Tuckahoe by the numbers - how can it stay a neighborhood school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only problem with the math is that it is clear ATS would be the school moving (if it happens) and it needs 650 seats. Several ATS parents have posted on AEM that they received notices that they're adding one grade per level and county 2021 projections echo that. Tuckahoe is trailered out, not more land for more so is capped way under that needed seats number. If ATS moves it needs more room than that very old school/land. Sure if the County Board were to eliminate the fields next to the school or remodel. But neither one is likely, one costs money, actually I guess both would cost money. So if one of these choice programs moves (read we all know it would be ATS) then it would have to be to a spot with more space for trailers or ATS size would need to be cut which I think we all know would never happen. So which of the schools has space for said 650 students?

ATS is currently at 538, and Tuckahoe has 545 seats without trailers. If they decide to move ATS, they can always revisit the issue of how many classes ATS has (I tried to find the AEM posts you referenced but couldn't so I don't know exactly what the notices said).

SOmething like 120 of that 545 is in trailers. They are just considered perm seats now. APS has all the trailer data on their website, you can see which schools have trailers as perm seats ect.

Can you provide a link to this? I can't find it on the site and it's not consistent with the data I have found:

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections17-26_Final_Web.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545, footnote says "Capacity only includes permanent seats in the school building." (emphasis mine)

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545 "Not Including Relocatable Classrooms"; also shows that Tuckahoe currently has four relocatable classrooms (and no capacity for additional relocatable classrooms) providing an extra 96 potential seats, making maximum capacity with relocatables 641.

If I can later I will post the combined capacity/trailers/2021 data. I do know they have 5th grade this year completely in trailers where FLES ect was but APS moved that stuff elsewhere in the building as they thought it was a safety risk due to how close the front trailers are to road and ungated towards the road. They didn't want younger kids using those trailers. Not sure why it makes it ok for older kids? The school has trailers being used in front and back. Frankly, this is the third redistricting that has personally impacted my house and at this point I don't trust APS numbers. I have had parents at numerous schools point out errors to me. I do remember when we used to be there before McKinley took a few of our units they just used rooms that weren't supposed to be classrooms as classrooms like parts of the library as classrooms ect, or say the counselor didn't have their own office ect. Not sure if they have been able to restore those rooms to intended use or not but that's how they made extra students work then. So all the learning specialists shared space, like reading/math/handwriting and OT/PT. Less art room, no special ed full size classroom for larger group learning needs ect. It was not a good situation and the bathrooms regularly broke due to over use since the school was built for 400 and change. So the bathrooms in the actual building aren't made to service 500 and some kids. I hope the plumbing overuse issues have been resolved because it was truly TERRIBLE our last year there, you could just smell it.

I think all these parents getting heated about which school to use should seriously do look around the properties ect. Look at all the surveys, really think about this.

Yes, that would be what we've been doing this entire discussion. You're not the only one with a dramatic sob story about an overcrowded school.

WOW! What kind adult like responses. OF course everyone in N Arlington has a sob story about overcrowding. Maybe a more appropriate grown up response would have been Gee we should band together and tell APS it is not ok to convert an existing school into a choice school unless it has actual capacity (non worst case capacity) or APS is going to address the actual structural needs of said school. Glad my kids are in middle school, that's apparently a way easier crowd then these elementary parents. Get more sleep!

Tuckhoe has an in-building capacity of 545. ATS currently has 538 students. It would fit quite comfortably at Tuckahoe at it's current size, especially with the four existing trailers. The nice thing about a choice program is that it can be upsized or downsized depending on the available space, and the years we have until Reed opens and all of these changes happen would give APS plenty of time to make any needed adjustments to the student body. These facts, and others, have already been presented in this thread. You are responding not with facts but with rhetoric and hyperbole.

I guess you missed that ATS is adding a class to every grade next year. So they will be in the 600's starting next year. They announced it to their parents I think last week. Anyways, further illustrating the point. Let's make sure we know as many facts before we push for a choice (lol did not use that on purpose) that will already not work in 2021. Kind of like sure McKinley parents were super positive this is the number of students you're going to have to oh shit we were super wrong.

As I said, choice schools can be adjusted to fit the space available to them, and they will have a few years to do it if they decide to move the school. I'm surprised they're expecting to add a class to every grade level in one year, though. Are there really that many families who will want to move their child to another school for just a year or two? I believe you that notices about expanding the school went out, but it would be helpful if the rest of us could see exactly what they said rather than relying on speculation and conflicting information.

