Ideas of How APS Can Solve High School Overcrowding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Thank you. I wonder if there's a shorthand way of bringing this up every time someone starts with the "Why don't they just solve everything?!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Most of the elementary and MS issues are already addressed in the Superintendent's CIP. Not all, but most. At the HS level, it falls short by almost 50% and that's using all sorts of creative (e.g. double-shifting, online learning) options. There currently isn't funding allocated for that sort of expenditure at the HS level. Most people I know aren't advocating reallocating, they are advocating lifting the debt capacity limit and getting the funds to build seats at the HS level as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Our family will gladly give up every single dollar being spent to support affordable housing and all other affiliated costs including social services. We don't live in affordable housing, but the County and all the AH proponents say that affordable housing is important and beneficial to all Arlingtonians. Well, I'm willing to give up that benefit.

Then this is not an actual sacrifice. Let's see if you do better on the next one!

More parkland. I love living in Arlington because of all the greenspace, however I'd rather my child actually have a seat in a real classroom building rather than yet another park to play in.

The green space is not just about playgrounds. If there are fewer fields, fewer kids get to play sports. So are you willing to make the following tradeoff: "My kid will never get to play team sports. There won't be enough space in Arlington, and the only places with enough space are so far out that even if the teams out there accepted kids from Arlington, getting my child there would be logistically impossible.

What else? I'd be willing to pay higher taxes directed at school capacity solutions.

You might, but most citizens might not. You have to work within the existing levels of funding. But you can still have money come out of your pocket.

The school budget will no longer be able to support a full day of school on Wednesdays, so early-release Wednesdays are back. If you only need childcare on early-release days, too back. You're paying for afternoon extended day. Or maybe you can hire a nanny or sitter.

Also out of the budget: FLES. You want foreign language instruction for your elementary school student, get together with your PTA and see what you can do about a before- or after-school program (but it won't be on Wednesdays, and it won't be for the full year).

See? That's what tradeoffs and sacrifices look like. They're concrete, and they hit you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Our family will gladly give up every single dollar being spent to support affordable housing and all other affiliated costs including social services. We don't live in affordable housing, but the County and all the AH proponents say that affordable housing is important and beneficial to all Arlingtonians. Well, I'm willing to give up that benefit.

Then this is not an actual sacrifice. Let's see if you do better on the next one!

More parkland. I love living in Arlington because of all the greenspace, however I'd rather my child actually have a seat in a real classroom building rather than yet another park to play in.

The green space is not just about playgrounds. If there are fewer fields, fewer kids get to play sports. So are you willing to make the following tradeoff: "My kid will never get to play team sports. There won't be enough space in Arlington, and the only places with enough space are so far out that even if the teams out there accepted kids from Arlington, getting my child there would be logistically impossible.

What else? I'd be willing to pay higher taxes directed at school capacity solutions.

You might, but most citizens might not. You have to work within the existing levels of funding. But you can still have money come out of your pocket.

The school budget will no longer be able to support a full day of school on Wednesdays, so early-release Wednesdays are back. If you only need childcare on early-release days, too back. You're paying for afternoon extended day. Or maybe you can hire a nanny or sitter.

Also out of the budget: FLES. You want foreign language instruction for your elementary school student, get together with your PTA and see what you can do about a before- or after-school program (but it won't be on Wednesdays, and it won't be for the full year).

See? That's what tradeoffs and sacrifices look like. They're concrete, and they hit you.

Ok. I'll ask again. What is YOUR proposal? You're doing a great job at knocking others. Yes, I put AH on there because the County is spending millions on AH-related costs. Do I want my kid to play sports? Yes. But I want him to have a seat in HS more than I want him to play rec or travel anything.

There are hard choices, but IMO educating our children is or should be near the top of the priority list. So, how would you address this problem? Seriously, put it out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hostility of the APS apologists on this thread is amazing. No wonder it's made bad decisions that leave APS unprepared to handle the number of MS and HS students in a few years. The leadership clearly has surrounded itself with a bunch of sycophants that defend every decision made or left unmade by Murphy and crew.

