APS Construction - Never believe their schedules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of being snarky, you should be looking at this McKinley situation and figuring out how to advocate for your own school. For example, if they are really planning to cram 725 students into the new South Arlington ES, then push on APS to make sure they design a building that really holds that many kids and isn't just crammed into a parking lot. Whatever your feelings on North Arlington, it makes no sense to design a brand new school addition to hold 684 kids when your intended enrollment is really 715 (or more). South Arlington deserves better than that too, so don't let it happen to you.

For the record, when McKinley was designed, the boundaries were different and a capacity of 684 was fine. Two units were moving into McKinley from Glebe and two unites were moving from McKinley into Ashlawn. Tuckahoe was not even in the mix until a group of Nottingham parents started a petition and showed up at board meetings claiming the sky was falling. An important take-away is to keep your eye on that kind of behavior and learn that diplomatic phrases like "balance enrollment" fall upon deaf ears.

[Anonymous]

I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, south arlington parent with kids in over capacity title I school. I am going to apply for a transfer to discovery. And our "new" elementary school will be 725 students, of course they are really just crammed in to a middle school parking lot.

Lots of complaining in north arlington. Oh, and we don't have enough wealth at our school to even hold an auction.

They will allow transfers. You might have to lobby the principal. I know a family who did it and are going to fight to keep their special snowflake at Discovery so she won't have to mix with S. ARL farms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

Or maybe just a natural consequence of a county that was too busy congratulating itself to plan appropriately. It's not like the enrollment trends and future lack of capacity weren't obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

Or maybe just a natural consequence of a county that was too busy congratulating itself to plan appropriately. It's not like the enrollment trends and future lack of capacity weren't obvious.

They weren't obvious until 10 years ago--enrollment was basically stable for 20 years--and then it SHOT UP. We could have added an entire new school every year for the past 10 years, but it takes 5 years to plan, bond, and build a school. So of course they are behind, even though at the elementary level they had added a new school, completed two additions, started two additions, and planned another entire school. But people will keep complaining and slowing down the process at every opportunity. The new south Arlington school was supposed to open next year, now it will be 2019 at the earliest, and that's without any construction delays.

[Anonymous]

SA parent here, what you don't think people advocate for new and smaller schools here? Totally different expectations down here. We do not have the money to get what north arlington has, from both parents and the interest in the SB and certain advocates. The SB wanted the site in a parking lot and made sure that is how it was steered.

[Anonymous]

When we toured Nottingham a couple of years ago before my daughter's kindergarten year, I think they were way over capacity at 750 kids and had been for awhile. Resources were pretty strained. So I can see their staff wanting to enjoy being a little under capacity for a change.

I think part of the problem in Arlington is that for years, it was the generally accepted wisdom that growing families would eventually move farther out to Fairfax for better schools and bigger homes. But people stopped doing that - they started staying put, building onto their houses. And I think it took the county awhile to adjust to the new reality. (like the colossally dumb decision to build the new W-L smaller.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

Or maybe just a natural consequence of a county that was too busy congratulating itself to plan appropriately. It's not like the enrollment trends and future lack of capacity weren't obvious.

They weren't obvious until 10 years ago--enrollment was basically stable for 20 years--and then it SHOT UP. We could have added an entire new school every year for the past 10 years, but it takes 5 years to plan, bond, and build a school. So of course they are behind, even though at the elementary level they had added a new school, completed two additions, started two additions, and planned another entire school. But people will keep complaining and slowing down the process at every opportunity. The new south Arlington school was supposed to open next year, now it will be 2019 at the earliest, and that's without any construction delays.

But they know now, and yet are not planning to build another comprehensive HS. And even when the county is offered land for schools from developers, they won't even entertain the idea because they would rather get money for other "community benefits." All at the same time, developers are ramping up density, and while market-rate one bedroom units are not (yet) adding to the school capacity crisis, the family-sized units of AH certainly have been an issue for some schools that are already at capacity. The county is about to acquire many acres of land from VA Hospital Center, and won't even entertain the idea of a new HS there or anywhere else. And I'm sorry, but Arlington Tech is not going to cut it. How many type-A overachieving Arlington parents are really going to send their college-bound precious to a vocational school (even if it's high-tech Vo-Tech, it's still Vo-Tech and you aren't fooling anybody).

Also, to the PP complaining about the s Arlington parent who sent their kids to Discovery, I can only assume your child is enrolled at Barcroft, Randolph, or Carlin Springs? If not, I invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Anonymous]

I do not believe Nottingham was ever at 750. A max size of 725 was a recent change increasing it from a previously lower number.

I understand Nottingham wanting to have some time under capacity. All schools would like that. Tuckahoe, McKinley, Ashlawn, Taylor & Glebe would like that, too. Unfortunately, due to the population of school aged children in Arlington, that isn't a luxury that we can afford right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

Also, to the PP complaining about the s Arlington parent who sent their kids to Discovery, I can only assume your child is enrolled at Barcroft, Randolph, or Carlin Springs? If not, I invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.

I can see why you'd think that but the mom said some overtly racist things to me and that soured me on the situation.

[Anonymous]

Students in overcrowded elementary schools move on to middle school. Next year's 7th grade at Swanson and 8th grade at Williamsburg will be in trailers.