I'd like to see it too. But I have friends at ATS and they are really fighting this. Also APS is basically indexing capacity at ATS to match county growth, so decreasing would be a real policy change. I'd want to hear that was actually going to happen as I would be suprised if it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only problem with the math is that it is clear ATS would be the school moving (if it happens) and it needs 650 seats. Several ATS parents have posted on AEM that they received notices that they're adding one grade per level and county 2021 projections echo that. Tuckahoe is trailered out, not more land for more so is capped way under that needed seats number. If ATS moves it needs more room than that very old school/land. Sure if the County Board were to eliminate the fields next to the school or remodel. But neither one is likely, one costs money, actually I guess both would cost money. So if one of these choice programs moves (read we all know it would be ATS) then it would have to be to a spot with more space for trailers or ATS size would need to be cut which I think we all know would never happen. So which of the schools has space for said 650 students?

ATS is currently at 538, and Tuckahoe has 545 seats without trailers. If they decide to move ATS, they can always revisit the issue of how many classes ATS has (I tried to find the AEM posts you referenced but couldn't so I don't know exactly what the notices said).

SOmething like 120 of that 545 is in trailers. They are just considered perm seats now. APS has all the trailer data on their website, you can see which schools have trailers as perm seats ect.

Can you provide a link to this? I can't find it on the site and it's not consistent with the data I have found:

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections17-26_Final_Web.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545, footnote says "Capacity only includes permanent seats in the school building." (emphasis mine)

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545 "Not Including Relocatable Classrooms"; also shows that Tuckahoe currently has four relocatable classrooms (and no capacity for additional relocatable classrooms) providing an extra 96 potential seats, making maximum capacity with relocatables 641.

If I can later I will post the combined capacity/trailers/2021 data. I do know they have 5th grade this year completely in trailers where FLES ect was but APS moved that stuff elsewhere in the building as they thought it was a safety risk due to how close the front trailers are to road and ungated towards the road. They didn't want younger kids using those trailers. Not sure why it makes it ok for older kids? The school has trailers being used in front and back. Frankly, this is the third redistricting that has personally impacted my house and at this point I don't trust APS numbers. I have had parents at numerous schools point out errors to me. I do remember when we used to be there before McKinley took a few of our units they just used rooms that weren't supposed to be classrooms as classrooms like parts of the library as classrooms ect, or say the counselor didn't have their own office ect. Not sure if they have been able to restore those rooms to intended use or not but that's how they made extra students work then. So all the learning specialists shared space, like reading/math/handwriting and OT/PT. Less art room, no special ed full size classroom for larger group learning needs ect. It was not a good situation and the bathrooms regularly broke due to over use since the school was built for 400 and change. So the bathrooms in the actual building aren't made to service 500 and some kids. I hope the plumbing overuse issues have been resolved because it was truly TERRIBLE our last year there, you could just smell it.

I think all these parents getting heated about which school to use should seriously do look around the properties ect. Look at all the surveys, really think about this.

Yes, that would be what we've been doing this entire discussion. You're not the only one with a dramatic sob story about an overcrowded school.

WOW! What kind adult like responses. OF course everyone in N Arlington has a sob story about overcrowding. Maybe a more appropriate grown up response would have been Gee we should band together and tell APS it is not ok to convert an existing school into a choice school unless it has actual capacity (non worst case capacity) or APS is going to address the actual structural needs of said school. Glad my kids are in middle school, that's apparently a way easier crowd then these elementary parents. Get more sleep!

Tuckhoe has an in-building capacity of 545. ATS currently has 538 students. It would fit quite comfortably at Tuckahoe at it's current size, especially with the four existing trailers. The nice thing about a choice program is that it can be upsized or downsized depending on the available space, and the years we have until Reed opens and all of these changes happen would give APS plenty of time to make any needed adjustments to the student body. These facts, and others, have already been presented in this thread. You are responding not with facts but with rhetoric and hyperbole.

I guess you missed that ATS is adding a class to every grade next year. So they will be in the 600's starting next year. They announced it to their parents I think last week. Anyways, further illustrating the point. Let's make sure we know as many facts before we push for a choice (lol did not use that on purpose) that will already not work in 2021. Kind of like sure McKinley parents were super positive this is the number of students you're going to have to oh shit we were super wrong.

