APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, that has nothing to do with whether you evaluate walkability on a percentage basis or on the absolute number of students who could walk there. You're having a different conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. I think what pp is saying is that if 5 isn't going to be the new standard, if the next couple of kindergarten years there are 4 classes rather than 5, it will be harder for kids without preference to get in via lottery than in past years because there will be more children who have preference in the lottery because they did VPI there or having older siblings in the school. PP has failed to quantify the magnitude of this consideration, though, to confirm it's a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, that has nothing to do with whether you evaluate walkability on a percentage basis or on the absolute number of students who could walk there. You're having a different conversation.

It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, that has nothing to do with whether you evaluate walkability on a percentage basis or on the absolute number of students who could walk there. You're having a different conversation.

It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

Some of you are missing the real origin of this. The whole "percentages aren't a good way to look at it because it doesn't account for school size" argument did not arise because of anything having to do with Randolph or other high transfer rate schools, it was developed to target Nottingham, as a way of saying that Nottingham's 82% walkable calculation was misleading because Nottingham is a smaller school with fewer absolute walkers than, say, Oakridge (which is the school one or two posters kept using as the comparison point, even though the two schools are basically irrelevant to each other for purposes of this analysis). What the charts above show is that despite the school being smaller than many others, is still a highly walkable school by any measure, and is more walkable than any other NW school other than Reed (on an absolute basis; not percentage).

Whether Randolph should be protected as a neighborhood school based on its potential for walkability is a different question that has nothing to do with the data charts shared here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

Some of you are missing the real origin of this. The whole "percentages aren't a good way to look at it because it doesn't account for school size" argument did not arise because of anything having to do with Randolph or other high transfer rate schools, it was developed to target Nottingham, as a way of saying that Nottingham's 82% walkable calculation was misleading because Nottingham is a smaller school with fewer absolute walkers than, say, Oakridge (which is the school one or two posters kept using as the comparison point, even though the two schools are basically irrelevant to each other for purposes of this analysis). What the charts above show is that despite the school being smaller than many others, is still a highly walkable school by any measure, and is more walkable than any other NW school other than Reed (on an absolute basis; not percentage).

Whether Randolph should be protected as a neighborhood school based on its potential for walkability is a different question that has nothing to do with the data charts shared here.

Question about the 82% walkable number for Nottingham: the APS Go survey only shows 38% identifying as walkers, it looks like the other half of the walkable population is riding in cars. Is that because of before and aftercare or because the walkers just don't want to walk?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nottingham_v2.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

Some of you are missing the real origin of this. The whole "percentages aren't a good way to look at it because it doesn't account for school size" argument did not arise because of anything having to do with Randolph or other high transfer rate schools, it was developed to target Nottingham, as a way of saying that Nottingham's 82% walkable calculation was misleading because Nottingham is a smaller school with fewer absolute walkers than, say, Oakridge (which is the school one or two posters kept using as the comparison point, even though the two schools are basically irrelevant to each other for purposes of this analysis). What the charts above show is that despite the school being smaller than many others, is still a highly walkable school by any measure, and is more walkable than any other NW school other than Reed (on an absolute basis; not percentage).

Whether Randolph should be protected as a neighborhood school based on its potential for walkability is a different question that has nothing to do with the data charts shared here.

Question about the 82% walkable number for Nottingham: the APS Go survey only shows 38% identifying as walkers, it looks like the other half of the walkable population is riding in cars. Is that because of before and aftercare or because the walkers just don't want to walk?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nottingham_v2.pdf

First, there are two different methodologies used in that study, giving different results for the % who actually walk. You can't ignore one just because the other is more favorable, both have their pros and cons as measures of actual walk rates.

Second, you see the same pattern among walkers at all elementary schools. If you want to convince me that Nottingham is an outlier in this regard, you need to show me actual comparative data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

Some of you are missing the real origin of this. The whole "percentages aren't a good way to look at it because it doesn't account for school size" argument did not arise because of anything having to do with Randolph or other high transfer rate schools, it was developed to target Nottingham, as a way of saying that Nottingham's 82% walkable calculation was misleading because Nottingham is a smaller school with fewer absolute walkers than, say, Oakridge (which is the school one or two posters kept using as the comparison point, even though the two schools are basically irrelevant to each other for purposes of this analysis). What the charts above show is that despite the school being smaller than many others, is still a highly walkable school by any measure, and is more walkable than any other NW school other than Reed (on an absolute basis; not percentage).

Whether Randolph should be protected as a neighborhood school based on its potential for walkability is a different question that has nothing to do with the data charts shared here.

Question about the 82% walkable number for Nottingham: the APS Go survey only shows 38% identifying as walkers, it looks like the other half of the walkable population is riding in cars. Is that because of before and aftercare or because the walkers just don't want to walk?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nottingham_v2.pdf

First, there are two different methodologies used in that study, giving different results for the % who actually walk. You can't ignore one just because the other is more favorable, both have their pros and cons as measures of actual walk rates.

Second, you see the same pattern among walkers at all elementary schools. If you want to convince me that Nottingham is an outlier in this regard, you need to show me actual comparative data.

Ok, so the data set from kids identifying how they came to school is saying 38% walking. I believe this is the more accurate number because it was done at school and does not have a selection bias like the parent survey. The parent survey says 53% walk to school and 56% walk home. This is based just on the parents who answered the survey, so the accuracy of the number is questionable.

