APS: Elementary Walk Zone surveys out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice schools are at the root of so many APS issues

Nope. Option schools are just more choices for the very fortunate that can afford to live in Arlington.

The real root cause is the expectations of Arlington parents. That and the myopic view of some that their interests are more important than those of others.

The root issue is not choice schools, it's limited resources. APS, badly, badly fumbled growth projections a decade ago and the result is that now there is competition for those resources. Of course expectations are high. Arlington County has been in the top fifty or so counties nationally in terms of educational attainment and income for at least 60 years. High expectations are not a problem.

Nope. Nobody said high expectations. The issue is not high expectations.

The issue is the expectation that others will bear the brunt of negative consequences caused by doing what is best for all of APS.

And the expectation that if parents advocate loudly enough, they can force APS to ensure their preferred outcome, regardless of the impact to others elsewhere.

Nope on the limited resources. Every school system faces this and APS has far more resources than most. Bad past choices, sure.

Yup on poor forecasting in the past. 100%.

What you're describing is in no way unique to APS. It's called politics.

I agree with PP. Expectations are out of whack. A lot of school systems just tell students where they will go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice schools are at the root of so many APS issues

Nope. Option schools are just more choices for the very fortunate that can afford to live in Arlington.

The real root cause is the expectations of Arlington parents. That and the myopic view of some that their interests are more important than those of others.

The root issue is not choice schools, it's limited resources. APS, badly, badly fumbled growth projections a decade ago and the result is that now there is competition for those resources. Of course expectations are high. Arlington County has been in the top fifty or so counties nationally in terms of educational attainment and income for at least 60 years. High expectations are not a problem.

Nope. Nobody said high expectations. The issue is not high expectations.

The issue is the expectation that others will bear the brunt of negative consequences caused by doing what is best for all of APS.

And the expectation that if parents advocate loudly enough, they can force APS to ensure their preferred outcome, regardless of the impact to others elsewhere.

Nope on the limited resources. Every school system faces this and APS has far more resources than most. Bad past choices, sure.

Yup on poor forecasting in the past. 100%.

What you're describing is in no way unique to APS. It's called politics.

Oh is that what it's called? Great. We'll if it's good enough for congress, it must be perfect for APS.

[Anonymous]

Look at the current boundary map:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESZones_Letter_2017_Revised2-1.pdf

The Reed walk zone is going to draw primarily from McKinley and Tuckahoe, with a little bit of Nottingham and maybe Glebe. Reed is being constructed to hold 725 students. McKinley is overcrowded by ~120 students this year, so it can afford to shed a few kids to Reed (plus McKinley's boundaries can also easily push into Ashlawn to create capacity relief there). Glebe is overcrowded too. But Tuckahoe and Nottingham are basically at capacity this year-- I think under/over by less than 20 kids if you look at the APS data. So when you move the walkable Tuckahoe PUs out to Reed, it leaves the Tuckahoe school building severely under-enrolled, while doing nothing about the overcrowding on the east side of the county. (Fleet will take care of most of S Arl's issues, but it isn't large enough to also take care of crowding in NE Arlington.) And since the Tuckahoe building is at the very edge of the county, you can't really draw a bigger walk zone in any other direction to pick up more kids.

As a backdrop to all of this, APS (and the county as a whole) is facing an extremely difficult budget year. The Washington Post did a whole story about it last week (google it). So APS is looking to minimize busing costs so they can spend more of their operational budget on staff salaries instead. If you have a school building like Reed in a highly walkable area, then it makes sense for it to be used as a neighborhood school. In contrast, if you have a school in a location like Tuckahoe or ATS-- bounded my major roads that are unsafe for elementary students to cross-- then you are going to be busing students to those locations anyway so use those spots for the choice schools. That's the entire point of this elementary school walk zone effort-- figure out how to minimize busing costs to the fullest extent possible, because our County is running out of money unless we increase property taxes. And during yesterday's County Board meeting, the Board voted not to advertise a property tax increase for 2019-- which means APS is going to have to operate with more kids and less money per kid for at least two years.

[Anonymous]

There are no current Tuckahoe walkers proposed to move to Reed. Tuckahoe has almost 200 current walkers. More than Jamestown. More than lots of schools. Could reach more with a few boundary adjustments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no current Tuckahoe walkers proposed to move to Reed. Tuckahoe has almost 200 current walkers. More than Jamestown. More than lots of schools. Could reach more with a few boundary adjustments.

PP here. That's not what I meant. I was saying that when you move the PUs that are walkable to Reed (but currently zoned/bused to Tuckahoe), then Tuckahoe is going to lose a lot of students. In other words, a large portion of Tuckahoe's current attendance zone falls within the Reed walk zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no current Tuckahoe walkers proposed to move to Reed. Tuckahoe has almost 200 current walkers. More than Jamestown. More than lots of schools. Could reach more with a few boundary adjustments.