I'm not an APS apologist. I'm well informed -- informed enough to know that there aren't any easy answers.

I see the people demanding that someone "do something" the same way I see Trump voters -- as people who believe that there is some obvious solution out there and we just need the right leaders to say it. In fact, at the national and the local levels, policy and budget trade offs create winners and losers and there are a lot of entrenched opposing viewpoints, which is why both Trump voters and parents who think the rest of the Arlington taxpayers are just going to roll over and build a fourth high school because you signed a petition are WASTING THEIR TIME. There are no simple, obvious solutions to our problems, just tough choices that require a lot of time and effort to build consensus around.

Public policy is not a one-time vote on a candidate or a one-time vote on a CIP. It's a process and you have to stay informed and stay active if you want to make a difference and get support for your point of view.

Exactly. Tough choices.

Out of curiosity, what would you propose APS and the County do to fix this problem? You're not the only one following this issue, and many of us see them as being unwilling to make hard choices and instead leave this as TBD in the CIP, thereby continuing to kick the can down the road until it's too late. Since you, like others of us, are well informed I'm guessing you have your own views. I'm interested in hearing other alternatives that actually fix the problem of having sufficient APS capacity for all students.

As for wasting time, at least one School Board member has privately said to small groups of parents that they need more public outcry since the County Board rarely hears from those who care about schools. The CB hears plenty from the affordable housing advocates and other public interest needs. Those of us who care about schools have either typically only engaged the school board, or in the case of many like another poster, not engaged at all assuming that Arlington wouldn't ever let a situation like this happen.

For one thing I recognize that this shitshow is a symptom of the real problem, which is the failure of the two boards to strategically plan and communicate over the last however many moons about how to deal with growth in the county and the competing demands on land and money. The boards should implement the three-tiered framework outlined by the joint facilities planning committee--which by the way specifically suggested that they use the VHC parcel as an opportunity to implement the committee's proposed siting process to evaluate the best use of that site from a holistic, long term perspective. (The Buck parcel is another candidate--it would also be county land, although it is adjacent to W-L and would be an obvious place for APS to expand.) I, along with many other well informed people, have been lobbying the county board to drop this blue ribbon commission idea and move ahead with the detailed plan they already have from a citizen commission to make rational resource allocation decisions. The whole point of that year long thing was to figure out how to deal with all these issues but also how to work together as a community-including how to communicate and how to engage people in a way that doesn't just involve evening meetings--in order to avoid these last-minute, reactionary flare ups and half-baked alternatives that go nowhere. It would be nice, if people are taking the time to write to the county board or the school board, to encourage them to revisit the facility committee recommendations. The CIP vote is the current manifestation of the problem, but certainly not the last one we'll face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Most of the elementary and MS issues are already addressed in the Superintendent's CIP. Not all, but most. At the HS level, it falls short by almost 50% and that's using all sorts of creative (e.g. double-shifting, online learning) options. There currently isn't funding allocated for that sort of expenditure at the HS level. Most people I know aren't advocating reallocating, they are advocating lifting the debt capacity limit and getting the funds to build seats at the HS level as well.

Then you're not giving the county board anything to make that kind of political tradeoff. You're saying -- we want you to take bond capacity away from parks, away from infrastructure (transportation, road repairs, water/sewers), and give it to the schools. Not because we went out there and convinced the rest of Arlington voters that this was in the community's best interest and built a community consensus. Not because we made the case with real facts and showed how Arlington wouldn't be harmed by these trade-offs. Not because we worked to get the candidates elected who were committed to making the schools the top priority. Because we signed a petition.

You say you want them to make tough choices -- taking money out of Metro and street repairs and giving it to APS isn't a tough choice, it is political SUICIDE.

