Reed School

[Anonymous]

Yes. Of course they should move an option program there. They need more option seats. But. Westover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

It’s not just a “snowflake” thing. Elementary kids outside are always supposed to be in line of sight of an adult. You either have teachers stopping everything to watch or escort a kid between buildings or you hire additional staff to act as escort year after year, which would also be expensive. Or you avoid the problem by putting up a single building.

[Anonymous]

My kids won’t be at Reed, but I look forward to it opening. McKinley has been shamefully overcrowded for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

It’s not just a “snowflake” thing. Elementary kids outside are always supposed to be in line of sight of an adult. You either have teachers stopping everything to watch or escort a kid between buildings or you hire additional staff to act as escort year after year, which would also be expensive. Or you avoid the problem by putting up a single building.

No, it's hardly a problem. An inconvenience for the adults, perhaps. But not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

It’s not just a “snowflake” thing. Elementary kids outside are always supposed to be in line of sight of an adult. You either have teachers stopping everything to watch or escort a kid between buildings or you hire additional staff to act as escort year after year, which would also be expensive. Or you avoid the problem by putting up a single building.

No, it's hardly a problem. An inconvenience for the adults, perhaps. But not a problem.

+1. Moreover, elementary kids throughout the county are already walking outside - sometimes unescorted - to get from trailers to the main school building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

It’s not just a “snowflake” thing. Elementary kids outside are always supposed to be in line of sight of an adult. You either have teachers stopping everything to watch or escort a kid between buildings or you hire additional staff to act as escort year after year, which would also be expensive. Or you avoid the problem by putting up a single building.

No, it's hardly a problem. An inconvenience for the adults, perhaps. But not a problem.

+1. Moreover, elementary kids throughout the county are already walking outside - sometimes unescorted - to get from trailers to the main school building.

Oh well. It’ll be a neighborhood school in one building, so no use arguing.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure the last word is out on that. Until there's a boundary for Reed it's always possible the Board could change their mind.Are any of them really beholden to Westover other than Kanninen? I know APS staff doesn't necessarily think it makes sense as a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure the last word is out on that. Until there's a boundary for Reed it's always possible the Board could change their mind.Are any of them really beholden to Westover other than Kanninen? I know APS staff doesn't necessarily think it makes sense as a neighborhood school.

Although it’s theoretically possible, Reed has a high percentage of potential neighborhood walkers. I don’t remember all the numbers, but one of the main reasons they targeted Nottingham and Tuckahoe as potential option sites instead of Reed was fewer buses on the road.

[Anonymous]

The neiyseTs are at Reed. The same can’t be said for oth NA schools.

[Anonymous]

Ask RG about the budget. They used 2012 figures for construction and operated under the assumption that a 2nd story could be built on the existing building. Unfortunately, the previous SB approved cost cutting measures that made that impossible. Surprise! Both CB and SB realized they didn’t plan correctly, so the budget was increased for 2018 realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

Then what's the problem with just loading up schools with more trailers? After all, it's just a few minutes outside a few times a day, the kids can handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure the last word is out on that. Until there's a boundary for Reed it's always possible the Board could change their mind.Are any of them really beholden to Westover other than Kanninen? I know APS staff doesn't necessarily think it makes sense as a neighborhood school.

Although it’s theoretically possible, Reed has a high percentage of potential neighborhood walkers. I don’t remember all the numbers, but one of the main reasons they targeted Nottingham and Tuckahoe as potential option sites instead of Reed was fewer buses on the road.

That's incorrect. Per staff analysis, Reed has the potential to be 60% walkers and would need 5 buses, Tuckahoe could be up to 65% walkers and would need 4 buses, Nottingham could be up to 82% walkers and would need 2 buses. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are both more walkable than Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask RG about the budget. They used 2012 figures for construction and operated under the assumption that a 2nd story could be built on the existing building. Unfortunately, the previous SB approved cost cutting measures that made that impossible. Surprise! Both CB and SB realized they didn’t plan correctly, so the budget was increased for 2018 realities.

^^ This. The Westover haters on here don't know what they are talking about. In addition to the surprise discovery that Reed wasn't built to support a 2nd story after all, APS also realized that there was a major utility line running down the middle of the property and it was unclear whether the County was willing to grant APS an easement to build over it. Of the six designs that the architects created, only one design ended up being within the original budget-- that design would have built a standalone building elsewhere on the property to hold grades 3-5. It was the APS staff on the BLPC who opposed that design the most, not the neighbors. The Reed School will continue to share the location with the Westover library, which is the 2nd busiest library in Arlington. APS staff had safety concerns with students moving back and forth between two separate school buildings all day on a property that will be fully open to the general public during school hours and directly across the street from the Westover post office and a busy retail strip. If anyone is to blame for the budget increase, it is the APS facilities office for not adequately scoping out the project before they presented a proposed budget to the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask RG about the budget. They used 2012 figures for construction and operated under the assumption that a 2nd story could be built on the existing building. Unfortunately, the previous SB approved cost cutting measures that made that impossible. Surprise! Both CB and SB realized they didn’t plan correctly, so the budget was increased for 2018 realities.

No, it was raised for the 2018 cost of the neighborhood's preferred design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet had to stay within budget. Reed did not. And I’m sure the SB will not be allowed to forget that for years to come.

Yeah, it was totally unreasonable for people to want an elementary school housed in a single building so grades 3-5 didn’t have to trek outside between buildings multiple times a day for lunch, specials, etc.

You're right, it was, given the financial constraints we're facing and given that it brought the project significantly over budget before it even began. heaven forbid an 8 -10 year old have to go outside for a minute or two a few times a day. Schedules could be arranged so that they didn't have to go back and forth multiple times. They probably could have even constructed some type of sheltered breezeway that didn't require them to put on their hats and gloves and boots and parkas each time.

I sure hope you think it was critical enough to fight for the budget increase for this issue above all else and don't allow any more cost overruns.

Then what's the problem with just loading up schools with more trailers? After all, it's just a few minutes outside a few times a day, the kids can handle it.

Fine with me.