APS Boundary Changes - When is the Next Round and Which Schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Abingdon is also overcrowded, though the Drew transfer program may help with that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Sort of like how we’re stuck with the bad decisions now for 2 years because they didn’t have the balls to do anything because everyone was “stressed” from the pandemic? Meanwhile it would have been the perfect time for kids. Many kids have never been less attached to their schools then they are right now. These boundary wars are about one thing...parents and who is the loudest.

The schools are not currently overcrowded only because of Covid. Next year will be the shakeout year and we’ll see how many families come back. Most probably will. The depressed enrollment was mostly younger grades if you look at the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Abingdon is also overcrowded, though the Drew transfer program may help with that

Abingdon was UNDER capacity this year.
Kids that went private aren’t coming back, it’s just home schooled kids who may come back next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything. There are lots of open seats in the west. They will probably lose either Tuckahoe or nottingham to a choice school.

Sorry this is untrue. Due to the pandemic, they pulled back. From APS engage site:

“On Dec. 3, the School Board approved elementary school boundary adjustments to create an attendance zone for the new neighborhood school at the Key site, place Arlington Science Focus School (ASFS) within its attendance zone, and create an adjusted attendance zone for McKinley Elementary School with most students moving with the school to the Reed site. The new boundaries will take effect in Fall 2021.

Due to the pandemic and stress on families, Superintendent Dr. Francisco Durán narrowed the scope of this boundary process from the initial countywide approach involving most neighborhood elementary schools to one that made minimal reassignments needed to ensure use of all school facilities in 2021-22.”

Schools impacted are here and include Ashlawn, McKinley, ASFS, Key, Taylor and tuckahoe.

https://www.apsva.us/post/school-board-adopts-new-elementary-school-boundaries-for-2021-22-school-year/

From Ashlawn to ASFS: 23220, 23230, 23231
From ASFS to new school at Key site: 24050, 24051, 24060, 24070, 24071, 24130, 24031, 24030, 24033, 24032, 24090, 24040, 24041, 24042, 24043, 24081, 24082
From ASFS to Taylor: 24010, 24011, 24020
From McKinley to Ashlawn: 14100, 14101, 14110
From Taylor to ASFS: 23170, 23190, 23180, 23200, 23210, 23211
From Tuckahoe to McKinley at Reed site: 16061

So if Ashlawn lost three planning units, but then gained three others, is that going to do anything to help with overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary boundaries won’t be up for another four or five years. Next up will be high school review, I believe, and then middle school before they come back to elementary again.

Huh? Elementary is changing in the fall.

That’s already known, OP is asking what’s next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything. There are lots of open seats in the west. They will probably lose either Tuckahoe or nottingham to a choice school.

Sorry this is untrue. Due to the pandemic, they pulled back. From APS engage site:

“On Dec. 3, the School Board approved elementary school boundary adjustments to create an attendance zone for the new neighborhood school at the Key site, place Arlington Science Focus School (ASFS) within its attendance zone, and create an adjusted attendance zone for McKinley Elementary School with most students moving with the school to the Reed site. The new boundaries will take effect in Fall 2021.

Due to the pandemic and stress on families, Superintendent Dr. Francisco Durán narrowed the scope of this boundary process from the initial countywide approach involving most neighborhood elementary schools to one that made minimal reassignments needed to ensure use of all school facilities in 2021-22.”

Schools impacted are here and include Ashlawn, McKinley, ASFS, Key, Taylor and tuckahoe.

https://www.apsva.us/post/school-board-adopts-new-elementary-school-boundaries-for-2021-22-school-year/

From Ashlawn to ASFS: 23220, 23230, 23231
From ASFS to new school at Key site: 24050, 24051, 24060, 24070, 24071, 24130, 24031, 24030, 24033, 24032, 24090, 24040, 24041, 24042, 24043, 24081, 24082
From ASFS to Taylor: 24010, 24011, 24020
From McKinley to Ashlawn: 14100, 14101, 14110
From Taylor to ASFS: 23170, 23190, 23180, 23200, 23210, 23211
From Tuckahoe to McKinley at Reed site: 16061

So if Ashlawn lost three planning units, but then gained three others, is that going to do anything to help with overcrowding?

