No swap to asfs building, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally confused that people are still talking about a Key ASFS swap. I thought that was written off as an unworkable concept pretty early on. The only Key relocation scenarios that had real traction involved moving iimmersion to areas with more native Spanish speakers. If doing that isn’t in the cards this go around, I don’t think they’ll just move immersion over a few blocks to the ASFS building instead.

+1

I think it’s just wishful thinking.

It’s not happening. Key ain’t moving.

Pretty soon the only Spanish speakers at Key will be the teachers. The school has been captured by the surrounding neighborhoods, which are largely wealthy and white. Applications are already 4 to 1 English to Spanish. It'd be utterly spineless of APS to keep immersion at Key, as well as impractical.

False. Most of the previously zoned part of Lyon Village took a hard pass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally confused that people are still talking about a Key ASFS swap. I thought that was written off as an unworkable concept pretty early on. The only Key relocation scenarios that had real traction involved moving iimmersion to areas with more native Spanish speakers. If doing that isn’t in the cards this go around, I don’t think they’ll just move immersion over a few blocks to the ASFS building instead.

+1

I think it’s just wishful thinking.

It’s not happening. Key ain’t moving.

Pretty soon the only Spanish speakers at Key will be the teachers. The school has been captured by the surrounding neighborhoods, which are largely wealthy and white. Applications are already 4 to 1 English to Spanish. It'd be utterly spineless of APS to keep immersion at Key, as well as impractical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally confused that people are still talking about a Key ASFS swap. I thought that was written off as an unworkable concept pretty early on. The only Key relocation scenarios that had real traction involved moving iimmersion to areas with more native Spanish speakers. If doing that isn’t in the cards this go around, I don’t think they’ll just move immersion over a few blocks to the ASFS building instead.

+1

I think it’s just wishful thinking.

It’s not happening. Key ain’t moving.

Anonymous wrote:Unless the add a crossing guard! Any street is cross able with a guard.

Makes more sense for them to add a crossing guard at Kirkwood for the Lyon Village families closest to ASFS who are currently zoned for Taylor so they can enter the school via the back entrance. Do any ES have crossing guards at more than one location? The few I know only have one.

Anonymous wrote:I’m totally confused that people are still talking about a Key ASFS swap. I thought that was written off as an unworkable concept pretty early on. The only Key relocation scenarios that had real traction involved moving iimmersion to areas with more native Spanish speakers. If doing that isn’t in the cards this go around, I don’t think they’ll just move immersion over a few blocks to the ASFS building instead.

+1

I think it’s just wishful thinking.

I’m totally confused that people are still talking about a Key ASFS swap. I thought that was written off as an unworkable concept pretty early on. The only Key relocation scenarios that had real traction involved moving iimmersion to areas with more native Spanish speakers. If doing that isn’t in the cards this go around, I don’t think they’ll just move immersion over a few blocks to the ASFS building instead.

Unless the add a crossing guard! Any street is cross able with a guard.

Anonymous wrote:The thing I think makes it least likely they'll move Key anywhere other than ASFS is that Glebe isn't on the list. If ASFS and Key were both to be neighborhood schools, it you'd want Glebe at least on the list of potentially impacted schools in case they wanted to pull one or two of the western planning units into ASFS.

As I think of it, is any of the ASFS walk zone currently zoned to Glebe? If so, that combined with exclusion of Glebe would strongly suggest they're planning a Key-ASFS swap. Maybe that's why they pulled down the walk zone maps, to keep people from making that connection before they were ready?

No. The Glebe planning unit closest to ASFS is on the west side of Quincy, north of Route 66/Oak Grove Park. Right across the street, the east side of Quincy is zoned for Taylor. Quincy is considered not crossable by foot for ES students.

The thing I think makes it least likely they'll move Key anywhere other than ASFS is that Glebe isn't on the list. If ASFS and Key were both to be neighborhood schools, it you'd want Glebe at least on the list of potentially impacted schools in case they wanted to pull one or two of the western planning units into ASFS.

As I think of it, is any of the ASFS walk zone currently zoned to Glebe? If so, that combined with exclusion of Glebe would strongly suggest they're planning a Key-ASFS swap. Maybe that's why they pulled down the walk zone maps, to keep people from making that connection before they were ready?

Anonymous wrote:If they’re going to consider moving option schools as part of these boundary adjustments, they’ll eventually need to make that intention very clear. There are arguments both for and against shaking things up, but in any event it will significantly impact how boundaries need to be drawn and isn’t something they can just slip in at the last minute. I wish they would make it explicit one way or the other now, rather than fueling the anxiety created by uncertainty.

I wouldn't be surprised if, when they release scenarios next month, we see scenarios that leave everything where it is and scenarios that would move option schools. One of the big criticisms of the location review last spring was that we weren't given an opportunity to see the practical effect of the proposed changes on boundaries (e.g., did a proposed change actually improve anything, or were they just weird in a different direction). This would address that criticism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham is irrelevant right now because nothing is going to even be discussed over there for another two years, so even if they will move ATS there it's not going to be debated now. Anyone talking about Nottingham in this process is trolling.

It would only be relevant if they move Key now.

That still doesn't make Nottingham relevant. If you feel otherwise, lay out the steps for how Key brings Nottingham into the mix in this process despite the staff saying Nottingham-area boundaries are not up for consideration in this phase. If you just float out some general, "Oh, it could happen," I'm going to ignore you.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

I think you are seeing something that is not there. I don't read into this in the same manner as you suggest. It has been clearly stated that no option schools are changing/moving in 2019.

