Ideas of How APS Can Solve High School Overcrowding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lottery for $10k/yr/student voucher for private or home or FFX schools.

wait nobody liked my idea?

10k isn't enough

enough to pay ~50%, which would make it feasible for some families to go private.

50% where? Parochials, maybe.

well if Parochial schools is below you then don't apply for the lottery.

So, families who are Christian and wealthy would get this benefit, but families with limited funds, other faiths (or no religion), or children with special needs who are not well served by Parochial schools would just be out of luck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does someone here have the figures that the SB mentioned last night re: the actual number of seats that will be created through Arlington Tech and the other mid-sized HS? I did feel some sense of relief when the SB member mentioned that they were going to start looking at possible sites for future school seats; however, I'm also getting angry when I see how wasteful the SB has been on allocating its resources.

Do we really need state of the art facilities for certain elementary schools (slides etc.) and gadgets (Ipads and Airbooks) for all 2nd and 9th graders. Yes, I realize some of the stuff isn't a huge amount of money, but shouldn't ensuring that every child is APS has an adequate classroom first be a priority v. shelling out millions here and there for extras?!! Also for upgrades, etc. I haven't seen the condition of the schools that were upgraded recently but my cousin who's kids went/go to Langley said they almost fell over when they came to an APS HS for a recent event b/c of how much nicer the facilities were compared to their top ranked school. Shouldn't we think about stretching out the upgrades/renovations a bit longer until we can at least get the entire 7th graders at Swanson out of trailers?!!

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AABK8B4F9909

The School Board's proposal (which is different from the Superintendent's proposal, based on feedback received over the past month) starts on slide 23.

Pay attention to the financial analysis on slide 34. The colors show how much money is available in each bond -- orange is the bond they will float this fall, green is in 2018, light blue in 2020, etc. That is how much money they have to spread around--and most of this year's bond is to pay for projects they have already committed to like the Wilson and Stratford projects. (On some of the other slides you will see there is a little bit of other money that they have in reserves already--when they have money left over at the end of each year in the annual operating budget they usually set it aside for capital projects, like renovating the high schools to add 300 seats--and there is a joint fund with the county that pays for things like road improvements associated with new buildings.) That debt service ratio at the bottom--that's the number that can't go above 10%, and 9.8% is very close; if for some reason our tax collections in a year were lower than expected we could hit 10% and our bond rating would drop. So the numbers you see are pretty much the max.

There won't be any new elementary seats between the new school at Jefferson in 2019 and the Reed expansion in the fall of 2023, and apart from the new middle school at Stratford and a few new seats at H-B that are already approved, there are no additional middle school seats planned in this CIP.

For those of us not at the meeting, can you clarify whether your last graph is things that are in play or are actually happening (i.e, Reed expanding in 2023).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, families who are Christian and wealthy would get this benefit, but families with limited funds, other faiths (or no religion), or children with special needs who are not well served by Parochial schools would just be out of luck?

Yep! So it would neatly re-create the standard APS experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley has been due for renovation for years. Not a good comparison.

my point was that you can still have a quality education in an older building. why can't we just spend money to provide adequate building space to all of our current students before getting any bells and whistles at a few or blowing it on gadgets?

Things that don't drive building cost:

--Bells and whistles --> usually only account for about 1% of the cost of a building; eliminating them does not enable us build somewhere else. (Not saying we shouldn't be financially prudent, but it's not a capacity argument).
--Enrollment of illegal/out of district kids --> APS hired an investigator who has followed up on every credible report and has found fewer than 100 kids a year. Even if you think there are 3x as many as that, 300 illegal kids across the whole system is not creating our capacity issues and getting rid of these kids is not going to save us from having to build more schools.

