APS Superintendent High School Overcrowding Plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I know. What I meant, but didn't write out, is that it seems like the most valuable input will come from people who live near the parcel. Because the parcel is in south Arlington, that's probably not going to include very many people on MONA.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which the long-term needs of Arlington County and APS are considered as whole, not piecemeal, with available resources presented at the same time so all groups (parents, the elderly, the young and sporty, the low income, and all the other members of the community, complete with competing AND overlapping needs) could see what the tradeoffs for various decisions are. If you build a high-rise school here, it leaves the park here untouched. If you put a middle-school here, where do you put the senior center? The high school? The art center?

If people had to think about everything at once, maybe you wouldn't have a situation in which people shout down a solution because they don't want (or do want) something to happen in their neighborhood. Something is going to happen in every neighborhood. What does the most good for the largest number at the best cost?

YES!!!!! It can't be left to one neighborhood to decide for all of Arlington. Otherwise we wouldn't have a water treatment plant (because who wants that near them), or a mulch pile, or anything other than parks. Everyone seems to be cool with parks. But in our increasingly urban county, we need to find a way to accommodate most of the needs, maybe not all the wants.

Glencarlyn, if any of you are here, what would you rather have? Because the county is not acquiring 11.5 acres in your neighborhood to leave it undeveloped. Something is going to be built that addresses some of the community facilities needs. Personally, I'd rather have a school than just about any of the other possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I know. What I meant, but didn't write out, is that it seems like the most valuable input will come from people who live near the parcel. Because the parcel is in south Arlington, that's probably not going to include very many people on MONA.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which the long-term needs of Arlington County and APS are considered as whole, not piecemeal, with available resources presented at the same time so all groups (parents, the elderly, the young and sporty, the low income, and all the other members of the community, complete with competing AND overlapping needs) could see what the tradeoffs for various decisions are. If you build a high-rise school here, it leaves the park here untouched. If you put a middle-school here, where do you put the senior center? The high school? The art center?

If people had to think about everything at once, maybe you wouldn't have a situation in which people shout down a solution because they don't want (or do want) something to happen in their neighborhood. Something is going to happen in every neighborhood. What does the most good for the largest number at the best cost?

It sounds like you are agreeing with one of the major recommendations of the year-long Arlington Facilities Committee (below)--a recommendation that the County Board, as advised by the new County Manager, is basically not going to implement right now. (Instead they have their new wacky 6-person cabal.) Ironically, the test case for the new public siting process also recommended by the Facilities Committee is that Carlin Springs parcel....but the Board wants to do the siting process without having the joint discussions about needs and resources. It doesn't make any sense.

"We recommend the Boards establish a Facilities Strategic Planning Committee consisting of two County Board and two School Board Members (with a rotating Chair). This committee would monitor and provide strategic guidance on public facilities and associated budgets to the full Boards for their respective ultimate decision-making processes. The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would also provide guidance to a Joint County/APS staff team. This staff team would be chaired by a designated senior person from the County Manager’s office and composed of the key facilities planning staff from APS and County departments. The staff person designated to lead the effort must be senior enough to provide direction and leadership to the rest of the team and be charged with taking a longer strategic view of needs. A longer term, data-driven strategic view of needs—in conjunction with a recognition and understanding of immediate priorities—is critical to ensuring a balanced view of capital facility needs.

The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would receive annual updates on demographic trends, development market projections and other factors (including the natural aging of structures) and, for schools, the general geography of future school needs that might impact the need for future facilities, whether County or Schools.

In developing a master list of projected future needs, the four-person Committee would review those facilities currently in the pipeline (e.g. the adopted CIP and other previously identified needs) and also the various adopted plans that are part of the Comprehensive Plan, and supporting documents including sector and area plans that are adopted for different areas of the County.

Community involvement would be achieved through a new Joint Facilities Advisory Commission, with members appointed by both the County and School Boards. This commission would provide a venue for broader community input and coordination with other established advisory commissions.

Under this proposed approach, once the public facility needs have been listed and prioritized, in a more open way with community members, this work would feed into other processes on specific projects. As charged by the Boards, the Committee is proposing a new siting process that would be followed by the County and Schools when a new site is needed for a facility. This framework would guide all types of large and complex public facility projects including new schools, fire stations, storage and infrastructure “back of house” needs."

--Final report, page 17
http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/community-facilities-study/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone looked at Jennie Dean park on Four Mile Run? Already has lighted fields and parking, and the land/businesses adjacent could be taken via eminent domain. Those buildings are nothing special. And it's in S Arlington, which is where the need is. It's not perfect geographically as it's a little more than a mile from Wakefield, but no site is perfect.