Many of those Tuckahoe walkers could easily walk to Nottingham.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Tuckahoe parent, but I think the Tuckahoe people here are trying to say that this APS heat map is wrong, and there are more than 78 kids in the five PUs that are in the current Tuckahoe walk zone that do not overlap with the current Nottingham walk zone? But I would love to have someone from Tuckahoe on here be more specific- what planning units have been undercounted? APS data has been wrong before (e.g., McKinley) but those parents were able to point to a very specific spreadsheet calculation error regarding K projections that was later corrected. So I am curious where the specific error is here? Is this something APS is working to correct and will a revised map be forthcoming?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stu17K5_PP.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the current boundary map:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESZones_Letter_2017_Revised2-1.pdf

The Reed walk zone is going to draw primarily from McKinley and Tuckahoe, with a little bit of Nottingham and maybe Glebe. Reed is being constructed to hold 725 students. McKinley is overcrowded by ~120 students this year, so it can afford to shed a few kids to Reed (plus McKinley's boundaries can also easily push into Ashlawn to create capacity relief there). Glebe is overcrowded too. But Tuckahoe and Nottingham are basically at capacity this year-- I think under/over by less than 20 kids if you look at the APS data. So when you move the walkable Tuckahoe PUs out to Reed, it leaves the Tuckahoe school building severely under-enrolled, while doing nothing about the overcrowding on the east side of the county. (Fleet will take care of most of S Arl's issues, but it isn't large enough to also take care of crowding in NE Arlington.) And since the Tuckahoe building is at the very edge of the county, you can't really draw a bigger walk zone in any other direction to pick up more kids.

As a backdrop to all of this, APS (and the county as a whole) is facing an extremely difficult budget year. The Washington Post did a whole story about it last week (google it). So APS is looking to minimize busing costs so they can spend more of their operational budget on staff salaries instead. If you have a school building like Reed in a highly walkable area, then it makes sense for it to be used as a neighborhood school. In contrast, if you have a school in a location like Tuckahoe or ATS-- bounded my major roads that are unsafe for elementary students to cross-- then you are going to be busing students to those locations anyway so use those spots for the choice schools. That's the entire point of this elementary school walk zone effort-- figure out how to minimize busing costs to the fullest extent possible, because our County is running out of money unless we increase property taxes. And during yesterday's County Board meeting, the Board voted not to advertise a property tax increase for 2019-- which means APS is going to have to operate with more kids and less money per kid for at least two years.

Fleet is going to pull in current Long Branch students and current Henry students who are not walkers will be rezoned to Drew. All to reduce busing costs. You need not move two option programs around, which is an expense, to ensure that boundaries in the east aren't shifted. Swap Key and ASFS. Reed pulls in Glebe, Fleet pulls in Long Branch, Jamestown pulls in some Taylor, problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Tuckahoe parent, but I think the Tuckahoe people here are trying to say that this APS heat map is wrong, and there are more than 78 kids in the five PUs that are in the current Tuckahoe walk zone that do not overlap with the current Nottingham walk zone? But I would love to have someone from Tuckahoe on here be more specific- what planning units have been undercounted? APS data has been wrong before (e.g., McKinley) but those parents were able to point to a very specific spreadsheet calculation error regarding K projections that was later corrected. So I am curious where the specific error is here? Is this something APS is working to correct and will a revised map be forthcoming?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stu17K5_PP.jpg

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the theory they're advancing, but I also suspect they have zero data to back up their claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Tuckahoe parent, but I think the Tuckahoe people here are trying to say that this APS heat map is wrong, and there are more than 78 kids in the five PUs that are in the current Tuckahoe walk zone that do not overlap with the current Nottingham walk zone? But I would love to have someone from Tuckahoe on here be more specific- what planning units have been undercounted? APS data has been wrong before (e.g., McKinley) but those parents were able to point to a very specific spreadsheet calculation error regarding K projections that was later corrected. So I am curious where the specific error is here? Is this something APS is working to correct and will a revised map be forthcoming?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stu17K5_PP.jpg

Three of those five walk zones (16022, 16030, and 16031) are also walkable to Nottingham, so you can't look at those to calculate the number of current students who are walkable only to Tuckahoe. The only two planning units that are relevant for that calculation are 16020 and 16021. Given that most of 16021 is covered by Tuckahoe and Bishop O'Connell, I have a hard time imagining that there are more than a dozen or so current elementary school students living in that unit, and 65 or so seems very reasonable for 16020. That unit has around 215 homes/units, which works out to between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 homes in the unit having a current elementary student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice schools are at the root of so many APS issues

Nope. Option schools are just more choices for the very fortunate that can afford
to live in Arlington.

The real root cause is the expectations of Arlington parents. That and the myopic
view of some that their interests are more important than those of others.