Things that do drive building cost:

--Class size --> this has huge implications on how many classrooms we need to build (capital costs) and how many teachers we need to hire (operating costs). An external audit conducted several years ago estimated that Arlington could save tens of millions a year by increasing class size.
--County requirements --> Arlington is an urban area and has to maximize the value of each inch of public land. School buildings and school fields are built to serve multiple purposes, which is more costly (e.g., turf fields, exterior lights) to build and to maintain that a building that just serves children during school hours. It is costly to make sure school buildings comply with the strict environmental, particularly runoff, requirements the county is subject to. New or expanded schools also require extensive changes to roads, sidewalks, and intersections, often for many blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does someone here have the figures that the SB mentioned last night re: the actual number of seats that will be created through Arlington Tech and the other mid-sized HS? I did feel some sense of relief when the SB member mentioned that they were going to start looking at possible sites for future school seats; however, I'm also getting angry when I see how wasteful the SB has been on allocating its resources.

Do we really need state of the art facilities for certain elementary schools (slides etc.) and gadgets (Ipads and Airbooks) for all 2nd and 9th graders. Yes, I realize some of the stuff isn't a huge amount of money, but shouldn't ensuring that every child is APS has an adequate classroom first be a priority v. shelling out millions here and there for extras?!! Also for upgrades, etc. I haven't seen the condition of the schools that were upgraded recently but my cousin who's kids went/go to Langley said they almost fell over when they came to an APS HS for a recent event b/c of how much nicer the facilities were compared to their top ranked school. Shouldn't we think about stretching out the upgrades/renovations a bit longer until we can at least get the entire 7th graders at Swanson out of trailers?!!

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AABK8B4F9909

The School Board's proposal (which is different from the Superintendent's proposal, based on feedback received over the past month) starts on slide 23.

Pay attention to the financial analysis on slide 34. The colors show how much money is available in each bond -- orange is the bond they will float this fall, green is in 2018, light blue in 2020, etc. That is how much money they have to spread around--and most of this year's bond is to pay for projects they have already committed to like the Wilson and Stratford projects. (On some of the other slides you will see there is a little bit of other money that they have in reserves already--when they have money left over at the end of each year in the annual operating budget they usually set it aside for capital projects, like renovating the high schools to add 300 seats--and there is a joint fund with the county that pays for things like road improvements associated with new buildings.) That debt service ratio at the bottom--that's the number that can't go above 10%, and 9.8% is very close; if for some reason our tax collections in a year were lower than expected we could hit 10% and our bond rating would drop. So the numbers you see are pretty much the max.

There won't be any new elementary seats between the new school at Jefferson in 2019 and the Reed expansion in the fall of 2023, and apart from the new middle school at Stratford and a few new seats at H-B that are already approved, there are no additional middle school seats planned in this CIP.

For those of us not at the meeting, can you clarify whether your last graph is things that are in play or are actually happening (i.e, Reed expanding in 2023).

School board has not voted on their proposed CIP yet. There is a work session where they will discuss it next Tuesday (no public speakers) and they vote at their meeting on the 16th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley has been due for renovation for years. Not a good comparison.

my point was that you can still have a quality education in an older building. why can't we just spend money to provide adequate building space to all of our current students before getting any bells and whistles at a few or blowing it on gadgets?

Things that don't drive building cost:

--Bells and whistles --> usually only account for about 1% of the cost of a building; eliminating them does not enable us build somewhere else. (Not saying we shouldn't be financially prudent, but it's not a capacity argument).
--Enrollment of illegal/out of district kids --> APS hired an investigator who has followed up on every credible report and has found fewer than 100 kids a year. Even if you think there are 3x as many as that, 300 illegal kids across the whole system is not creating our capacity issues and getting rid of these kids is not going to save us from having to build more schools.

Things that do drive building cost:

--Class size --> this has huge implications on how many classrooms we need to build (capital costs) and how many teachers we need to hire (operating costs). An external audit conducted several years ago estimated that Arlington could save tens of millions a year by increasing class size.
--County requirements --> Arlington is an urban area and has to maximize the value of each inch of public land. School buildings and school fields are built to serve multiple purposes, which is more costly (e.g., turf fields, exterior lights) to build and to maintain that a building that just serves children during school hours. It is costly to make sure school buildings comply with the strict environmental, particularly runoff, requirements the county is subject to. New or expanded schools also require extensive changes to roads, sidewalks, and intersections, often for many blocks.