The point is, both numbers are far below 82%, so what's going on there? Convenience? Aftercare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Question about the 82% walkable number for Nottingham: the APS Go survey only shows 38% identifying as walkers, it looks like the other half of the walkable population is riding in cars. Is that because of before and aftercare or because the walkers just don't want to walk?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nottingham_v2.pdf

To my knowledge, APS did not do the additional level of data-gathering to understand that but anecdotal evidence seems that the answer might be both. On days when I work at home, I walk my child to school. On days that I work at the office, we drive to extended day on my way to the office. Is my child a walker, and is the school walkable? Depending on the day that the survey was taken, my child would have answered in different ways. Same goes for probably hundreds if not thousands of families around Arlington.

This is part of what APS was trying to figure out with the walkability assessment earlier this year, trying to identify some of the reasons that families might not walk even if they are within a reasonable distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so the data set from kids identifying how they came to school is saying 38% walking. I believe this is the more accurate number because it was done at school and does not have a selection bias like the parent survey. The parent survey says 53% walk to school and 56% walk home. This is based just on the parents who answered the survey, so the accuracy of the number is questionable.

The point is, both numbers are far below 82%, so what's going on there? Convenience? Aftercare?

They asked the kids how they got to school that day. The parents' survey asked how they typically or usually traveled to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the same conversation. If the reason we care so much about walkability is actually moving kids off buses for health or environmental or even financial reasons, you can't ignore whether the number of students, whether percentage or absolute, make it a good choice for an option vs. neighborhood school if they are not choosing to walk to that school now.

This conversation didn't start off as one about how much weight should be given to walkability or whether students who transfer should be counted, it was about whether we should calculate walkability on a percentage basis or an absolute basis. A pp asserted that percentage basis was the wrong way to look at it because it favored smaller schools and thus misrepresented true walkability, and that's what the data was presented to refute. You are now hijacking it as a strawman to make a different point.

Some of you are missing the real origin of this. The whole "percentages aren't a good way to look at it because it doesn't account for school size" argument did not arise because of anything having to do with Randolph or other high transfer rate schools, it was developed to target Nottingham, as a way of saying that Nottingham's 82% walkable calculation was misleading because Nottingham is a smaller school with fewer absolute walkers than, say, Oakridge (which is the school one or two posters kept using as the comparison point, even though the two schools are basically irrelevant to each other for purposes of this analysis). What the charts above show is that despite the school being smaller than many others, is still a highly walkable school by any measure, and is more walkable than any other NW school other than Reed (on an absolute basis; not percentage).

Whether Randolph should be protected as a neighborhood school based on its potential for walkability is a different question that has nothing to do with the data charts shared here.

Question about the 82% walkable number for Nottingham: the APS Go survey only shows 38% identifying as walkers, it looks like the other half of the walkable population is riding in cars. Is that because of before and aftercare or because the walkers just don't want to walk?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nottingham_v2.pdf

First, there are two different methodologies used in that study, giving different results for the % who actually walk. You can't ignore one just because the other is more favorable, both have their pros and cons as measures of actual walk rates.

Second, you see the same pattern among walkers at all elementary schools. If you want to convince me that Nottingham is an outlier in this regard, you need to show me actual comparative data.

Ok, so the data set from kids identifying how they came to school is saying 38% walking. I believe this is the more accurate number because it was done at school and does not have a selection bias like the parent survey. The parent survey says 53% walk to school and 56% walk home. This is based just on the parents who answered the survey, so the accuracy of the number is questionable.

The point is, both numbers are far below 82%, so what's going on there? Convenience? Aftercare?

I assume it's for the same reasons that parents at all of the other schools do it as well.

Also, student reporting is not necessarily more accurate. It's done on two random days and doesn't include all classes. If one of the days selected happened to by rainy, of course you'll see more kids reporting they drove rather than walked. The parent reporting was asking about most often overall, so capture more than just two single days.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t the point of walkability for present purposes not how many kids actually walk, but how many kids are in the walk zone and thus don’t require a bus? I don’t think APS cares if a child takes a helicopter to school, so long as they don’t have to find a driver for another route.

[Anonymous]

Why is Nottingham still litigating this question. You got your pardon from the governor or whoever you all petitioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the point of walkability for present purposes not how many kids actually walk, but how many kids are in the walk zone and thus don’t require a bus? I don’t think APS cares if a child takes a helicopter to school, so long as they don’t have to find a driver for another route.

That is one thing they are considering, but they are also looking at planning units currently in walk zones that don't actually walk as on the table to be bused elsewhere if that's the most sensible thing to do for boundaries. They've said this many times in meetings and work sessions when they talk about wanting to be mindful of car traffic around schools, and how it's better for traffic overall if you can have one bus going to a school rather than 30 cars.

I think there's a good chance this will be how they'll deal with NA boundaries, where the biggest problem is that Jamestown is under capacity because its locked in by the crowding to the west of Discovery/Nottingham/Tuckahoe (so its boundary can't move west) and the Taylor/Glebe walk zones to the southeast. If Jamestown gives its western bused units to Discovery and takes the eastern portion of the Taylor walkzone (with the justification that too many people over there drive rather than cross Military) to reach to some of the bus zones beyond it, that will free up space in Taylor to take a bunch of the current ASFS zone around Key. It won't make for pretty boundaries, but they'll be contiguous and they'll finally have a prospect of filling Jamestown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Nottingham still litigating this question. You got your pardon from the governor or whoever you all petitioned.

We're Discovery so I can't speak for them, but I thought the criticism of Nottingham was that it ended up on the list because they were too complacent in the early stages. The process isn't cancelled, just suspended, plenty of people think they'll pick it up again next year. Seems reasonable for them to stay involved in whatever conversation continues.