Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

What if they expanded exclusively with more VPI students?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

If APS tries to put ATS at any other neighborhood school it will fight with a united front (PTA and all). McKinley is a divided school because most of the school can't wait to go to Reed. Since much of Ashlawn will be leaving that would be the easiest alternative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

The vast majority of SA kids that attend ATS are the UMC white people who don’t want to go to their neighborhood school. ATS’s diversity stats come from mostly their VPI kids. The worst part of moving ATS to McKinley is that the expansion of ATS would actually further the segregation of SA schools. The NA kids that attend ATS often applied to escape their overcrowded schools. Now that they won’t be overcrowded, not as many kids will apply - except they could get a flood of applicants from the 200+ kid in the McKinley walk zone. I predict if they move ATS to McKinley and expand it to 800 kids (likely McKinley currently houses w trailers) it could be detrimental the the SA neighborhood schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

I don't see APS successfully moving ATS to a location that is basically inaccessible for all of South Arlington and all high poverty communities in the County and getting away with it. The ATS community would lose their shit, AEM would get in a line to see who could condemn it the most in terms of impact on the poor.

McKrazy was already not a great look but if she is seriously arguing that the best solution is to keep her precious school from moving so she's not personally inconvenienced and to hoard ATS as only an option for the wealthiest of the wealthy - that is an even more selfish, self serving, terrible look. I think that would really be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of the County. Alot of people who have previously played along would start getting super on board with blowing the whole system up and support the future board member who wants to go all lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Tuckahoe couldn’t fit ATS. Would they shrink it? No K the first year?

Definitely would need to shrink. And MCK and Reed boundaries would travel eastward like a plague b/c so many seats.

The act of moving ATS (or any option school) will shrink it's current population. Not 100% of students from current location will go to new location (wherever that is). So that's not a fully valid argument. Tuckahoe should be discussed as Option 3.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.


I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.


If they move ATS to Tuckahoe rather than to McKinley, you can create a map that balances capacity and looks very similar to the proposal #1 map. The problem with that proposal isn't the boundaries so much as how it will negatively affect ATS. By moving it further from SA, you will reduce the number of students it pulls from SA schools (particularly low-income students), and you be basically prevent any further expansion of a very in-demand program because it will effectively max out Tuckahoe's capacity. By putting it at McKinley, you keep it more accessible to low-income students and allow for future growth of the program.

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Lisa Stengel looks like she’s willing to stand up to pushback. Good for her. If staff or the SB backs down AGAIN in the face of people like McKrazy, that will be a real problem. The reason parents feel free to pull sh!t like this is that it has a history of working, WHICH IS NOT TO THE OVERALL GOOD. Enough already.

+100 Stand your ground. I'm glad they have come out with a clear, thought out proposal and said THIS is what we are proposing. Now let's hope the school board has their back too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it still comes down to the close proximity of McK and Reed and Ashlawn make it really hard to draw a reasonable boundary for all there to be neighborhood schools. If McK wanted to stay put they needed to fight the charge to make Reed a neighborhood school. But that wasn't happening because a good chunk of McK is in Westover and they wanted a neighborhood school there.

I'd want to see boundaries/walk zones map with Tuckahoe being option and compare that to option 1's map, before concluding the same, if I were McKinley PTA. Remember if one is not overwhelmingly 'better' then it's just a game of playing politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.

Lisa Stengel looks like she’s willing to stand up to pushback. Good for her. If staff or the SB backs down AGAIN in the face of people like McKrazy, that will be a real problem. The reason parents feel free to pull sh!t like this is that it has a history of working, WHICH IS NOT TO THE OVERALL GOOD. Enough already.

Anonymous wrote:They won’t move ATS to the far north. But if McKrazy keeps McKrazying, I could see them caving and moving ATS to Ashlawn.