Not all planning units have the same number of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Abingdon is also overcrowded, though the Drew transfer program may help with that

Abingdon was UNDER capacity this year.
Kids that went private aren’t coming back, it’s just home schooled kids who may come back next year.

What are you basing this assumption on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything. There are lots of open seats in the west. They will probably lose either Tuckahoe or nottingham to a choice school.

Sorry this is untrue. Due to the pandemic, they pulled back. From APS engage site:

“On Dec. 3, the School Board approved elementary school boundary adjustments to create an attendance zone for the new neighborhood school at the Key site, place Arlington Science Focus School (ASFS) within its attendance zone, and create an adjusted attendance zone for McKinley Elementary School with most students moving with the school to the Reed site. The new boundaries will take effect in Fall 2021.

Due to the pandemic and stress on families, Superintendent Dr. Francisco Durán narrowed the scope of this boundary process from the initial countywide approach involving most neighborhood elementary schools to one that made minimal reassignments needed to ensure use of all school facilities in 2021-22.”

Schools impacted are here and include Ashlawn, McKinley, ASFS, Key, Taylor and tuckahoe.

https://www.apsva.us/post/school-board-adopts-new-elementary-school-boundaries-for-2021-22-school-year/

From Ashlawn to ASFS: 23220, 23230, 23231
From ASFS to new school at Key site: 24050, 24051, 24060, 24070, 24071, 24130, 24031, 24030, 24033, 24032, 24090, 24040, 24041, 24042, 24043, 24081, 24082
From ASFS to Taylor: 24010, 24011, 24020
From McKinley to Ashlawn: 14100, 14101, 14110
From Taylor to ASFS: 23170, 23190, 23180, 23200, 23210, 23211
From Tuckahoe to McKinley at Reed site: 16061

So if Ashlawn lost three planning units, but then gained three others, is that going to do anything to help with overcrowding?

It’s not only about overcrowding. I used to live in one of those planning units and ASFS was near where I lived and very walkable on a nice day, and Ashlawn was miles in another direction. I passed three other schools on my way to Ashlawn. It never made sense that housing near the Virginia Square metro were shipped to Ashlawn. There were a lot of weird boundaries, especially for ASFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Abingdon is also overcrowded, though the Drew transfer program may help with that

Abingdon was UNDER capacity this year.
Kids that went private aren’t coming back, it’s just home schooled kids who may come back next year.

What are you basing this assumption on?

Everyone I know that went private this year has said they are staying there. I know at least 5 other families that are actively looking for spots right now. There’s a good chance that next year at most will be hybrid and deadlines are now for privates.

[Anonymous]

Is there a map with the 2021 boundaries somewhere? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason to do boundary changes is if schools are over crowded. They aren’t currently, except for Asfs which was the only reason they did them this year.
There are lots of issues with what they did last year, and what they did the time before. But considering aps’s track record of making stellar boundaries, do you really want them to do a comprehensive boundary process the first year after the pandemic is “over”? The data will be bad, they will make bad decisions, and then we will be stuck with the bad decisions for the next five years.

Abingdon is also overcrowded, though the Drew transfer program may help with that

Abingdon was UNDER capacity this year.
Kids that went private aren’t coming back, it’s just home schooled kids who may come back next year.

What are you basing this assumption on?

Totally under capacity, that’s why the art room is now a classroom and they brought back the trailers. Projected enrollment for next year is 820, which is about 100 more than capacity.

[Anonymous]

A lot of lower grade kids who left went to parochial and I would guess many of those will come back.

I love that someone knows 5 families and therefore has declared no one is coming back. Very scientific. Most families who were in APS to begin with have not budgeted for 13 years of private school for likely multiple kids. Get real.

None of us will really know until next school year or realistically maybe the following one.

[Anonymous]

We need to get rid of Duran before any boundary changes potentially happen. That man can't figure out anything and will not put proper thought into any changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to get rid of Duran before any boundary changes potentially happen. That man can't figure out anything and will not put proper thought into any changes.

Uh huh, and all the previous boundary changes have been done with outstanding thought and foresight?

[Anonymous]

Duran has been doing a great job so far. I expect he’ll also handle the boundary process well.