APS - Elementary school -who is opting for virtual in 2021/22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you watch SB meetings, last Fall, Lisa Stengle hinted strongly that an option program may be moved "North of Lee Highway." So my prediction is that Tuckahoe or Nottingham aren't long for the world either. North North Arlington schools will become overcrowded like the rest of the county.

There was no hinting. The proposal specifically identified Discovery, Jamestown, Nottingham, Taylor and Tuckahoe as schools to be considered as potential option sites in the future to provide capacity on the western end of Columbia Pile, and also specifically identified Campbell and Claremont as option schools to evaluate moving north.

And it totally makes sense that discovery Nottingham or Tuckahoe would be used as an option school, since they have overlapping walk boundaries and are all under populated. One of the big push backs is that more kids would have to be bussed up there.

My prediction is that poor Campbell will move to N. Arlington. Discovery may make the most sense for an expeditionary school to move to because it has woods and focuses on green space already, but it will probably be Tuckahoe. Claremont will probably move to Carlin Springs to ease up space for Abington, and the poor Carlin Springs kids will move to Campbell, the one school that isn't walkable for most of its population.

When the original school moves proposal was put out, it included Campbell and Carlin Springs in addition to Key, ATS and McKinley. Kadera saw all of this, and that's where her arguments came from. She wasn't trying to throw other schools under the bus.

All of the outdoor space around Discovery is covered in artificial material or playground mulch. There’s about a 20’ strip of trees behind the soccer fields before you’re in neighbors’ backyards, but that’s it.

My point is that while no N Arlington school has a Long Branch Nature Center next door, Discovery at least has the solar panels, a rain garden and some trees. It's better suited to an expeditionary program than Tuckahoe or Nottingham. But I think due to its proximity to the Metro, Tuckahoe may be the more likely choice for an option program. It's unfortunate that the Pandora's box has been opened with the first school moves, but parents should start strategizing now how to fight back when your turn eventually comes. I hope you have someone like Mary fighting for you.

Signed, an ATS parent

LOL, I can only assume you have never been to Tuckahoe.

Not OP, but you've meandered a bit. I think their point was that all N Arlington schools are up for grabs. It would suck to be your community and have to fight only to fail. Let's see what happens in the Fall.

Oh, I get the point. PP was just acting like some kind of dog with a bone about Discovery, even though their understanding of the facts was completely off base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

It’s not like those kids from Crystal City were walking to ATS before, so I doubt there will be a significant increase in the number of buses needed at ATS after the move. What do you think would have been a better solution to the Key neighborhood situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

It’s not like those kids from Crystal City were walking to ATS before, so I doubt there will be a significant increase in the number of buses needed at ATS after the move. What do you think would have been a better solution to the Key neighborhood situation?

There will be an increase in the number of buses to ATS over time, but it’s because the McKinley site can accommodate more students than are currently enrolled in ATS, so APS is planning to expand the program accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

It’s not like those kids from Crystal City were walking to ATS before, so I doubt there will be a significant increase in the number of buses needed at ATS after the move. What do you think would have been a better solution to the Key neighborhood situation?

Well, they're going to need a whole lot more buses (and fuel) to go to what was McKinley. I personally think it was a short sighted approach to shuffle schools. I live near Nottingham, and every house or teardown that goes on sale gets sold to a family with 3+ kids. Our schools probably just needed a few years (and no pandemic) to reach 100%+ capacity. And now another school here will likely become an option school here and squeeze us even further. Like the rest of Arlington. I blame the SB for this dilemma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

It’s not like those kids from Crystal City were walking to ATS before, so I doubt there will be a significant increase in the number of buses needed at ATS after the move. What do you think would have been a better solution to the Key neighborhood situation?

Well, they're going to need a whole lot more buses (and fuel) to go to what was McKinley. I personally think it was a short sighted approach to shuffle schools. I live near Nottingham, and every house or teardown that goes on sale gets sold to a family with 3+ kids. Our schools probably just needed a few years (and no pandemic) to reach 100%+ capacity. And now another school here will likely become an option school here and squeeze us even further. Like the rest of Arlington. I blame the SB for this dilemma.

I live in your neighborhood. Why do you think we are entitled to sit comfortably at capacity when ASFS is at 129% capacity? Why do we deserve to be less squeezed than other neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I think one point you’re missing is that no matter where the located ATS, there was likely to be increased busing needs because they are now servicing an additional school that necessarily will have some kids bused there. If the frictional cost of that was going to be, say, at least two routes no matter what, and then accommodating McKinleys demand to move more of its community to Reed necessitated two more buses, there’s four additional buses.

