Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you advocate for the Henry community last year during the South Arlington boundary redrawing? Did you advocate for Nottingham two years ago when the staff tried to do the same thing to that school that they’re now proposing for McKinley? If not, why should anyone else care what happens to McKinley when you didn’t care what happened to them?

Yes.

We don't believe you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

Hey, they’re just following the path laid down by other APS school communities that didn’t want to be moved. Sometimes it worked.

All of them are intolerable, but this isn’t exactly new behavior.

Exactly. You don't even have to go back further than April 2018 in the case of the NW schools: https://www.arlnow.com/2018/04/24/parents-push-back-on-proposed-attendance-changes-at-nottingham-elementary-school/

It is a hot potato among the NW schools who gets ATS. And there are arguments pro and con for almost every building. Maybe they should just put all the schools in a hat and randomly pick one.

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

Hey, they’re just following the path laid down by other APS school communities that didn’t want to be moved. Sometimes it worked.

All of them are intolerable, but this isn’t exactly new behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?

After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.

No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).

And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.

I think the thought is to put more VPI in the NW to increase diversity.
Also, people shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the schools seem a little imbalanced by the spreadsheet they sent out. The spread sheet is very back of the envelope, and that part isn't being voted on until next spring. Other than things that are clearly written on the wall (the ashlawn bounary won't follow the orange line so much, most of current asfs will move to key neighborhood, etc.), its not worth getting bent out of shape.
Would you rather they have the no moves map?

At a recent work session Wendy Pilch talked about the difficulty in filling VPI and the 2/3 Montessori slots reserved for lower income families when those seats are too far north. if they are planning to increase those seats in the north they’ll need to start busing 3 year olds.

Exactly. I don't know where the prior poster got her information about VPI, or if she even knows a VPI family.

I am 100% okay with a plan that moves my kid around and breaks up schools if it finally deals with the capacity balancing. This is why APS needs to release the boundary maps though before voting on the option school locations. Show everyone that you can move all those schools and come up with a map that fills schools to capacity (while allowing for growth in areas where more housing is coming) and looks better than their "What If?" map. Or release 6 different versions that weight all the different factors, the way they did during the middle school process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

+1000 (from a non-McKinley parent at a school that also is affected)

+1 from a parent of another school that is affected

+1 from a McKinley parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

+1000 (from a non-McKinley parent at a school that also is affected)

+1 from a parent of another school that is affected

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

+1000 (from a non-McKinley parent at a school that also is affected)

* putting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?

After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.

The whole proposed elementary school swap is like a 180 on everything parents have been saying for years. The school board proposes a plan that:

--moves option schools to the edges of the county
--makes option programs grow
--makes walkable neighborhood schools
--balances enrollment so there aren't overcapacity and undercapacity schools near each other
--does it all in one fell swoop instead of a bunch of incremental painful changes year after year with no strategy

and everyone loses their shit

I mean, they are trying to give parents everything they want, and all of a sudden no one wants it

Pretty much.

Moral: People just like to complain. Ignore them.

+1000 Just get it done

maybe we need shirts with this on it at school board meetings.
The "get'er done coalition"

I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?

After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.

No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).

And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.

I think the thought is to put more VPI in the NW to increase diversity.
Also, people shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the schools seem a little imbalanced by the spreadsheet they sent out. The spread sheet is very back of the envelope, and that part isn't being voted on until next spring. Other than things that are clearly written on the wall (the ashlawn bounary won't follow the orange line so much, most of current asfs will move to key neighborhood, etc.), its not worth getting bent out of shape.
Would you rather they have the no moves map?

At a recent work session Wendy Pilch talked about the difficulty in filling VPI and the 2/3 Montessori slots reserved for lower income families when those seats are too far north. if they are planning to increase those seats in the north they’ll need to start busing 3 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you advocate for the Henry community last year during the South Arlington boundary redrawing? Did you advocate for Nottingham two years ago when the staff tried to do the same thing to that school that they’re now proposing for McKinley? If not, why should anyone else care what happens to McKinley when you didn’t care what happened to them?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?

After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.

The whole proposed elementary school swap is like a 180 on everything parents have been saying for years. The school board proposes a plan that:

--moves option schools to the edges of the county
--makes option programs grow
--makes walkable neighborhood schools
--balances enrollment so there aren't overcapacity and undercapacity schools near each other
--does it all in one fell swoop instead of a bunch of incremental painful changes year after year with no strategy

and everyone loses their shit

Well, for every parent saying options should be moved to the edges, there were others saying the opposite, move them more centrally. And for everyone saying increase their capacity, there were others arguing not to do that, or at least not to give them the largest capacity buildings, to save those for neighborhood seats and make options flex and contract with trailers if needed to meet the demands of overall enrollment. And certainly, while some parents have been arguing that the most important thing for them is to be able to walk to school, there are others pointing out that the tighter the boundaries become, the more segregated the schools become, and for whom having the ability to attend a diverse school is of greater importance than proximity.

Personally, I think option 1 is preferable, because it leaves them more wiggle room. If it turns out they’ve missed projections and the seats aren’t needed where they thought they’d be, they still have a couple schools they could move. If they move 3 of the 5 option programs now, they are really tying their hands for the future. Once they move them, they won’t move them again for 20 or more years, and it may be that they could use that flexibility again in the not-to-distant future. If they are building additions or a new school in 5 years, that might be a better time to look at the option locations again.

OP, did you advocate for the Henry community last year during the South Arlington boundary redrawing? Did you advocate for Nottingham two years ago when the staff tried to do the same thing to that school that they’re now proposing for McKinley? If not, why should anyone else care what happens to McKinley when you didn’t care what happened to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?

After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.

No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).

And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.

I think the thought is to put more VPI in the NW to increase diversity.
Also, people shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the schools seem a little imbalanced by the spreadsheet they sent out. The spread sheet is very back of the envelope, and that part isn't being voted on until next spring. Other than things that are clearly written on the wall (the ashlawn bounary won't follow the orange line so much, most of current asfs will move to key neighborhood, etc.), its not worth getting bent out of shape.
Would you rather they have the no moves map?

No, I think they need moves, and I think they need to balance capacity. But if you are going to be busing kids up to NW (to the tune of 350-370 kids) to create diversity, should those be preschool kids, or should they be K-5 kids? Preschool kids do not interact with the K-5 population, so its kind of smoke and mirrors to put a bunch of 4 years olds on a bus from South Arlington to Jamestown so that you can make the schools look more diverse. Personally, I think they should model what it would look like to level out K-5 enrollment numbers consistently across all school buildings (so that we don't have some schools with 700+ K-5 kids, and others with <500 K-5 kids) and then you can move the preschoolers to fill out the larger buildings. They should also look at option school locations from that perspective.

I think VPI kids have the option to stay at the school when they enter kindergarten assuming its not overcrowded. VPI is another way to increase diversity,