Flood Plain issues. APS will not build a school there, ever. Came out during the SAWG process.

How about clear out all the crap where the bus depot/trades center is off Arlington Mill Dr and make that a school site? You have to decentralize that stuff, but who cares? That site is huge.

They can't really decentralize the bulk of that operation (they maintain the vehicles there) and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have vehicle maintenance and vehicle storage and offices in three (or more) different places. They are going to have to have some satellite locations for some materials storage anyhow--the space on Arlington Mill isn't even big enough. At any rate, DES, like everything else in Arlington, is a victim of the county's success in being a great community. More people = more school buses, more ART buses, more police cars to store and maintain. Better service levels = more park maintenance vehicles, more trail maintenance vehicles, more plows to store and maintain. Higher environmental goals = bigger mulch/brush piles, bigger tankers to capture wastewater during repairs, more space to better manage materials inventory/reduce waste. And so on and so forth. This is why parents need to pay attention to county issues and not just the schools. Any "solution" that solves a school problem but creates a county problem is going to be dismissed out of hand, yet we spend so much time talking about them!

I think you don't realize that parents are sick of this self-congratulatory crap about Arlington being a victim of its own success. It's a victim of bad planning and poor coordination between APS and the county board.

You may not be willing to admit it yet, but school problems are, by definition, county problems.

This. I get that it's a small county, with limited space. But the reality is that there is no place, anywhere in Arlington, to build a school that won't somehow "create problems" for some other interest group in the county. Traffic or loss of some green space or loss of county-owned community space or increased taxes or simply opportunity cost (once you take it for a school you can't use for some other purpose).

Do I think we should build schools in such a way that the associated "problems" are minimized? Absolutely. Is there a way to avoid those problems entirely? No.

I wrote the above and agree completely--we can't avoid these problems, and school problems are by definition county problems. I just think it's a waste of time when people offer up these "why don't they just X" ideas. We can never "just X" anything--there are always tradeoffs, but it seems like at every CIP meeting and every budget meeting and every community meeting, half the time gets spent debunking the same dead-end ideas. Then we have to have some huge community process to move every single project forward (Wilson School, new south Arlington elementary, Fire Station #8) because everyone in the community digs in to their narrow positions and our leaders won't lead the way to a balanced solution--they wait until everyone else has fumbled their way there and then they rubber stamp it. Its ridiculous.

I wrote the post about not being able to avoid problems. I see we are in complete agreement. Can I nominate you to head up a community group on this issue? We can be the "let's be reasonable" group. I promise to attend every meeting. And bring you coffee.

And I, bagels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alexandria city does a combo of schools and rec center and honestly it's a big fail.

Arlington has this at Jefferson Middle School/Community Center. I don't live near there, but have used the community center, attended community and school events there, and have friends whose kids go to school there. It's never seemed like a failure to me in any way, but I fully admit I am not in a position to know.

I've heard the locker rooms are NASTY....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I know. What I meant, but didn't write out, is that it seems like the most valuable input will come from people who live near the parcel. Because the parcel is in south Arlington, that's probably not going to include very many people on MONA.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which the long-term needs of Arlington County and APS are considered as whole, not piecemeal, with available resources presented at the same time so all groups (parents, the elderly, the young and sporty, the low income, and all the other members of the community, complete with competing AND overlapping needs) could see what the tradeoffs for various decisions are. If you build a high-rise school here, it leaves the park here untouched. If you put a middle-school here, where do you put the senior center? The high school? The art center?

If people had to think about everything at once, maybe you wouldn't have a situation in which people shout down a solution because they don't want (or do want) something to happen in their neighborhood. Something is going to happen in every neighborhood. What does the most good for the largest number at the best cost?

It sounds like you are agreeing with one of the major recommendations of the year-long Arlington Facilities Committee (below)--a recommendation that the County Board, as advised by the new County Manager, is basically not going to implement right now. (Instead they have their new wacky 6-person cabal.) Ironically, the test case for the new public siting process also recommended by the Facilities Committee is that Carlin Springs parcel....but the Board wants to do the siting process without having the joint discussions about needs and resources. It doesn't make any sense.

"We recommend the Boards establish a Facilities Strategic Planning Committee consisting of two County Board and two School Board Members (with a rotating Chair). This committee would monitor and provide strategic guidance on public facilities and associated budgets to the full Boards for their respective ultimate decision-making processes. The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would also provide guidance to a Joint County/APS staff team. This staff team would be chaired by a designated senior person from the County Manager’s office and composed of the key facilities planning staff from APS and County departments. The staff person designated to lead the effort must be senior enough to provide direction and leadership to the rest of the team and be charged with taking a longer strategic view of needs. A longer term, data-driven strategic view of needs—in conjunction with a recognition and understanding of immediate priorities—is critical to ensuring a balanced view of capital facility needs.