Per people posting on AEM, the notice was that the school is adding one additional class each year at the kindergarten level, not to all grades at once. So next year ATS will be around 562, not 600. If APS decides to move ATS to Tuckahoe, they can stop the expansion of ATS, let that one expanded year move through the school, and then go back to the current school size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only problem with the math is that it is clear ATS would be the school moving (if it happens) and it needs 650 seats. Several ATS parents have posted on AEM that they received notices that they're adding one grade per level and county 2021 projections echo that. Tuckahoe is trailered out, not more land for more so is capped way under that needed seats number. If ATS moves it needs more room than that very old school/land. Sure if the County Board were to eliminate the fields next to the school or remodel. But neither one is likely, one costs money, actually I guess both would cost money. So if one of these choice programs moves (read we all know it would be ATS) then it would have to be to a spot with more space for trailers or ATS size would need to be cut which I think we all know would never happen. So which of the schools has space for said 650 students?

ATS is currently at 538, and Tuckahoe has 545 seats without trailers. If they decide to move ATS, they can always revisit the issue of how many classes ATS has (I tried to find the AEM posts you referenced but couldn't so I don't know exactly what the notices said).

SOmething like 120 of that 545 is in trailers. They are just considered perm seats now. APS has all the trailer data on their website, you can see which schools have trailers as perm seats ect.

Can you provide a link to this? I can't find it on the site and it's not consistent with the data I have found:

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections17-26_Final_Web.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545, footnote says "Capacity only includes permanent seats in the school building." (emphasis mine)

* https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf - Shows Tuckahoe with capacity of 545 "Not Including Relocatable Classrooms"; also shows that Tuckahoe currently has four relocatable classrooms (and no capacity for additional relocatable classrooms) providing an extra 96 potential seats, making maximum capacity with relocatables 641.

If I can later I will post the combined capacity/trailers/2021 data. I do know they have 5th grade this year completely in trailers where FLES ect was but APS moved that stuff elsewhere in the building as they thought it was a safety risk due to how close the front trailers are to road and ungated towards the road. They didn't want younger kids using those trailers. Not sure why it makes it ok for older kids? The school has trailers being used in front and back. Frankly, this is the third redistricting that has personally impacted my house and at this point I don't trust APS numbers. I have had parents at numerous schools point out errors to me. I do remember when we used to be there before McKinley took a few of our units they just used rooms that weren't supposed to be classrooms as classrooms like parts of the library as classrooms ect, or say the counselor didn't have their own office ect. Not sure if they have been able to restore those rooms to intended use or not but that's how they made extra students work then. So all the learning specialists shared space, like reading/math/handwriting and OT/PT. Less art room, no special ed full size classroom for larger group learning needs ect. It was not a good situation and the bathrooms regularly broke due to over use since the school was built for 400 and change. So the bathrooms in the actual building aren't made to service 500 and some kids. I hope the plumbing overuse issues have been resolved because it was truly TERRIBLE our last year there, you could just smell it.

I think all these parents getting heated about which school to use should seriously do look around the properties ect. Look at all the surveys, really think about this.

Yes, that would be what we've been doing this entire discussion. You're not the only one with a dramatic sob story about an overcrowded school.

WOW! What kind adult like responses. OF course everyone in N Arlington has a sob story about overcrowding. Maybe a more appropriate grown up response would have been Gee we should band together and tell APS it is not ok to convert an existing school into a choice school unless it has actual capacity (non worst case capacity) or APS is going to address the actual structural needs of said school. Glad my kids are in middle school, that's apparently a way easier crowd then these elementary parents. Get more sleep!

Tuckhoe has an in-building capacity of 545. ATS currently has 538 students. It would fit quite comfortably at Tuckahoe at it's current size, especially with the four existing trailers. The nice thing about a choice program is that it can be upsized or downsized depending on the available space, and the years we have until Reed opens and all of these changes happen would give APS plenty of time to make any needed adjustments to the student body. These facts, and others, have already been presented in this thread. You are responding not with facts but with rhetoric and hyperbole.

I guess you missed that ATS is adding a class to every grade next year. So they will be in the 600's starting next year. They announced it to their parents I think last week. Anyways, further illustrating the point. Let's make sure we know as many facts before we push for a choice (lol did not use that on purpose) that will already not work in 2021. Kind of like sure McKinley parents were super positive this is the number of students you're going to have to oh shit we were super wrong.

