closest to Key and knew that if the Key building became a neighborhood school they’d be zoned to it.

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, considering that Nottingham is still in running, was the re-work by staff actually to take ASFS out of option pool, b/c those CD parents were up in arms that their plans were backfiring?

They have boxed themselves in. The only thing that can reasonably go to Nottingham is ATS. Why in the world they would want to put thae most sought after option school at Nottingham is beyond me. The only way around it is to put Key at ATS and move ATS to South Arlington. I think that is more politically palatable. ATS cannot lose any of its racial or economic diversity in this move. Staff probably isn’t as clued in on that.