You can be a recent immigrant with no means, or move to a small multi-family rental from another county and APS will take care of you and your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the current boundary map:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESZones_Letter_2017_Revised2-1.pdf

The Reed walk zone is going to draw primarily from McKinley and Tuckahoe, with a little bit of Nottingham and maybe Glebe. Reed is being constructed to hold 725 students. McKinley is overcrowded by ~120 students this year, so it can afford to shed a few kids to Reed (plus McKinley's boundaries can also easily push into Ashlawn to create capacity relief there). Glebe is overcrowded too. But Tuckahoe and Nottingham are basically at capacity this year-- I think under/over by less than 20 kids if you look at the APS data. So when you move the walkable Tuckahoe PUs out to Reed, it leaves the Tuckahoe school building severely under-enrolled, while doing nothing about the overcrowding on the east side of the county. (Fleet will take care of most of S Arl's issues, but it isn't large enough to also take care of crowding in NE Arlington.) And since the Tuckahoe building is at the very edge of the county, you can't really draw a bigger walk zone in any other direction to pick up more kids.

As a backdrop to all of this, APS (and the county as a whole) is facing an extremely difficult budget year. The Washington Post did a whole story about it last week (google it). So APS is looking to minimize busing costs so they can spend more of their operational budget on staff salaries instead. If you have a school building like Reed in a highly walkable area, then it makes sense for it to be used as a neighborhood school. In contrast, if you have a school in a location like Tuckahoe or ATS-- bounded my major roads that are unsafe for elementary students to cross-- then you are going to be busing students to those locations anyway so use those spots for the choice schools. That's the entire point of this elementary school walk zone effort-- figure out how to minimize busing costs to the fullest extent possible, because our County is running out of money unless we increase property taxes. And during yesterday's County Board meeting, the Board voted not to advertise a property tax increase for 2019-- which means APS is going to have to operate with more kids and less money per kid for at least two years.

Fleet is going to pull in current Long Branch students and current Henry students who are not walkers will be rezoned to Drew. All to reduce busing costs. You need not move two option programs around, which is an expense, to ensure that boundaries in the east aren't shifted. Swap Key and ASFS. Reed pulls in Glebe, Fleet pulls in Long Branch, Jamestown pulls in some Taylor, problem solved.

This. I think people are getting ahead of themselves with a panic about Tuckahoe being underenrolled. Numbers are supposed to increase further by the time Reed is built. If we just do what PP wrote above, we can save money, maximize walk zones, and minimize moves and building swaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice schools are at the root of so many APS issues

Nope. Option schools are just more choices for the very fortunate that can afford to live in Arlington.

The real root cause is the expectations of Arlington parents. That and the myopic view of some that their interests are more important than those of others.

The root issue is not choice schools, it's limited resources. APS, badly, badly fumbled growth projections a decade ago and the result is that now there is competition for those resources. Of course expectations are high. Arlington County has been in the top fifty or so counties nationally in terms of educational attainment and income for at least 60 years. High expectations are not a problem.

Nope. Nobody said high expectations. The issue is not high expectations.

The issue is the expectation that others will bear the brunt of negative consequences caused by doing what is best for all of APS.

And the expectation that if parents advocate loudly enough, they can force APS to ensure their preferred outcome, regardless of the impact to others elsewhere.

Nope on the limited resources. Every school system faces this and APS has far more resources than most. Bad past choices, sure.

Yup on poor forecasting in the past. 100%.

What you're describing is in no way unique to APS. It's called politics.

I agree with PP. Expectations are out of whack. A lot of school systems just tell students where they will go.

Except, if, for whatever reason, the school doesn't satisfy the student's family, they move or go private. That has its own consequences. Point being, the county gov has a vested interest in having schools that are considered high quality because of their impact on commercial development and tax revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice schools are at the root of so many APS issues

Nope. Option schools are just more choices for the very fortunate that can afford to live in Arlington.

The real root cause is the expectations of Arlington parents. That and the myopic view of some that their interests are more important than those of others.

The root issue is not choice schools, it's limited resources. APS, badly, badly fumbled growth projections a decade ago and the result is that now there is competition for those resources. Of course expectations are high. Arlington County has been in the top fifty or so counties nationally in terms of educational attainment and income for at least 60 years. High expectations are not a problem.

Nope. Nobody said high expectations. The issue is not high expectations.

The issue is the expectation that others will bear the brunt of negative consequences caused by doing what is best for all of APS.

And the expectation that if parents advocate loudly enough, they can force APS to ensure their preferred outcome, regardless of the impact to others elsewhere.

Nope on the limited resources. Every school system faces this and APS has far more resources than most. Bad past choices, sure.

Yup on poor forecasting in the past. 100%.

What you're describing is in no way unique to APS. It's called politics.

I agree with PP. Expectations are out of whack. A lot of school systems just tell students where they will go.

Except, if, for whatever reason, the school doesn't satisfy the student's family, they move or go private. That has its own consequences. Point being, the county gov has a vested interest in having schools that are considered high quality because of their impact on commercial development and tax revenue.

Given how much of the current problems is the result of the system growing too fast for the county to keep up, I don't think anyone is too concerned about this possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except, if, for whatever reason, the school doesn't satisfy the student's family, they move or go private. That has its own consequences. Point being, the county gov has a vested interest in having schools that are considered high quality because of their impact on commercial development and tax revenue.

If the county really wants this, why does it have such a fetish for "affordable housing?"