I disagree that enrollment of illegal/out of district kids doesn't contribute. it's related to the class size. the current CIP estimates that doing additions to create about 200 seats at current schools would cost about $30 to $36 million dollars. That's money that could go to APS students who are actual residents.

[Anonymous]

What was the SB proposal for Reed? It says 200 students in 2017-- what is that? And what are the 500 more in 2023?

[Anonymous]

Why are so many people convinced there are lots of out-of-county students attending APS? We had to supply tons of documentation to verify residency and specific school boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many people convinced there are lots of out-of-county students attending APS? We had to supply tons of documentation to verify residency and specific school boundary.

It's convenient to believe it. If Arlington schools are full of Arlington residents, there's no easy, painless solution to overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lottery for $10k/yr/student voucher for private or home or FFX schools.

wait nobody liked my idea?

10k isn't enough

enough to pay ~50%, which would make it feasible for some families to go private.

50% where? Parochials, maybe.

well if Parochial schools is below you then don't apply for the lottery.

So, families who are Christian and wealthy would get this benefit, but families with limited funds, other faiths (or no religion), or children with special needs who are not well served by Parochial schools would just be out of luck?

apply if it fits your family, and use (or decline) it if you win, but nobody is putting a gun to your head to leave APS, even Christian and wealthy ones are welcome to stay .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many people convinced there are lots of out-of-county students attending APS? We had to supply tons of documentation to verify residency and specific school boundary.

It's convenient to believe it. If Arlington schools are full of Arlington residents, there's no easy, painless solution to overcrowding.

If we could just build a wall, all our problems would disappear, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many people convinced there are lots of out-of-county students attending APS? We had to supply tons of documentation to verify residency and specific school boundary.

It's all the tax cheats with MD plates. They are residents of Arlington, but they don't register their cars here and the county is very clear that they consider this an unfair tax on the poor, so they only enforce the "car tax" for those they believe can afford it. You're not going to see any of the traps they set up at elevator buildings in Clarendon down at the apartments along Columbia Pike, where every third car at least has MD plates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many people convinced there are lots of out-of-county students attending APS? We had to supply tons of documentation to verify residency and specific school boundary.

"Tons" of documentation? I'm confused. The rules refer to a mortgage or a lease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley has been due for renovation for years. Not a good comparison.

my point was that you can still have a quality education in an older building. why can't we just spend money to provide adequate building space to all of our current students before getting any bells and whistles at a few or blowing it on gadgets?

Things that don't drive building cost:

--Bells and whistles --> usually only account for about 1% of the cost of a building; eliminating them does not enable us build somewhere else. (Not saying we shouldn't be financially prudent, but it's not a capacity argument).
--Enrollment of illegal/out of district kids --> APS hired an investigator who has followed up on every credible report and has found fewer than 100 kids a year. Even if you think there are 3x as many as that, 300 illegal kids across the whole system is not creating our capacity issues and getting rid of these kids is not going to save us from having to build more schools.

Things that do drive building cost:

--Class size --> this has huge implications on how many classrooms we need to build (capital costs) and how many teachers we need to hire (operating costs). An external audit conducted several years ago estimated that Arlington could save tens of millions a year by increasing class size.
--County requirements --> Arlington is an urban area and has to maximize the value of each inch of public land. School buildings and school fields are built to serve multiple purposes, which is more costly (e.g., turf fields, exterior lights) to build and to maintain that a building that just serves children during school hours. It is costly to make sure school buildings comply with the strict environmental, particularly runoff, requirements the county is subject to. New or expanded schools also require extensive changes to roads, sidewalks, and intersections, often for many blocks.

What about bells and whistles like geothermal heat? I would think the up-front cost of something like this, while environmentally great and maybe a long-term cost savings, falls into "nice, but we can't afford it." The slide, butterfly garden, terrace, etc., etc., probably don't add up to that much, but I bet that the systems used in Discovery cost a pretty penny. Isn't HB going to get the same treatment?