The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would receive annual updates on demographic trends, development market projections and other factors (including the natural aging of structures) and, for schools, the general geography of future school needs that might impact the need for future facilities, whether County or Schools.

In developing a master list of projected future needs, the four-person Committee would review those facilities currently in the pipeline (e.g. the adopted CIP and other previously identified needs) and also the various adopted plans that are part of the Comprehensive Plan, and supporting documents including sector and area plans that are adopted for different areas of the County.

Community involvement would be achieved through a new Joint Facilities Advisory Commission, with members appointed by both the County and School Boards. This commission would provide a venue for broader community input and coordination with other established advisory commissions.

Under this proposed approach, once the public facility needs have been listed and prioritized, in a more open way with community members, this work would feed into other processes on specific projects. As charged by the Boards, the Committee is proposing a new siting process that would be followed by the County and Schools when a new site is needed for a facility. This framework would guide all types of large and complex public facility projects including new schools, fire stations, storage and infrastructure “back of house” needs."

--Final report, page 17
http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/community-facilities-study/

I found this tidbit interesting:

Arlington has always prided itself on its level of civic participation, from
the early 1950s when a generation of residents, many of them federal
employees, wrested control of the schools from the segregationist-minded
state government

Our schools are still segregated, so where's the recommendation on this issue?

[Anonymous]

^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

True! I think then Wakefield and that new high school have demographics that mimic WL's.

[Anonymous]

Move the IB program to the new high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

True! I think then Wakefield and that new high school have demographics that mimic WL's.

Now that would be fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I know. What I meant, but didn't write out, is that it seems like the most valuable input will come from people who live near the parcel. Because the parcel is in south Arlington, that's probably not going to include very many people on MONA.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which the long-term needs of Arlington County and APS are considered as whole, not piecemeal, with available resources presented at the same time so all groups (parents, the elderly, the young and sporty, the low income, and all the other members of the community, complete with competing AND overlapping needs) could see what the tradeoffs for various decisions are. If you build a high-rise school here, it leaves the park here untouched. If you put a middle-school here, where do you put the senior center? The high school? The art center?

If people had to think about everything at once, maybe you wouldn't have a situation in which people shout down a solution because they don't want (or do want) something to happen in their neighborhood. Something is going to happen in every neighborhood. What does the most good for the largest number at the best cost?

I'm not sure what you're responding to. I wrote a bit above that about the fact that I'm on my neighborhood's board, and that it's important to understand that the vast majority of Arlington households do not have school aged kids at all. My point was that parents can't simply expect to lay claim to any available parcel of land.

I don't disagree with your aspirations for the planning process. I think the county has attempted to move toward more holistic planning in, for example, the Lee Highway roundtables they put together recently. However, I can tell you from recent experience, when there is a specific land use proposal on the table, the County Board staff wants to hear from people who live near that land parcel. And so I what I was trying to say is that if there are parents who live near the Carlin Springs parcel who want to see it used for a school, and who could articulate the positive effect such a school would have on their part of the community, that will be perhaps more persuasive than input from me, a north Arlington resident, saying "please put a school over there."

Thanks, this is valuable input. I just want to say though, because I can't resist making a snide comment, that this north Arlington resident would be happy to say "please put a school right here near me" but the only available land in my neighborhood (that I know about) is the site next to W-L, which is already a possibility being discussed for school expansion. It's not *because* the VH site is far away from me that I think it should be used. It's because I can't see another viable option for a high school/middle school (and all the associated space needed for ball fields) anywhere else. I'm happy to point to another site if there is a viable one on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

True! I think then Wakefield and that new high school have demographics that mimic WL's.

Now that would be fantastic.

Agree!

But I still wonder if a 9th-grade-only school would be an easier pill for the neighborhood to swallow. (Assuming they perceive a school as a negative. PP is right that many people might think a school preferable to many other alternative uses for the site.)

--Charter member of the Let's Be Reasonable Committee, Bearer of Coffee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Move the IB program to the new high school?

Hmmmm....interesting idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

True! I think then Wakefield and that new high school have demographics that mimic WL's.

Now that would be fantastic.

I've considered it. But when might such land present itself again? Limited options. In an ideal world I wouldn't put a school here, but there is no ideal world situation. It's here or nowhere (and it might be nowhere since I am not in the know about what other plans the county might be secretly prioritizing).

