Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sure hope the SB backs the staff on this and shuts this ridiculousness down. The only people fit to make proposals for the entire district are staff. If you can show they are flawed, then Give the specifics. Otherwise, please stop. Any “proposal” from a self interested school is inherently suspect. That said m, I bet the SB ends up moving no school. And the boundary madness that follows will be epic. One for the ages.

If they think a lot of people are angry now, just wait until they announce that they’re going with the crazy boundary scenario after all.

+100 I hope they realize that if they cave to the tantrums by McKinley and Key they'll see a 100x more of it from every school if they go with that boundary scenario.

Well, they have already caved to the tantrums of Tuckahoe and then Nottingham in 2018-- https://www.arlnow.com/2018/04/24/parents-push-back-on-proposed-attendance-changes-at-nottingham-elementary-school/

And then to Fairlington last year-- https://www.arlnow.com/2018/10/30/aps-proposes-new-boundary-map-to-keep-fairlington-students-at-abingdon-though-concerns-linger/

This is just the way it is done at APS. Sorry, but most of you parents on here making crappy comments about Key, ATS, and McKinley would be doing the same thing if your school was in the cross-fire. We're a county that is probably 30% lawyers and lobbyists. We're fighters by nature. How do you expect these decisions to happen? I know that sounds cynical, but this process is never going to change. I can't wait until my kids are done.

I think you’re missing the fact that MANY school communities will be impacted - whether programs move or not. Some significantly. But they aren’t protesting in a self-serving manner because they understand change is necessary.

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Key parent, but I thought APS needs seats at Key because of all the new affordable housing the county just approved. So if most of Key doesn’t follow to ATS, doesn’t that still leave APS without enough seat in that area? The only way to remove that uncertainty is to leave every school where it is and draw boundaries. Broaden the walk zone to the full mile allowed under APS policy instead of 1/2 mile used today if you want to reduce bus costs.

You are assuming that the neighborhood boundary around Key stays exactly the same. If some of those kids in the current ASFS zone choose not to follow Key to ATS, they may be rezoned to Long Brach, Taylor, or ASFS — not necessarily Key.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sure hope the SB backs the staff on this and shuts this ridiculousness down. The only people fit to make proposals for the entire district are staff. If you can show they are flawed, then Give the specifics. Otherwise, please stop. Any “proposal” from a self interested school is inherently suspect. That said m, I bet the SB ends up moving no school. And the boundary madness that follows will be epic. One for the ages.

If they think a lot of people are angry now, just wait until they announce that they’re going with the crazy boundary scenario after all.

+100 I hope they realize that if they cave to the tantrums by McKinley and Key they'll see a 100x more of it from every school if they go with that boundary scenario.

Well, they have already caved to the tantrums of Tuckahoe and then Nottingham in 2018-- https://www.arlnow.com/2018/04/24/parents-push-back-on-proposed-attendance-changes-at-nottingham-elementary-school/

And then to Fairlington last year-- https://www.arlnow.com/2018/10/30/aps-proposes-new-boundary-map-to-keep-fairlington-students-at-abingdon-though-concerns-linger/

This is just the way it is done at APS. Sorry, but most of you parents on here making crappy comments about Key, ATS, and McKinley would be doing the same thing if your school was in the cross-fire. We're a county that is probably 30% lawyers and lobbyists. We're fighters by nature. How do you expect these decisions to happen? I know that sounds cynical, but this process is never going to change. I can't wait until my kids are done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sure hope the SB backs the staff on this and shuts this ridiculousness down. The only people fit to make proposals for the entire district are staff. If you can show they are flawed, then Give the specifics. Otherwise, please stop. Any “proposal” from a self interested school is inherently suspect. That said m, I bet the SB ends up moving no school. And the boundary madness that follows will be epic. One for the ages.

If they think a lot of people are angry now, just wait until they announce that they’re going with the crazy boundary scenario after all.

+100 I hope they realize that if they cave to the tantrums by McKinley and Key they'll see a 100x more of it from every school if they go with that boundary scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Key parent, but I thought APS needs seats at Key because of all the new affordable housing the county just approved. So if most of Key doesn’t follow to ATS, doesn’t that still leave APS without enough seat in that area? The only way to remove that uncertainty is to leave every school where it is and draw boundaries. Broaden the walk zone to the full mile allowed under APS policy instead of 1/2 mile used today if you want to reduce bus costs.