Students in overcrowded middle schools move on to high school. Other than a few interior reconfigurations at WL and plans to do the same at Yorktown and Wakefield, what has APS done? Just about nothing. Though I am glad APS is planning them, the reconfigurations at Wakefield are especially a joke considering the rebuilt school opened its doors not even two years ago.

In five years WL is projected to have almost 3,000 students, that is almost 800 more students then there is space for. I am taking a wild guess - the majority of those 800 students went to overcrowded elementary and middle schools in Arlington.

I agree with the PP – this is a natural consequence of a county that was too busy congratulating itself to plan appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this school system is in trouble. A victim of the County's unbelievable popularity and status as the most coveted place in northern va.

Also, to the PP complaining about the s Arlington parent who sent their kids to Discovery, I can only assume your child is enrolled at Barcroft, Randolph, or Carlin Springs? If not, I invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.

I can see why you'd think that but the mom said some overtly racist things to me and that soured me on the situation.

I hear you. In Arlington it's far more acceptable to be covertly racist.

[Anonymous]

I have two questions for those of you who were involved with the 2012/13 Discovery boundaries and the Jan. 2015 boundary refinements. (Our kid was a preschooler during these years, so I wasn't aware the discussions were happening.) I went back through the More Seats website and pulled the Jan. 2015 boundary refinement presentation. It looks like the Tuckhoe planning unit in question is 1608 (93 kids) and it was originally slated to move to Nottingham with 1607 (56 kids), but from what I understand the Nottingham parents pushed back and that is why 1608 went to McKinley instead (pushing McK over capacity, even with the addition). First, 1607 and 1608 appear to touch Discovery's boundaries if you look at the map, yet it seems the discussion was between moving to Nottingham or moving to McKinley. Why was there no discussion at the time about moving these units to Discovery? Second, If you look at projected vs. real enrollment for the 2015/16 school year, it appears that Nottingham came in 44 kids UNDER projection this September, while McKinley came in 16 kids OVER projection this September. So since the boundaries haven't actually moved yet, why can't 1608 still move to Nottingham? Or at the very least, split the planning unit in half and send fewer kids to McK. The planning unit boundaries seem a bit arbitrary anyway, yet APS seems to treat them like they are locked in stone. (Also, why didn't APS do any outreach to the civic associations to let those of us with babies and toddlers at the time know these discussions were happening?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have two questions for those of you who were involved with the 2012/13 Discovery boundaries and the Jan. 2015 boundary refinements. (Our kid was a preschooler during these years, so I wasn't aware the discussions were happening.) I went back through the More Seats website and pulled the Jan. 2015 boundary refinement presentation. It looks like the Tuckhoe planning unit in question is 1608 (93 kids) and it was originally slated to move to Nottingham with 1607 (56 kids), but from what I understand the Nottingham parents pushed back and that is why 1608 went to McKinley instead (pushing McK over capacity, even with the addition). First, 1607 and 1608 appear to touch Discovery's boundaries if you look at the map, yet it seems the discussion was between moving to Nottingham or moving to McKinley. Why was there no discussion at the time about moving these units to Discovery? Second, If you look at projected vs. real enrollment for the 2015/16 school year, it appears that Nottingham came in 44 kids UNDER projection this September, while McKinley came in 16 kids OVER projection this September. So since the boundaries haven't actually moved yet, why can't 1608 still move to Nottingham? Or at the very least, split the planning unit in half and send fewer kids to McK. The planning unit boundaries seem a bit arbitrary anyway, yet APS seems to treat them like they are locked in stone. (Also, why didn't APS do any outreach to the civic associations to let those of us with babies and toddlers at the time know these discussions were happening?)

They did. No one pays attention until it's too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two questions for those of you who were involved with the 2012/13 Discovery boundaries and the Jan. 2015 boundary refinements. (Our kid was a preschooler during these years, so I wasn't aware the discussions were happening.) I went back through the More Seats website and pulled the Jan. 2015 boundary refinement presentation. It looks like the Tuckhoe planning unit in question is 1608 (93 kids) and it was originally slated to move to Nottingham with 1607 (56 kids), but from what I understand the Nottingham parents pushed back and that is why 1608 went to McKinley instead (pushing McK over capacity, even with the addition). First, 1607 and 1608 appear to touch Discovery's boundaries if you look at the map, yet it seems the discussion was between moving to Nottingham or moving to McKinley. Why was there no discussion at the time about moving these units to Discovery? Second, If you look at projected vs. real enrollment for the 2015/16 school year, it appears that Nottingham came in 44 kids UNDER projection this September, while McKinley came in 16 kids OVER projection this September. So since the boundaries haven't actually moved yet, why can't 1608 still move to Nottingham? Or at the very least, split the planning unit in half and send fewer kids to McK. The planning unit boundaries seem a bit arbitrary anyway, yet APS seems to treat them like they are locked in stone. (Also, why didn't APS do any outreach to the civic associations to let those of us with babies and toddlers at the time know these discussions were happening?)

They did. No one pays attention until it's too late.

I also have a preschool and live in one of these units. I don't think they did much outreach, nor do I think they truly understand the population explosion in those planning units (where so many houses have been torn down and rebuilt, or rehabbed...and now have kids). There was an online interactive planning tool and these units could have been shifted to any of four school, as I recall. Splitting them this way seemed to provide the fairest distribution of students. But I agree -- the planning units should be cut in half, which would solve the problem.