If I'm understanding the PP's response correctly, what s/he's suggesting is that new boundaries are being done for 2019; but in 2020, if a school building switches to an option school (or vice versa), then the students attending school at that building will be transferred to another building. So, for example if School A is currently option and School B neighborhood, new boundaries are drawn impacting PUs in School B. Round 2, School B becomes option and School A becomes neighborhood. "Attendance zone" is not impacted; but students will be transferred from school B to school A because their program or neighborhood school moved.

So, option schools may not move in 2019; but they might move in 2020.

No, you are misunderstanding. The part about planning units only being impacted once means that no planning units will change schools more than once in this process. If a PU moves from School A to School B for 2019, it will not be moved from School B for 2021. This further means that any school that receives planning units in 2019 cannot be considered for an option site for 2021. If, for instance, they move planning units from ASFS to Taylor, then not only can those individual units not be moved again in 2021, but APS also could not decide two years later to make Taylor an option site for 2021, because then the units that moved from ASFS to Taylor would have to move twice. Taylor would be protected as a neighborhood school for 2021.

This is a separate issue from the "boundary zone" wordsmithing. People were saying that because no current option schools are on the list of schools for 2019, that means APS definitely isn't going to move any option schools. This is not an accurate conclusion based on the announcement. The announcement did not say new boundaries would be drawn for all of the schools on the 2019 list, it said planning units in the attendance zones for those schools may be affected. None of that would preclude APS from relocating an option school for 2019 and moving students from the attendance zone of the former neighborhood school to other neighborhood schools, or from moving students from any of the listed attendance zones into a former option school turned neighborhood school. If, for instance, they were to move Key immersion to Randolph, the new Key zone would be able to draw from attendance zones on the list (e.g., ASFS, Taylor, Long Branch), but could not draw from Jamestown or Glebe because those schools' attendance zones are not on the 2019 list. Over by Randolph, everyone in the current Randolph zone could be moved elsewhere, because that is one of the potentially impacted attendance zones for 2019. Further, in addition to moving those students to Barcoft, Drew, etc., that are on the 2019 list, current Randolph units could theoretically be moved to Carlin Springs, even though it's not on the 2019 list, because moving units from Randolph to Carlin Springs doesn't impact planning units in the current Carlin Springs attendance zone.

If they’re going to consider moving option schools as part of these boundary adjustments, they’ll eventually need to make that intention very clear. There are arguments both for and against shaking things up, but in any event it will significantly impact how boundaries need to be drawn and isn’t something they can just slip in at the last minute. I wish they would make it explicit one way or the other now, rather than fueling the anxiety created by uncertainty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham is irrelevant right now because nothing is going to even be discussed over there for another two years, so even if they will move ATS there it's not going to be debated now. Anyone talking about Nottingham in this process is trolling.

It would only be relevant if they move Key now.

That still doesn't make Nottingham relevant. If you feel otherwise, lay out the steps for how Key brings Nottingham into the mix in this process despite the staff saying Nottingham-area boundaries are not up for consideration in this phase. If you just float out some general, "Oh, it could happen," I'm going to ignore you.

The obvious one is: key moves to ATS, ATS to Nottingham. It’s driven by need for the seats now in the east.

Wow, you have no understanding of what's happening. Since they're doing a full rezoning for ASFS this fall to be implemented is 2019 and have committed to not moving any planning unit more than once in this process, they need to find final homes for all of the Key-area planning units for 2019. If they're going to do that by moving Key, they need to move Key to a location that's available in fall of 2019. If they move it to ATS, then they need to find a site for ATS that is also available in 2019. They have already explicitly said in this announcement that Nottingham will not be an available site for 2019, so your plan cannot happen.

They talk about boundary changes. Key is not mentioned either. So they move Key, they move ATS, then Nottingham students disperse and Reed mops up the excess a year later.

Go back and reread the announcement. It refers to the boundary processes for attendance zones. It's very carefully worded to not say they'll be doing the boundaries for schools, but rather will be potentially relocating students from those attendance zones. Under your scenario, the units in the current Nottingham attendance zone would literally have no school to attend for two years.

Is that to get around the “no planning unit will be moved twice in 5 years” rule?

No. From the announcement: "A school may be involved in both boundary processes, but a specific planning unit will only be impacted once to minimize the number of times that individual students who have continued to reside in a particular attendance area are impacted by the boundary change."

than what is the point of the bolded text?

It means they’re not committing to all of the current neighborhood schools staying neighborhood schools - that’s why they refer to the current attendance zones for those schools rather than the schools themselves.

I think you are seeing something that is not there. I don't read into this in the same manner as you suggest. It has been clearly stated that no option schools are changing/moving in 2019.

If I'm understanding the PP's response correctly, what s/he's suggesting is that new boundaries are being done for 2019; but in 2020, if a school building switches to an option school (or vice versa), then the students attending school at that building will be transferred to another building. So, for example if School A is currently option and School B neighborhood, new boundaries are drawn impacting PUs in School B. Round 2, School B becomes option and School A becomes neighborhood. "Attendance zone" is not impacted; but students will be transferred from school B to school A because their program or neighborhood school moved.

So, option schools may not move in 2019; but they might move in 2020.

Anonymous wrote:Never say never. It’s actually an interesting idea. I do think people are guessing what the plan is and reading their own bias into the interpretation.

Interesting that Abingdon is mentioned twice. Maybe because of Drew rezone Abingdon will be under capacity for 2019 then room for more kids from Carlin Springs in 2020. It makes sense to give Drew a true walk zone and expand into Abingdon and snake around Oakridge.

Why would "it make sense" to expand Drew into Abington and "snake around" Oakridge? In case you are t aware, what you are describing is a gerrymander that would pluck the affordavle housing currently in those zones and load it into drew. That's a great way to create another school with a farms rate north of 70 percent.