Talking about ATS, as a countywide option school, they're going to be bussing people from Crystal City to Westover. If we're talking about transportation costs, they just went sky high because ATS isn't in a central location anymore. It should have never been moved, IMO. (And since there is an ATS parent commenting here, I need to say I'm not that ATS parent.)

It’s not like those kids from Crystal City were walking to ATS before, so I doubt there will be a significant increase in the number of buses needed at ATS after the move. What do you think would have been a better solution to the Key neighborhood situation?

Well, they're going to need a whole lot more buses (and fuel) to go to what was McKinley. I personally think it was a short sighted approach to shuffle schools. I live near Nottingham, and every house or teardown that goes on sale gets sold to a family with 3+ kids. Our schools probably just needed a few years (and no pandemic) to reach 100%+ capacity. And now another school here will likely become an option school here and squeeze us even further. Like the rest of Arlington. I blame the SB for this dilemma.

Hmm you seem to have a strange perspective or are exaggerating to prove your point. I also live in your neighborhood, we bought a new house with only two kids. Only one is still in elementary.

Anyway, excitedly awaiting for 5 day in person school.

[Anonymous]

Don't get me started on Nottingham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Kadera and the Reed site- so we're directly affected by the new boundary for Reed and followed it all closely. I understand why Kadera made the arguments she did against the school moves, and I understand the issues McK has had with APS- the overcrowding, the long renovation, etc. I didn't love the manner in which she, on behalf of the McK PTA, suggested that specific other schools be made into option sites, but I understand why it was done.

But so I looked at her website/blog thing and read this:

"3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?"

So as I understood it, McKinley specifically argued for sending as many of their students to Reed as possible, to the exclusion of walkable kids from other schools. The boundary map proposed by the McK PTA suggested that even those kids who live in houses like 20 yards from the school door not attend (though APS rejected that in the end). I don't know, my understanding was that APS viewed Reed as a walkable school based on the # of kids who COULD walk there. But APS acceded to McK's demands, and now will continue to bus kids who could walk to Reed to Tuckahoe, and bus kids who used to walk to McK from Madison Manor to Reed. Isn't that why the busing costs are higher then anticipated?

I don't know, this is probably super nitpicky and set me straight if I'm not understanding what happened. But it just seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who was so involved in this process.

I don’t think this is nitpicky at all. I haven’t verified every detail of this personally, but if this is how it all went down, I think this is pretty dishonest of her.

At least some of what you say above doesn't make sense. The Madison Manor kids who weren't going to be able to walk to McKinley anymore once that building was made into a choice school were always going to have to be bussed somewhere because by and large they weren't going to be going to be able to walk to the old McKinley building for school anymore. And they sure weren't going to walk to Ashlawn or WHEREVER else APS decided to assign them -- too far whether Reed or some other school.

Whatever old mckinley footprint kadera asked to preserve, it sure wasn't $400K worth of buses of a footprint, so I assume Kadera's point is that, hey, the reason you guys chose McKinley as a school to convert to a choice school in the first place is because the Westover bucket of walkable kids is larger than the Madison Manor bucket of walkable kids. But if were really true, why is it costing $400K more than it used to at McKinley to get buses to load up Reed? I see the point about Tuckahoe, but again that's not $400K worth of buses so what happened?

To give some perspective on it, $400k is roughly the equivalent of four buses.

That aside, I think you’re misinterpreting pp’s post. The issue, as I understand it, is that Kadera argued on behalf of the McKinley community to send more of the McKinley community (such as the Madison Manor pocket you mentioned) to Reed, even though they would need to be bused to Reed and it would mean zoning away planning units that could walk to Reed (but would have to be bused elsewhere) to accommodate them. It would be pretty disingenuous to argue for a boundary that you know will increase busing needs and then criticize APS for budgeting for more transportations funds to accommodate the solution you asked for.

Thanks, I'm the initial poster. That is what I meant.

What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.

I believe you that it's not a $400k difference, but if the point she was trying to make was that the only issue is that it should be $100k-$200k (1-2 buses) vs. $400k, that was not clear to me.

I think Kadera might still be making a point that you guys aren't getting. I acknowledge that there's a small grey area where the costs are a little higher because maybe some of walkable Tuckahoe didn't move to Reed (is that right?), but that still doesn't really defeat the point, which is:

When picking a school to change to a choice school, McKinley was told that it was a good target to move to Reed because McKinley used a lot of buses, and fewer net buses would be needed for a neighborhood program at Reed because so many more kids at Westover would be walkable at Reed than were walkable at McKinley.

