APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:17PP - ATS is up by more than 20 students. They've added another preschool class, they've added more "bubble" classes and they're going to 5 K classes next year. There are currently around 539 kids in a school built for 465, not including next year's 5th K class.

The thing I'm not sure anyone has considered is that by adding that 5th class for K this year, they're basically guaranteeing that in two years, almost nobody will get in via lottery. The VPI kids and sibling preference kids already take up the majority of new K slots, and many families space their kids two years apart.

Source? And what kind of "majority" are we talking about? There's a big difference between a 58% majority and a 92% majority.

[Anonymous]

A 3 spot move is significant if comparing clustered schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 3 spot move is significant if comparing clustered schools

Which clusters did you have in mind? Here's how it breaks down if you look at it by staff-designated region, and then by even narrower geographic clusters. The more narrow a look you take, the more consistent the numbers get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

It matters less, but it still matters. No one wants to deal with a 45 minute round trip aftercare pickup trip at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

I think this is likely true in N. Arlington and less true in the S. Arlington neighborhood schools that aren't rated as highly. Barcroft and Randolph have two of the highest transfer rates. Randolph is entirely walkable and there are many families who live within 1-5 blocks of the school who either use option schools or go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

I think this is likely true in N. Arlington and less true in the S. Arlington neighborhood schools that aren't rated as highly. Barcroft and Randolph have two of the highest transfer rates. Randolph is entirely walkable and there are many families who live within 1-5 blocks of the school who either use option schools or go private.

No one said walkers never transfer. But instead of setting constantly-moving targets, how about people start stating their positions directly instead of being vague. Are you really taking issue with the staff's method of calculating walkability generally, or are you trying to make an argument that Randolph, despite its walkability, should have been an option site candidate because of its high transfer rate?

[Anonymous]

The NW shift is the most significant is that's where they are talking about options. I'm surprised McKinley is still 5 given that it is such a large school. I tried to find the spreadsheet with the data. Is it still somewhere on the Engage site?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NW shift is the most significant is that's where they are talking about options. I'm surprised McKinley is still 5 given that it is such a large school. I tried to find the spreadsheet with the data. Is it still somewhere on the Engage site?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/April-30-Web.xlsx

McKinley's biggest problem from a walkability standpoint is that it's right against the county border so a third of its would-be walk zone is in Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

I think this is likely true in N. Arlington and less true in the S. Arlington neighborhood schools that aren't rated as highly. Barcroft and Randolph have two of the highest transfer rates. Randolph is entirely walkable and there are many families who live within 1-5 blocks of the school who either use option schools or go private.

No one said walkers never transfer. But instead of setting constantly-moving targets, how about people start stating their positions directly instead of being vague. Are you really taking issue with the staff's method of calculating walkability generally, or are you trying to make an argument that Randolph, despite its walkability, should have been an option site candidate because of its high transfer rate?

No I do not think that Randolph should have been targeted as an option site, but I think that the instinct to cluster option schools in S. Arlington as much as possible made sense for lots of reasons including encouraging socioeconomic integration and improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

I think this is likely true in N. Arlington and less true in the S. Arlington neighborhood schools that aren't rated as highly. Barcroft and Randolph have two of the highest transfer rates. Randolph is entirely walkable and there are many families who live within 1-5 blocks of the school who either use option schools or go private.

No one said walkers never transfer. But instead of setting constantly-moving targets, how about people start stating their positions directly instead of being vague. Are you really taking issue with the staff's method of calculating walkability generally, or are you trying to make an argument that Randolph, despite its walkability, should have been an option site candidate because of its high transfer rate?

No I do not think that Randolph should have been targeted as an option site, but I think that the instinct to cluster option schools in S. Arlington as much as possible made sense for lots of reasons including encouraging socioeconomic integration and improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Okay, what does that have to do with walkability calculations now that you've crashed that discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:17PP - ATS is up by more than 20 students. They've added another preschool class, they've added more "bubble" classes and they're going to 5 K classes next year. There are currently around 539 kids in a school built for 465, not including next year's 5th K class.

The thing I'm not sure anyone has considered is that by adding that 5th class for K this year, they're basically guaranteeing that in two years, almost nobody will get in via lottery. The VPI kids and sibling preference kids already take up the majority of new K slots, and many families space their kids two years apart.

Yes, that's the same for Montessori. No way to lottery in because the program isn't growing. ATS added about 20 seats since 2012 in the elementary grades. That's from the September enrollment reports. I didn't count vpi because the comparison I was making was among elementary schoolers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, there is more to the decision then just percentages. It disproportionately favors small schools.

If you compare the walkability rankings on a percentage basis to those on a number of students basis, there actually aren't a lot of huge difference. Some schools move up or down by 2 or 3 spots, lots stay the same, only one moves significantly:

Where are you factoring how many Barcrfot kids take buses to schools other than the neighborhood school? There may be a lot of kids living in the walk zone, but many of them are enrolled at option schools. Is there any public info about how many kids who live in the walk zone are actually enrolled at the school? If walkers aren't actually choosing to walk to that school, then maybe it should fall a few spots down the rankings (those kids aren't coming back and it's a gamble to assume that future kids won't follow the same path).

Also, while walkability is a factor, it's not the only factor and it can't be assessed in a vacuum. Making some schools more walkable, or using this as the only decision point, creates other problems, such as more highly segregated schools, or puts a burden on families who need their kids to be on a bus so they don't have to spend 30 minutes of their day walking them to school.

I know walkability isn't the only factor, but it's the factor where people keep harping on how percentages work out to different absolute numbers depending on school size. This was an exercise to show that the outcome isn't all that different regardless of which way you want to look at it.

As to your first point, as far as I know that data is not available for us to consider. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that the transfers come disproportionately from non-walkers than from walkers, given how much people also say they value proximity. If you're going to put your kid on a bus either way, where that bus goes matters a whole lot less.

I think this is likely true in N. Arlington and less true in the S. Arlington neighborhood schools that aren't rated as highly. Barcroft and Randolph have two of the highest transfer rates. Randolph is entirely walkable and there are many families who live within 1-5 blocks of the school who either use option schools or go private.

No one said walkers never transfer. But instead of setting constantly-moving targets, how about people start stating their positions directly instead of being vague. Are you really taking issue with the staff's method of calculating walkability generally, or are you trying to make an argument that Randolph, despite its walkability, should have been an option site candidate because of its high transfer rate?

No I do not think that Randolph should have been targeted as an option site, but I think that the instinct to cluster option schools in S. Arlington as much as possible made sense for lots of reasons including encouraging socioeconomic integration and improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Okay, what does that have to do with walkability calculations now that you've crashed that discussion?

DP, but I'll chime in. It doesn't matter if a school is walkable if a very significant portion of kids in the walk zone won't walk to that school. Walkability to schools with high transfer-out rates should be less of a factor when considering whether it makes sense as an option or neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:17PP - ATS is up by more than 20 students. They've added another preschool class, they've added more "bubble" classes and they're going to 5 K classes next year. There are currently around 539 kids in a school built for 465, not including next year's 5th K class.

The thing I'm not sure anyone has considered is that by adding that 5th class for K this year, they're basically guaranteeing that in two years, almost nobody will get in via lottery. The VPI kids and sibling preference kids already take up the majority of new K slots, and many families space their kids two years apart.

How does adding a K class make it less likely you could attend via in the future? Are you saying that the majority of kids enrolled in the bubble class will have siblings in two years, but there may not be a corresponding bubble class for the students enrolling in that year?