APS: Elementary Walk Zone surveys out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that I see the zones for Reed, McKinley, Tuckahoe and Nottingham, I realize this will be a mess! Schools are too close. Can’t believe we will spend more than $50M to tear down the structure that was renovated in 2009 for $22M.

It turns out the school was really poorly designed. Did you go to the community meeting? They explained all of this. The way it was constructed is only good for preschoolers and even that is questionable. There are really awkward rooms, tight hallways and APS cut corners during construction so it won’t actually easily support a second level without destroying what is there. Also, at the time APS was considering HB, there weren’t nearby schools with 800 kids. I remember parents saying that the APS numbers were wrong and another elementary school was needed, but he APS didn’t listen back then. Kudos to them for doing the right thing now.

[Anonymous]

But now these families are advocating to shut down Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school so that they can fill Reed. There will not be enough kids to fill all four of those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But now these families are advocating to shut down Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school so that they can fill Reed. There will not be enough kids to fill all four of those schools.

1. I am a Reed walker and I don't know a single family that is advocating to have Tuckahoe shut down. I have no reason to shut down another school.
2. They didn't fill Nottingham or Discovery and APS didn't have a problem with that. If there are extra seats, they just move Montessori or pre-K programs like they did for Jamestown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But now these families are advocating to shut down Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school so that they can fill Reed. There will not be enough kids to fill all four of those schools.

1. I am a Reed walker and I don't know a single family that is advocating to have Tuckahoe shut down. I have no reason to shut down another school.
2. They didn't fill Nottingham or Discovery and APS didn't have a problem with that. If there are extra seats, they just move Montessori or pre-K programs like they did for Jamestown.

Not shutting down Tuckahoe, converting it to a choice program to create more neighborhood seats in another part of the county. The idea is that if you need to get families to travel to a more distant school, it helps to give them an incentive to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But now these families are advocating to shut down Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school so that they can fill Reed. There will not be enough kids to fill all four of those schools.

If you are a Tuckahoe parent, I think your best bet is to argue to create a NEW option program that your community decides on and which all current students and concurrently enrolled siblings are grandfathered in to attend (lottery for the remaining seats). The option schools that exist don't want to be moved to Tuckahoe. Make a new program, build it from the ground up and take ownership of it. Seems like a better outcome for current Tuckahoe families.

[Anonymous]

9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

[Anonymous]

Where will they need seats in the N? It doesn't make sense to bus to a school that can fill with walkers, so I can see why APS would look for schools with limited walk zones.If you need buses anyway, you might as well reduce the total number. As a taxpayer, I'd support that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

This is where the balance of emphasis between neighborhood seats versus choice seats will have to be made. The exercise right now is to help figure out exactly how many kids could in theory walk to every single elementary school location both now or with minor changes like the addition of a crossing guard. Since Arlington has identified walkable schools as a priority, understanding where families truly are and could walk will help them figure out where neighborhood schools will provide the most bang for their buck in terms of keeping kids off of buses. And if you look at the new APS budget, they need every dollar they can find and savings on bus routes, drivers, and fuel is one of the areas they could try to cut back as an added bonus in this round of rezoning.

Personally, I see the point of moving choice schools further from south Arlington. OTOH, I think choice schools are a nice-to-have and therefore we need to take care of the needs first. If a decision is made that the ATS site is best served as a neighborhood school, then I have no feelings about moving ATS to Tuckahoe vice Abingdon (to randomly pick a school deep in south arlington). Use available capacity for niche programs rather than busing kids in order to protect special programs. YMMV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

Oh right, because us S. Arlingtonians are so set when it comes to our neighborhood schools. Why is it a zero sum game or a competition? We are one county.

[Anonymous]

Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

Oh right, because us S. Arlingtonians are so set when it comes to our neighborhood schools. Why is it a zero sum game or a competition? We are one county.

You are the worst kind of liberal - the SA parent who choices out. If you live next to the poors send your kids to school with them. At least North Arlington parents aren't fake like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

Oh right, because us S. Arlingtonians are so set when it comes to our neighborhood schools. Why is it a zero sum game or a competition? We are one county.

You are the worst kind of liberal - the SA parent who choices out. If you live next to the poors send your kids to school with them. At least North Arlington parents aren't fake like you.

I don’t choice out (kids aren’t even school-aged yet) but thanks for the assumption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But now these families are advocating to shut down Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school so that they can fill Reed. There will not be enough kids to fill all four of those schools.

1. I am a Reed walker and I don't know a single family that is advocating to have Tuckahoe shut down. I have no reason to shut down another school.
2. They didn't fill Nottingham or Discovery and APS didn't have a problem with that. If there are extra seats, they just move Montessori or pre-K programs like they did for Jamestown.

What do you meant they didn't fill Nottingham? Immediately after the last go-round Nottingham was in the mid 90s for capacity (but would still need trailers due to student body distribution), with the expectation it would be over capacity again within a few years. And it already is, we had two years where we were technically under but still had classes in trailers, and this year we're over capacity with classes in trailers and specials on carts.