The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I simply do not understand why all of you folks with excellent and shiny new north arlington schools are up and at arms over this. So you have to go a little further to get to your excellent school. So what. The school board will make sure your kids are no longer in crowded schools. Have you not learned that the school board takes care of north arlington? I mean, they assigned Reed as a neighborhood school knowing they would then have an excess of seats in the area. Enjoy what your money bought.

Completely agree.

I find it revolting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

This.
This entire thread reminds me of all the anti-swap threads last year. Lots of rumor-mongering. "No one will move with the school if it moves". "All of the other schools are going to be over crowded." "Boundaries are still going to look bad."
I've heard these arguments before -- you just don't want to leave your school, even though it means screwing over Arlington as a whole. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

So I have no dog in the McKinley/Nottingham fight, but wasn’t the idea that the schools with trailer flex should be option and the schools with more permanent seats should be neighborhood? Like, it’s a choice to go to an option school, so you should deal with trailers? Or are we now saying the option schools should not have trailers and the neighborhood schools will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

McKinley's current walkers are in the planning units south of 66 that will probably be moved to Ashlawn. The 40% walkability in the Options are those walkable in planning units north of 66.

Some of them will also be walkers to Ashlawn, so they won't even become bus riders.

No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.

They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.

People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.

My Ashlawn walker crosses Wilson with a crossing guard. We are the last block before the current McKinley boundary. What am I missing?
Did the poster mean kids can’t cross 66? Because they definitely can at Ohio Street or Patrick Henry.

Did they mean kids can’t cross Washington? Swanson already has a crossing guard at Washington and PH - they could work Jr high and then Elementary. Or put another crossing guard at McKinley and Washington.

Technically you can't cross Wilson at Elem level so you get a bus. There is one tiny street on the other side of the park that goes to Ashlawn (Lexington). No crossing guard there so they get a bus. Yes for the less than 1/2 mile.

False. There is a crossing guard on Wilson near the pool for the dominion hills folks to cross. Once you get east of the park trail there is bus service, but for the Ashlawn folks north of wilson right by the school, they are walkers, and there is a crossing guard.

True there is a crossing guard there but there is not one at the Rose Garden light (where the horrible bike path detour was). Kids that live across Wilson across from the park get a bus to Ashlawn. All 10 of them. Don't believe me? Come to the Rose Garden and watch around 8:45 each morning. Doesn't really make a difference but there are kids there being bused. And this will be the bus that picks up the McK kids there that will be moved to Ashlawn.

I have no skin in this game-my youngest will be out of elem by the time they sort this whole mess out but I do live right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

So I have no dog in the McKinley/Nottingham fight, but wasn’t the idea that the schools with trailer flex should be option and the schools with more permanent seats should be neighborhood? Like, it’s a choice to go to an option school, so you should deal with trailers? Or are we now saying the option schools should not have trailers and the neighborhood schools will?

That was a part of the equation during the last big n Arlington elementary boundary discussion. You are remembering correctly. Trailers allow option programs to essentially inflate to relieve pressure on oversubscribed neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

So I have no dog in the McKinley/Nottingham fight, but wasn’t the idea that the schools with trailer flex should be option and the schools with more permanent seats should be neighborhood? Like, it’s a choice to go to an option school, so you should deal with trailers? Or are we now saying the option schools should not have trailers and the neighborhood schools will?

That was a part of the equation during the last big n Arlington elementary boundary discussion. You are remembering correctly. Trailers allow option programs to essentially inflate to relieve pressure on oversubscribed neighborhood schools.

Actually, while it was initially a factor in the staff analysis, the staff specifically removed this as a factor favoring option status in the second round of analysis once it was pointed out that it would hamstring future efforts to address overcrowding. Staff and SB agree that option schools are an ineffective tool for managing overcrowding because they have no way to ensure that additional seats are filled by students from overcapacity schools rather than under-capacity schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

I'm curious about this, as well. I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone. Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located. A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern.

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.

Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space). If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy. Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley. Nothing crazy there.

Look, I am not saying to go after Nottingham-- that was not the intent of my post. I am just saying that the excess capacity is north of Lee Highway, and you can't fill that without crazy boundaries. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, but if you look at the planning units and the data it isn't as easy as you think when you eyeball it. Per your example, the two planning units in the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that are currently going to Nottingham are 17020 and 17030. It sounds like you live up there, so I don't have to tell you that 17020 is literally directly across the street from Nottingham. You think those parents are going to be okay when it comes time to draw boundaries and they are told that they can't go to the school that they literally stare at from their front porch?

But even if you go with the tough love approach and move them, you still have a math problem because McKinley holds 684 kids and Tuckahoe and Nottingham are a lot smaller buildings (545 and 519). By the time you shift everyone northward (and Tuckahoe families westward to Reed), you will end up filling Tuckahoe with a majority of current McKinley and Ashlawn kids-- and those students are going to drive right past the McKinley building to get to Tuckahoe. That doesn't make sense.

Drawing boundaries for this proposal is going to be a CF and a lot more kids are going to end up getting moved in the end. Everyone needs to realize that. Again, just look at the middle school boundary process if you don't believe me. We are reopening all those boundaries AGAIN immediately after we draw these boundaries because they have to get more kids into Hamm and Williamsburg.

[Anonymous]

I want an interactive boundary tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want an interactive boundary tool.

Pretty sure they're never doing that again after the high school boundary fiasco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want an interactive boundary tool.

Pretty sure they're never doing that again after the high school boundary fiasco.

We Arlington nerds need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a "Save McKinley" proponent but why can't ATS stay right where it is? It's not in the IPP so why are we trying to move it to a bigger building, and why is it a "pro" under both proposals that 100 more kids could go there? I'm a South Arlington resident and I think ATS is bad for South Arlington.

And, ATS is a not a walkable school so keep it as an option but without moving Immersion or Campbell there. What's wrong with Immersion to Carlin Springs, full stop? Yes, there will be a somewhat wide swath of West Pike with no neighborhood school, but Campbell is functionally a neighborhood school for Glencarlyn anyway. Split up the non-Glencarlyn PUs between Abingdon and Ashlawn and do tons of outreach to that community to get them to apply to CS as Immersion. McK, Reed, and ASFS can take Ashlawn's long boundary and some of Glebe.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

ASFS may be temporarily under-enrolled after the new borders - but there are 1,200+ apartments within 1/3rd mile (including 2 & 3 bedroom affordable housing) coming online in the next few years. It will be full again, and diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want an interactive boundary tool.

Pretty sure they're never doing that again after the high school boundary fiasco.

We Arlington nerds need it.

+1

Please give us the boundary tool. You can decide whatever you want if we can play with maps & data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So I have no dog in the McKinley/Nottingham fight, but wasn’t the idea that the schools with trailer flex should be option and the schools with more permanent seats should be neighborhood? Like, it’s a choice to go to an option school, so you should deal with trailers? Or are we now saying the option schools should not have trailers and the neighborhood schools will?

I think they should figure out who the anonymous posters of DCUM with little value added and make sure their kids get placed in schools with trailers.