There are 271 kids from the ASFS zone at Key on the most recent transfer report. If every single one of those kids stays, that still “creates” 382 seats that weren’t there before because the building capacity is 653.

+1 And if every single one of those kids drops out of Key because of a location move the board might want to consider what's wrong with an option program that so many people would choose ONLY because of location.

It is unfortunate that this realignment had to happen so soon after they dropped the neighborhood preference for Key. If they'd had more time for the neighborhood-preferred families to age out there might be less histrionics because the school would be full of people who chose it more for the program NOT because it was close to home (to some degree since we know option enrollment does tend to be higher among people closer to the school).

Key is a total pain in the ass for me to get to, so it should be a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did summer camp at MCKinley and I have to say it was kind of a weird out of the way location. I’m really surprised it’s being pitched as a good option school site. It’s basically super inconvenient if you don’t live right there. And no, I’m not an ATS or McKinley parent. It’s just not a place that’s convenient to anything else if it’s not your immediate neighborhood.

Another great reason for McKinley to be an option school. Parents will have a choice to go there (or not).

Or a good reason to just let the neighborhood keep its school? Truly a pain to get there. That should be a disqualifying characteristic for an option program location.

That it is “a pain to get there” for you is not a good reason for APS to decide that McKinley should remain a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did summer camp at MCKinley and I have to say it was kind of a weird out of the way location. I’m really surprised it’s being pitched as a good option school site. It’s basically super inconvenient if you don’t live right there. And no, I’m not an ATS or McKinley parent. It’s just not a place that’s convenient to anything else if it’s not your immediate neighborhood.

Another great reason for McKinley to be an option school. Parents will have a choice to go there (or not).

Or a good reason to just let the neighborhood keep its school? Truly a pain to get there. That should be a disqualifying characteristic for an option program location.

It's not a pain to get to, it's a straight shot down Ohio/McKinley from either Wilson or Washington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the new Option 3? The one that took hundreds of hours and everyone will love?

It works great for most of Arlington. What is the best way to submit it to APS?

Was that meant to be sarcastic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We did summer camp at MCKinley and I have to say it was kind of a weird out of the way location. I’m really surprised it’s being pitched as a good option school site. It’s basically super inconvenient if you don’t live right there. And no, I’m not an ATS or McKinley parent. It’s just not a place that’s convenient to anything else if it’s not your immediate neighborhood.

Another great reason for McKinley to be an option school. Parents will have a choice to go there (or not).

Or a good reason to just let the neighborhood keep its school? Truly a pain to get there. That should be a disqualifying characteristic for an option program location.

Anonymous wrote:They are allowed to use 1 mile but they don’t. Most planning units outside the 1/2 mile APS “walk shed” (their term, not mine) are excluded. Look at the walk zone maps.

They are excluded in the sense that they are not factored into boundary decisions, but they don’t get bus service

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this the new Option 3? The one that took hundreds of hours and everyone will love?

It works great for most of Arlington. What is the best way to submit it to APS?

Does it? I’d love to see breakouts of the data: school utilization, FRL rates, transportation costs, how many kids that would have to move, especially any that moved in the last year’s SA boundary adjustment...

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Key parent, but I thought APS needs seats at Key because of all the new affordable housing the county just approved. So if most of Key doesn’t follow to ATS, doesn’t that still leave APS without enough seat in that area? The only way to remove that uncertainty is to leave every school where it is and draw boundaries. Broaden the walk zone to the full mile allowed under APS policy instead of 1/2 mile used today if you want to reduce bus costs.

There are 271 kids from the ASFS zone at Key on the most recent transfer report. If every single one of those kids stays, that still “creates” 382 seats that weren’t there before because the building capacity is 653.

They are allowed to use 1 mile but they don’t. Most planning units outside the 1/2 mile APS “walk shed” (their term, not mine) are excluded. Look at the walk zone maps.

What are you talking about? They DO use 1 mile for the elementary walk zones.