8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

[Anonymous]

DP, but I’m hesitant to accept and statistical analysis from anyone who isn’t smart enough to figure out that discussion of optional school performance doesn’t belong in a thread about neighborhood school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Montessori parent. The test score numbers I've seen, disaggregated from Drew Model's numbers, show that Montessori is not closing the achievement gap for truly low-income students (i.e., the real measure, not the Montessori measure) or for students of color. I guess we'll see for sure this year now that it will be broken out and published.

It's also been a pretty diverse program during the years we've been there, but much more so at the primary level than in lower or upper elementary.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure that you can find out if Montessori is more expensive by looking at the budget:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FY-2020-School-Board-Adopted-Budget-Book_Final-for-Web.pdf

I think school budgets start in the mid-100s but not sure.

[Anonymous]

I think that’s what the numbers will show. Diverse for ages 3-5 (the “primary program”). Not diverse for 1st grade and up. And not helping close the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that you can find out if Montessori is more expensive by looking at the budget:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FY-2020-School-Board-Adopted-Budget-Book_Final-for-Web.pdf

I think school budgets start in the mid-100s but not sure.

its kind of challenging to make those comparisons and make sure you are comparing apples to apples. e.g. the budget numbers themselves are not meaningful b/c that reflects longivity of teachers/ principals and how long they have been in the system.
The FTE numbers demonstrate differences between the schools- but based on a lot of different things. For example, Randolph has 470 students and Montessori 502- so you might say their FTE costs should be similar. Randolph is 77.6 FTE and Montessori is 65 FTE. However- then you have to notice that Randoph has about 12.5 FTE in special education and 6.1 for English Learners- Randolph has a full FTE as a bilingual family liaison, whereas Montessori has .2 FTE as a liaison. Those differences don't reflect differences in teaching methods, they reflect different student populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that you can find out if Montessori is more expensive by looking at the budget:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FY-2020-School-Board-Adopted-Budget-Book_Final-for-Web.pdf

I think school budgets start in the mid-100s but not sure.

its kind of challenging to make those comparisons and make sure you are comparing apples to apples. e.g. the budget numbers themselves are not meaningful b/c that reflects longivity of teachers/ principals and how long they have been in the system.
The FTE numbers demonstrate differences between the schools- but based on a lot of different things. For example, Randolph has 470 students and Montessori 502- so you might say their FTE costs should be similar. Randolph is 77.6 FTE and Montessori is 65 FTE. However- then you have to notice that Randoph has about 12.5 FTE in special education and 6.1 for English Learners- Randolph has a full FTE as a bilingual family liaison, whereas Montessori has .2 FTE as a liaison. Those differences don't reflect differences in teaching methods, they reflect different student populations.

So glad to see there are knowledgeable parents on here after all.

[Anonymous]

Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

If you look at page 5 of the AFSAP there is a recommendation to defer the field and parking in favor of spending money on elementary or middle school seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

The Career Center Working Group determined that underground parking and a regulation sized field would not be feasible without the removal of the elementary school building. So where is this "plan" for 2000 high schoolers and a field with Montessori still there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

If you look at page 5 of the AFSAP there is a recommendation to defer the field and parking in favor of spending money on elementary or middle school seats.

THANK YOU! I missed this. This would be appalling if they tried this. To cram this many kids in one spot with no parking and no green space. What a load of crap.

"Other CIP Projects
The 2019?28 CIP includes additional funds that do not increase enrollment capacity:
? Construction of a field and parking garage at the Career Center, planned to open in 2023
? Major Construction and Minor Maintenance (MC/MM) projects to ensure that the infrastructure
of existing facilities remains operational
The 2021?30 CIP should:
? Prioritize continued funding of Major Construction and Minor Maintenance (MC/MM) projects
to ensure that the infrastructure of existing facilities remains operational
? Consider shifting funds, currently planned for the Career Center field and parking garage, to
address middle or elementary school capacity needs"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

If you look at page 5 of the AFSAP there is a recommendation to defer the field and parking in favor of spending money on elementary or middle school seats.

This is so stupid. Where are the kids who are about to head to HS supposed to go? They need all those seats at the CC (it’s 1,400 seats BTW). It’s not unreasonable for them to have at least one field for like ultimate frisbee and underground parking at least for staff and the disabled. This isn’t on Metro or any fixed rail, and the bus system isn’t good enough to handle the current load let alone all the additional kids and staff because there isn’t any other option). I’ll have to re-check the WG info, but I think the idea was the field could go on the current CC parking lot, without affecting Montessori. They might have to share the underground parking. It’s not a stadium, and it never will be, which is why they are making it an option (or multiple options). We can’t afford a real HS and can’t afford to move Montessori again, too.

I also think the ES situation isn’t as dire as they paint it out to be. It’s dire in only specific areas, but if they’d move option programs and adjust boundaries to actually fill the schools (let’s check how “full” Drew and Abingdon are after they release the numbers), we don’t need to panic just yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the need for ES seats why is APS waiting until 2029 to build another new school (after Reed)? Is it only money?

And, when did they SB suddenly agree that the long-term demographic trend is toward more students? Wasn't the long delay in building schools because they said it would level off?

The new AFSAP (hot off the press) is coming in strong for more middle and elementary seats sooner than that: https://www.apsva.us/engage/afsapreport/

It looks like Montessori seats are included in all the long term projections, but they don't have a building after the career center gets going, right? So those need to be rebuilt too?

No current plan is to add all those Career Center seats and keep Montessori on the site as well. So it will be like 2000 HS students plus a full ES on that small lot. They are undergrounding parking and adding a real field at least for those HS kids. They may eventually move it and add even more HS students to the site, but that's 10 years or so down the road. Maybe.

(Note: This is the "plan." Everything always changes so who knows, but that's what they are saying now.)

The Career Center Working Group determined that underground parking and a regulation sized field would not be feasible without the removal of the elementary school building. So where is this "plan" for 2000 high schoolers and a field with Montessori still there?

Look at the report, pg. 39 (https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CCWG_Final_Report_090518.pdf) -- shows a picture of one field with the Montessori building still there, and notes that the working group felt strongly that those amenities were required now. The long-term vision making the site a full HS requires Montessori to move. But in the short-term, you def. need at least one field.

And I don't understand the no parking people at all. How can you have a site with that many students and staff and no parking? Once the expansion happens this site has more high school kids than Yorktown does PLUS an elementary school and APS really thinks parking might be optional? It really thinks you can have this many kids and literally no field space at all for them? The Arlington Tech kids deserve a space to be outdoors for PE.

[Anonymous]

Re: They need all those seats at the CC (it’s 1,400 seats BTW).

600 at Arlington Tech
800 new seats (which I guess are going to be CTE seats?)

But the site also has the existing CTE students who come in waves during the day, I think around 250 at a time. At the Arlington Community High Students. Plus a few other special programs on site. So total HS students on site at any given time is close to 2000.