[Anonymous]

Taking the money away from Columba pike wouldn't be hard at all. The electorate has already shown they could give a shit. There aren't enough engaged voters who use the transit it now as it is.
The plan they trying to sell sucks anyway and they don't have a place for the buses.
Seems reasonable.


And no one cares that you don't like the petition. Don't sign it and shut up already.

[Anonymous]

Please let's recognize that we all care about our community and are all involved and informed. We don't need to compete over who has attended more meetings, etc. The people behind the petition include people who serve on APS committees, speak at public hearings, respond to surveys, write letters to the School and County Boards and so on. This petition is not reactionary. It is a final effort to raise awareness - among many people who might not be aware, such as parents of preschoolers - and generate support within the community for a solution to this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hostility of the APS apologists on this thread is amazing. No wonder it's made bad decisions that leave APS unprepared to handle the number of MS and HS students in a few years. The leadership clearly has surrounded itself with a bunch of sycophants that defend every decision made or left unmade by Murphy and crew.

I'm not an APS apologist. I'm well informed -- informed enough to know that there aren't any easy answers.

I see the people demanding that someone "do something" the same way I see Trump voters -- as people who believe that there is some obvious solution out there and we just need the right leaders to say it. In fact, at the national and the local levels, policy and budget trade offs create winners and losers and there are a lot of entrenched opposing viewpoints, which is why both Trump voters and parents who think the rest of the Arlington taxpayers are just going to roll over and build a fourth high school because you signed a petition are WASTING THEIR TIME. There are no simple, obvious solutions to our problems, just tough choices that require a lot of time and effort to build consensus around.

Public policy is not a one-time vote on a candidate or a one-time vote on a CIP. It's a process and you have to stay informed and stay active if you want to make a difference and get support for your point of view.

This will never happen. It's time for the people we elected to lead to do just that and to make the tough choices. Because there is no neighborhood that won't try to fight a new school for one reason or another. And there will always be some who think it's okay to short-change today's children in order to keep their taxes lower. "The Arlington Way" is now just a smoke screen for officials to hide behind. MAKE THE TOUGH CHOICES. THAT WHAT LEADERS DO.

I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Oakridge's capacity issues are going to be handled by boundary changes. Some of you are going to Drew after Montessori is moved out. They are not building a new school there any time in soon (look at the projections).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hostility of the APS apologists on this thread is amazing. No wonder it's made bad decisions that leave APS unprepared to handle the number of MS and HS students in a few years. The leadership clearly has surrounded itself with a bunch of sycophants that defend every decision made or left unmade by Murphy and crew.

I'm not an APS apologist. I'm well informed -- informed enough to know that there aren't any easy answers.

I see the people demanding that someone "do something" the same way I see Trump voters -- as people who believe that there is some obvious solution out there and we just need the right leaders to say it. In fact, at the national and the local levels, policy and budget trade offs create winners and losers and there are a lot of entrenched opposing viewpoints, which is why both Trump voters and parents who think the rest of the Arlington taxpayers are just going to roll over and build a fourth high school because you signed a petition are WASTING THEIR TIME. There are no simple, obvious solutions to our problems, just tough choices that require a lot of time and effort to build consensus around.

Public policy is not a one-time vote on a candidate or a one-time vote on a CIP. It's a process and you have to stay informed and stay active if you want to make a difference and get support for your point of view.

This will never happen. It's time for the people we elected to lead to do just that and to make the tough choices. Because there is no neighborhood that won't try to fight a new school for one reason or another. And there will always be some who think it's okay to short-change today's children in order to keep their taxes lower. "The Arlington Way" is now just a smoke screen for officials to hide behind. MAKE THE TOUGH CHOICES. THAT WHAT LEADERS DO.

I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Oakridge's capacity issues are going to be handled by boundary changes. Some of you are going to Drew after Montessori is moved out. They are not building a new school there any time in soon (look at the projections).