That area is currently zoned W-L, but probably not for long (they will be the first sent to Wakefield to alleviate crowding at W-L). And there's no reason we couldn't be a bit creative with the boundaries so that the new school, W-L, Wakefield, and Yorktown even, retain diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ no kidding...


Also, has anyone thought about the demographics of a HS built at the carlin springs site?
Seems that would siphon off almost all the west end of Columbia pike. That's a huge portion of the county's AH.

True! I think then Wakefield and that new high school have demographics that mimic WL's.

Now that would be fantastic.

Agree!

But I still wonder if a 9th-grade-only school would be an easier pill for the neighborhood to swallow. (Assuming they perceive a school as a negative. PP is right that many people might think a school preferable to many other alternative uses for the site.)

--Charter member of the Let's Be Reasonable Committee, Bearer of Coffee

Interesting idea. My only concern with a 9th-grade-academy (assuming this is countywide?) is that this is a lot of school jumping in a short span of time for that age group. Three years at MS, 1 year at Academy, 3 years at HS, all with different kids. Seems tough. I hated being a tween/teen and I think I would have hated it even more if I had had to change schools so often. I know kids do it all the time and survive, but it seems like adding more "stress" to this age group isn't the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right, I know. What I meant, but didn't write out, is that it seems like the most valuable input will come from people who live near the parcel. Because the parcel is in south Arlington, that's probably not going to include very many people on MONA.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which the long-term needs of Arlington County and APS are considered as whole, not piecemeal, with available resources presented at the same time so all groups (parents, the elderly, the young and sporty, the low income, and all the other members of the community, complete with competing AND overlapping needs) could see what the tradeoffs for various decisions are. If you build a high-rise school here, it leaves the park here untouched. If you put a middle-school here, where do you put the senior center? The high school? The art center?

If people had to think about everything at once, maybe you wouldn't have a situation in which people shout down a solution because they don't want (or do want) something to happen in their neighborhood. Something is going to happen in every neighborhood. What does the most good for the largest number at the best cost?

It sounds like you are agreeing with one of the major recommendations of the year-long Arlington Facilities Committee (below)--a recommendation that the County Board, as advised by the new County Manager, is basically not going to implement right now. (Instead they have their new wacky 6-person cabal.) Ironically, the test case for the new public siting process also recommended by the Facilities Committee is that Carlin Springs parcel....but the Board wants to do the siting process without having the joint discussions about needs and resources. It doesn't make any sense.

"We recommend the Boards establish a Facilities Strategic Planning Committee consisting of two County Board and two School Board Members (with a rotating Chair). This committee would monitor and provide strategic guidance on public facilities and associated budgets to the full Boards for their respective ultimate decision-making processes. The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would also provide guidance to a Joint County/APS staff team. This staff team would be chaired by a designated senior person from the County Manager’s office and composed of the key facilities planning staff from APS and County departments. The staff person designated to lead the effort must be senior enough to provide direction and leadership to the rest of the team and be charged with taking a longer strategic view of needs. A longer term, data-driven strategic view of needs—in conjunction with a recognition and understanding of immediate priorities—is critical to ensuring a balanced view of capital facility needs.

The Facilities Strategic Planning Committee would receive annual updates on demographic trends, development market projections and other factors (including the natural aging of structures) and, for schools, the general geography of future school needs that might impact the need for future facilities, whether County or Schools.

In developing a master list of projected future needs, the four-person Committee would review those facilities currently in the pipeline (e.g. the adopted CIP and other previously identified needs) and also the various adopted plans that are part of the Comprehensive Plan, and supporting documents including sector and area plans that are adopted for different areas of the County.

Community involvement would be achieved through a new Joint Facilities Advisory Commission, with members appointed by both the County and School Boards. This commission would provide a venue for broader community input and coordination with other established advisory commissions.

Under this proposed approach, once the public facility needs have been listed and prioritized, in a more open way with community members, this work would feed into other processes on specific projects. As charged by the Boards, the Committee is proposing a new siting process that would be followed by the County and Schools when a new site is needed for a facility. This framework would guide all types of large and complex public facility projects including new schools, fire stations, storage and infrastructure “back of house” needs."

--Final report, page 17
http://commissions.arlingtonva.us/community-facilities-study/

I found this tidbit interesting:

Arlington has always prided itself on its level of civic participation, from
the early 1950s when a generation of residents, many of them federal
employees, wrested control of the schools from the segregationist-minded
state government

Our schools are still segregated, so where's the recommendation on this issue?

To parachute in affordable housing in high income areas. And I mean right in them--not on the edges.