As I said, choice schools can be adjusted to fit the space available to them, and they will have a few years to do it if they decide to move the school. I'm surprised they're expecting to add a class to every grade level in one year, though. Are there really that many families who will want to move their child to another school for just a year or two? I believe you that notices about expanding the school went out, but it would be helpful if the rest of us could see exactly what they said rather than relying on speculation and conflicting information.

I'd like to see it too. But I have friends at ATS and they are really fighting this. Also APS is basically indexing capacity at ATS to match county growth, so decreasing would be a real policy change. I'd want to hear that was actually going to happen as I would be suprised if it did.

They are indexing growth at ATS so that the ATS capacity % match what the rest of the system is facing, to make sure we don't have choice schools that are at or under capacity while neighborhood schools are over capacity. Since capacity % is relative to school size rather than absolute, moving ATS to a different school (Tuckahoe or elsewhere) and then adjusting the size of the ATS student body so that the building is at a comparable capacity to the rest of the system is not inconsistent with this plan.

[Anonymous]

I could never see them cut the ATS or any choice program. It’s what SB loves to talk about. I’m not a choice parent and as much as I’d love the solution to be eliminate some choice here or there it’s never going to happen. Choice parents are better organized and us neighborhood schools are all fighting amongst ourselves like idiots.

[Anonymous]

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

And the “nameless posters” are most certainly the ones who step up to volunteer for each and every school activity (sarcasm intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows this thread is mostly McKinley/Westover moms with some weird vendetta against Tuckahoe. Used to be Nottingham, but whatever. Nothing Tuckahoe has said or done is out of line. All above board and transparent. Fortunately, you MONAs aren’t actually in charge. But I agree the personal attacks on PTA officers and Board members (see the same folks on the Reed thread) from you folks needs to stop. Or show your face at a damn meeting and speak your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows this thread is mostly McKinley/Westover moms with some weird vendetta against Tuckahoe. Used to be Nottingham, but whatever. Nothing Tuckahoe has said or done is out of line. All above board and transparent. Fortunately, you MONAs aren’t actually in charge. But I agree the personal attacks on PTA officers and Board members (see the same folks on the Reed thread) from you folks needs to stop. Or show your face at a damn meeting and speak your mind.

Wow, you have a lot of grudges going on there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

I appreciate the truncated post. The ones earlier were getting way too long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows this thread is mostly McKinley/Westover moms with some weird vendetta against Tuckahoe. Used to be Nottingham, but whatever. Nothing Tuckahoe has said or done is out of line. All above board and transparent. Fortunately, you MONAs aren’t actually in charge. But I agree the personal attacks on PTA officers and Board members (see the same folks on the Reed thread) from you folks needs to stop. Or show your face at a damn meeting and speak your mind.

Wow, you have a lot of grudges going on there.

Grudges and insults and prejudices, oh my!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

I appreciate the truncated post. The ones earlier were getting way too long.

Truncated posts are fine as long as you're not doing it to pretend the deleted content doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

I appreciate the truncated post. The ones earlier were getting way too long.

Truncated posts are fine as long as you're not doing it to pretend the deleted content doesn't exist.

It appears that’s what this person is doing. The parent put his name. The following poster commented in a way to make it seem like the parent was anonymous. At least that’s my reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

I appreciate the truncated post. The ones earlier were getting way too long.

Truncated posts are fine as long as you're not doing it to pretend the deleted content doesn't exist.

The deleted content doesn’t exist. PP was clearly wiser than the earlier pp who named names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the Tuckahoe community doesn’t support her position....doesn’t that seem a little off?

+1

Right, the nameless posters on DC Urban Mom are a great poll for what is actually happening in real life. I would love to see a list of actual alive Tuckahoe parents offended. They certainly don't attend PTA meetings.

I like how you cut out the part where the self-identified Tuckahoe parent put his name to the statement that she's been working with "little to no support" from the Tuckahoe community.

I appreciate the truncated post. The ones earlier were getting way too long.

Truncated posts are fine as long as you're not doing it to pretend the deleted content doesn't exist.

The deleted content doesn’t exist. PP was clearly wiser than the earlier pp who named names.

He didn't "name names," her name is on the publicly-posted letter she and two other Tuckahoe PTA board members sent to the SB.