And the new elementary school at TJ will also help alleviate overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Most of the elementary and MS issues are already addressed in the Superintendent's CIP. Not all, but most. At the HS level, it falls short by almost 50% and that's using all sorts of creative (e.g. double-shifting, online learning) options. There currently isn't funding allocated for that sort of expenditure at the HS level. Most people I know aren't advocating reallocating, they are advocating lifting the debt capacity limit and getting the funds to build seats at the HS level as well.

Then you're not giving the county board anything to make that kind of political tradeoff. You're saying -- we want you to take bond capacity away from parks, away from infrastructure (transportation, road repairs, water/sewers), and give it to the schools. Not because we went out there and convinced the rest of Arlington voters that this was in the community's best interest and built a community consensus. Not because we made the case with real facts and showed how Arlington wouldn't be harmed by these trade-offs. Not because we worked to get the candidates elected who were committed to making the schools the top priority. Because we signed a petition.

You say you want them to make tough choices -- taking money out of Metro and street repairs and giving it to APS isn't a tough choice, it is political SUICIDE.

School ARE infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hostility of the APS apologists on this thread is amazing. No wonder it's made bad decisions that leave APS unprepared to handle the number of MS and HS students in a few years. The leadership clearly has surrounded itself with a bunch of sycophants that defend every decision made or left unmade by Murphy and crew.

I'm not an APS apologist. I'm well informed -- informed enough to know that there aren't any easy answers.

I see the people demanding that someone "do something" the same way I see Trump voters -- as people who believe that there is some obvious solution out there and we just need the right leaders to say it. In fact, at the national and the local levels, policy and budget trade offs create winners and losers and there are a lot of entrenched opposing viewpoints, which is why both Trump voters and parents who think the rest of the Arlington taxpayers are just going to roll over and build a fourth high school because you signed a petition are WASTING THEIR TIME. There are no simple, obvious solutions to our problems, just tough choices that require a lot of time and effort to build consensus around.

Public policy is not a one-time vote on a candidate or a one-time vote on a CIP. It's a process and you have to stay informed and stay active if you want to make a difference and get support for your point of view.

This will never happen. It's time for the people we elected to lead to do just that and to make the tough choices. Because there is no neighborhood that won't try to fight a new school for one reason or another. And there will always be some who think it's okay to short-change today's children in order to keep their taxes lower. "The Arlington Way" is now just a smoke screen for officials to hide behind. MAKE THE TOUGH CHOICES. THAT WHAT LEADERS DO.

I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Oakridge's capacity issues are going to be handled by boundary changes. Some of you are going to Drew after Montessori is moved out. They are not building a new school there any time in soon (look at the projections).

And the new elementary school at TJ will also help alleviate overcrowding.

Why are you talking about elementary schools when the real problems are at the middle and high school levels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ok. I'll ask again. What is YOUR proposal? You're doing a great job at knocking others. Yes, I put AH on there because the County is spending millions on AH-related costs. Do I want my kid to play sports? Yes. But I want him to have a seat in HS more than I want him to play rec or travel anything.

There are hard choices, but IMO educating our children is or should be near the top of the priority list. So, how would you address this problem? Seriously, put it out there.

I am not knocking others' choices (I mean, I can and I do, but here, I am just knocking people who claim that there's an easy solution out there and the County Board and School Board just need to do it).

First, I want people to remember that not only is there only so much money (and debt capacity) and land around, but they're not all in one big pot. So you (general you) can't say, "We didn't build the trolley, so now we have money for schools!" The trolley money was only there for a trolley. It's gone now. You're not being generous when you suggest that the VHC site go for schools but Arlington County can keep Jennie Dean as a park. Those are AC properties, not APS.

FWIW, I think putting a HS on the VHS space makes sense, especially if it has a pool that would end talk of putting an aquatic center at Long Bridge. I also wonder if the Children's School and Integration Station could be moved there if Reed becomes an elementary school (in which case I think it should use the Westover Library as its library and take other steps to keep its footprint as small as possible).