This didn't seem to be true, in the end. Those Tuckahoe kids don't make up $400K worth of buses. If the net cost of transporting the Madison Manor kids (who were walkable to McKinley!) is more than the net cost of busing the Westover kids to McKinley had been, then wasn't McKinley actually more "walkable" in the end than Reed was? Why would buses cost that much more than they had cost to McKinley if Reed was actually more walkable?

I am the person who raised it. Again, I get what you are saying. However, I'm looking at what Kadera has on her website, which doesn't contain the context or nuance you are reading into it. She's citing a statement APS made about relative transportation costs when APS was making the case for the school moves, and saying "APS said this would be cheaper, but it's more expensive- what happened?" Without explaining that APS made that statement based on the assumption that those who could walk to Reed would do so. It's comparing apples and oranges. You have to at least acknowledge that the decision to not send all 3 walkable Tuckahoe PUs to Reed resulted in the relative transportation costs to increase. I think it's misleading to omit that.

This little blurb appears in a long list of budget issues, many of which are interesting and I hope people read them. Most are far more general than this. Maybe Kadera was trying to question more generally question how APS budgets for transportation. Maybe she was seizing on this specific item because she's familiar with it, and I get that. But it reads another critique of the decision to move schools, just reframed as a budget issue.

[Anonymous]

I agree with this fro a PP...

“What I read implied that APS had misrepresented or miscalculated Reed's walkability because they are now spending $$$ to bus kids there. My immediate thought was, well of course the estimated transportation costs went up after they finalized the boundaries, because they probably assumed that all the kids who could walk to Reed would go there. And that someone intimately involved in the process would know that.”

I’m not even half as involved as this woman and I could tell you why Reed suddenly needs more buses.

By the way, the bus and cost implications of the Reed boundary were pointed out to APS repeatedly and also the traffic nightmare they created and it was more important to not upset anyone during a pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Three planning units are not 2 buses unless they're huge units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three planning units are not 2 buses unless they're huge units.

The data APS presented in the fall boundary process said that the total number of kids in those 3 PUs was about 120.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three planning units are not 2 buses unless they're huge units.

The data APS presented in the fall boundary process said that the total number of kids in those 3 PUs was about 120.

I should add- APS defined the walk zone differently at different points in time. When the school move debate was happening, they designated 2 Tuckahoe PUs as walkable to Reed. The estimate was 90 kids in those 2 units. They later said that 3 units were walkable, which would have added another 30 kids or so, so 120.

The final boundary sends 1 Tuckahoe PU to Reed, which is estimated as 50 kids. So the estimate, I guess, is 70 walkable kids possibly continuing to bus to Tuckahoe. There are people in one of those PUs who felt that Reed was too far to walk, and they're in the expanded walk zone to Tuckahoe (have to cross Lee Hwy & Sycamore though, no idea if they'll keep that). But those are the basic numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three planning units are not 2 buses unless they're huge units.

The data APS presented in the fall boundary process said that the total number of kids in those 3 PUs was about 120.

I should add- APS defined the walk zone differently at different points in time. When the school move debate was happening, they designated 2 Tuckahoe PUs as walkable to Reed. The estimate was 90 kids in those 2 units. They later said that 3 units were walkable, which would have added another 30 kids or so, so 120.

The final boundary sends 1 Tuckahoe PU to Reed, which is estimated as 50 kids. So the estimate, I guess, is 70 walkable kids possibly continuing to bus to Tuckahoe. There are people in one of those PUs who felt that Reed was too far to walk, and they're in the expanded walk zone to Tuckahoe (have to cross Lee Hwy & Sycamore though, no idea if they'll keep that). But those are the basic numbers.

So:

120 Tuckahoe kids total, =
50 kids who actually ARE walking to Reed so incur NO bus costs to Tuckahoe;
30 kids who never wanted to go to Reed in the first place because it was too far to walk to but who ARE walking to Tuckahoe (!) via the expanded walk zone (so NO bus costs figured in to whatever the current estimate is);
40 kids now taking a bus who, but for Kadera, might have walked to Reed.

Wait. Is the difference because they also argued that some kids that would be moved to Ashlawn, or maybe Glebe, should really go to Reed instead, to keep McKinley together? So the costs of those buses goes to Reed also, where otherwise it would have gone to Ashlawn or Glebe? Otherwise I don't think those 40 kids and even a frictional cost bus (not all the frictional costs of a new neighborhood school would be borne by Reed -- they would be spread out across Arlington) should add up to $400K but I could be wrong.