I think HB should be built to max size. Will that make the program a little different? Probably. Will it kill it? No.

I think the Buck property should be used for AH.

I think FLES should go away. I think it should take 1:1 with it, at least until there's been some rigorous cost:benefit analysis done.

I have no idea what this would do for the bottom line, but I am willing to give up some of the things that supposedly benefit me (or in the case of nearby AH, possibly hurt me, if the rumors about it lowering property values are true) for the sake of meeting all the community's needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hostility of the APS apologists on this thread is amazing. No wonder it's made bad decisions that leave APS unprepared to handle the number of MS and HS students in a few years. The leadership clearly has surrounded itself with a bunch of sycophants that defend every decision made or left unmade by Murphy and crew.

I'm not an APS apologist. I'm well informed -- informed enough to know that there aren't any easy answers.

I see the people demanding that someone "do something" the same way I see Trump voters -- as people who believe that there is some obvious solution out there and we just need the right leaders to say it. In fact, at the national and the local levels, policy and budget trade offs create winners and losers and there are a lot of entrenched opposing viewpoints, which is why both Trump voters and parents who think the rest of the Arlington taxpayers are just going to roll over and build a fourth high school because you signed a petition are WASTING THEIR TIME. There are no simple, obvious solutions to our problems, just tough choices that require a lot of time and effort to build consensus around.

Public policy is not a one-time vote on a candidate or a one-time vote on a CIP. It's a process and you have to stay informed and stay active if you want to make a difference and get support for your point of view.

This will never happen. It's time for the people we elected to lead to do just that and to make the tough choices. Because there is no neighborhood that won't try to fight a new school for one reason or another. And there will always be some who think it's okay to short-change today's children in order to keep their taxes lower. "The Arlington Way" is now just a smoke screen for officials to hide behind. MAKE THE TOUGH CHOICES. THAT WHAT LEADERS DO.

I don't think people understand that some of the tradeoffs are between today's children and today's children. If they commit to a new high school, that takes a lot of other construction off the table. Kids at the elementary and middle school level will be in trailers and unrenovated schools for the next 10 years. There won't be enough money to deal with the overcrowding at Long Branch, the R-B corridor, Oakridge overcrowding that isn't addressed by the new S. Arlington elementary, etc. The tradeoffs aren't all between a new high school and parkland. It's between a high school and two new elementary schools and two expansions.

Oakridge's capacity issues are going to be handled by boundary changes. Some of you are going to Drew after Montessori is moved out. They are not building a new school there any time in soon (look at the projections).

And the new elementary school at TJ will also help alleviate overcrowding.

Why are you talking about elementary schools when the real problems are at the middle and high school levels?

They don't have enough money under the bond ceiling to build a fourth comprehensive high school, even if the county gives them the land.
Getting the county to give them more debt capacity would require the county board to take that money away from parks, transportation, roads/infrastructure, and other capital projects.
If APS does not get the additional money it needs to build a fourth high school from the county, it would need to give up one of its elementary or middle school projects.
That would make the crowding problems at those levels worse than what is now projected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First, I want people to remember that not only is there only so much money (and debt capacity) and land around, but they're not all in one big pot. So you (general you) can't say, "We didn't build the trolley, so now we have money for schools!" The trolley money was only there for a trolley. It's gone now. You're not being generous when you suggest that the VHC site go for schools but Arlington County can keep Jennie Dean as a park. Those are AC properties, not APS.

Money is not just money, too. $25M of county money spent on a school is $25M of county money spent on a school. $25M of county money spent on affordable housing qualifies us for $25M in federal grants, which gets us $50M of housing compared to $25M of schools. $25M of county money spent on transportation gets us $25M of state money and $50M of federal money, which gets of $100M in road improvements compared to $25M of schools. (I'm making these numbers up, but you see the point.) The financial tradeoffs are not always 1:1, which is why it is hard to look at the net community benefits and decide what is the best choice for the community when you're the decisionmaker.