What do you expect from APS staff (option/neighborhood) on 4/30?

[Anonymous]

I'm going to paraphrase/cross-post what I just posted on the ATS to IB thread, because I think it's very relevant to this discuss as well but I realize most of the people here aren't looking at that thread. All of the sniping going on is just noise and details, but there is a really big core decision that needs to be made regarding our priorities as a community. There's no point in sniping about whether Nottingham should be the option site in NW until the bigger decision was made.

Leaving aside the exact details of where, the choice presented in the second draft analysis is essentially this: Is it more important that we maintain/improve neighborhood school proximity and reduce crowding in South Arlington, or that we maintain/improve access to choice programs while also improving the diversity balance across elementary schools?

Moving immersion to ATS and ATS to another school in NW (Nottingham or otherwise) will reduce access to ATS from South Arlington and make it less diverse overall. This will for a few reasons, namely that the new location will make VPI less accessible to ED families, it would increase applications to ATS from that corner of the community, and it would reduce applications from South Arlington. The transfer report on ATS makes it pretty clear that proximity to the program is a big part of who attends. On the plus side, keeping both of these option programs in North Arlington means more neighborhood seats in South Arlington, so more families there can be in close proximity to less crowded neighborhood schools.

On the other hand, keeping ATS where it is and moving immersion to Barcroft means maintaining greater access to ATS for South Arlington, making immersion even more accessible, and potentially breaking up the poverty clusters around Carlin Springs and Barcroft (and possibly cascading to Randolph as well) if APS were to start busing kids across 50 (Ashlawn will have tons of excess capacity after Reed, and busing across 50 means no crazy boundaries there anymore). The resulting shift in boundaries could do a lot to improve socioeconomic diversity generally in the elementary schools. The downside to all of this increased access to option schools and improvements in diversity is that South Arlington would have fewer neighborhood seats (how many fewer would depend on how the moves affected applications to choice programs from North Arlington), and many families may lose proximity to their neighborhood schools. Since ED families generally face the greatest challenges from losing proximity to neighborhood schools and from overcrowding, this is no small consideration.

That's a really big decision to make on policy/priorities, and it's not an easy one. Until we decide where we fall on that, the rest of this debate is just a waste of our time.

[Anonymous]

The ridiculous thing is that the SB subjects itself to this kind of abuse and ridicule from residents. They should use the information they have to redraw boundaries and figure out option school locations -- no discussions, no input. If people don't like their decisions, they can vote in new SB members at the next opportunity, move, or pay for private. What a colossal waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And how tone deaf is it to say that Discovery kids can't lose their fields, so APS would put more trailers at McKinley (the school who already has no field)??

Discovery. Does. Not. Have. Fields.

Moron.

So we can have elementary schools without fields? Discovery has no green space?

That is correct. Discovery's portion of the parcel has its building, two playgrounds (one for the preschool, one for the rest of the elementary school) and a parking lot. Its only green space is the steep, narrow hill between the school/playground and the street. The turf soccer fields are fenced off from the school and while the parcel is all owned by APS, they have some kind of lease agreement with the county for the fields so APS is limited as to what they can do with them (i.e., they can't put trailers on them and take them out of use).

I am confused because it seems like the Discovery students are on the soccer fields during the school day?

Shhh! Don’t tell people that.

See 10:13.

Discovery uses the fields without line of site to the school but can't use the trailers on the tennis courts? We are not talking about putting trailers on the fields, just using the existing ones.

The access gate to fields facing the parking lot is line-of-sight to the main entrance. The Wiliamsburg trailers are on a different part of the parcel that is not line-of-sight, there is a brick wall between them.

I know you want to believe I'm making this all up, but go look at the Facilities Optimization study completed just this past summer. APS says very explicitly that Discovery can take no trailers (nor can Abingdon, Fleet or Reed, this is not some special Discovery-only exception). If you can convince them to change their minds on this, go right ahead. Posting here won't do that, though. Maybe you should sign up to speak at Thursday's school board meeting to raise the issue.

[Anonymous]

I think 24 pages of this show that we're all very concerned about our kids schools. The reality is many of them will be changed. The reality is almost everyone will go from one great school to another great school. The reality is the kids will be fine. I'm not 100 percent thrilled with how the process has gone down, but I have no doubt my kid will be happy and won't really care very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to paraphrase/cross-post what I just posted on the ATS to IB thread, because I think it's very relevant to this discuss as well but I realize most of the people here aren't looking at that thread. All of the sniping going on is just noise and details, but there is a really big core decision that needs to be made regarding our priorities as a community. There's no point in sniping about whether Nottingham should be the option site in NW until the bigger decision was made.

Leaving aside the exact details of where, the choice presented in the second draft analysis is essentially this: Is it more important that we maintain/improve neighborhood school proximity and reduce crowding in South Arlington, or that we maintain/improve access to choice programs while also improving the diversity balance across elementary schools?

Moving immersion to ATS and ATS to another school in NW (Nottingham or otherwise) will reduce access to ATS from South Arlington and make it less diverse overall. This will for a few reasons, namely that the new location will make VPI less accessible to ED families, it would increase applications to ATS from that corner of the community, and it would reduce applications from South Arlington. The transfer report on ATS makes it pretty clear that proximity to the program is a big part of who attends. On the plus side, keeping both of these option programs in North Arlington means more neighborhood seats in South Arlington, so more families there can be in close proximity to less crowded neighborhood schools.

On the other hand, keeping ATS where it is and moving immersion to Barcroft means maintaining greater access to ATS for South Arlington, making immersion even more accessible, and potentially breaking up the poverty clusters around Carlin Springs and Barcroft (and possibly cascading to Randolph as well) if APS were to start busing kids across 50 (Ashlawn will have tons of excess capacity after Reed, and busing across 50 means no crazy boundaries there anymore). The resulting shift in boundaries could do a lot to improve socioeconomic diversity generally in the elementary schools. The downside to all of this increased access to option schools and improvements in diversity is that South Arlington would have fewer neighborhood seats (how many fewer would depend on how the moves affected applications to choice programs from North Arlington), and many families may lose proximity to their neighborhood schools. Since ED families generally face the greatest challenges from losing proximity to neighborhood schools and from overcrowding, this is no small consideration.

That's a really big decision to make on policy/priorities, and it's not an easy one. Until we decide where we fall on that, the rest of this debate is just a waste of our time.

Staff can certainly try to draw boundaries and focus on proximity to neighborhood schools in SA, so as to reduce crowding, but it's not something they can directly control. Henry didn't get super crowded because it has a huge boundary or particularly dense housing. It got crowded because it was more attractive than other SA neighborhood schools. Oakridge is a bit of a diff story, but there's an element of that too. People sort themselves out. None of the lower performing schools are crowded, by Arlington standards anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Nottingham and Key either sink or swim together here. If they don’t want to be displaced, they need to work together to jointly show why moving programs around isn’t the only path in this boundary process. For example, restoring neighborhood preference at Key is something Nottingham should be advocating for more than just about anything if they want their school to stay a neighborhood school. Trying to show why Tuckahoe or Discovery are better candidates probably doesn’t get them very far. Bashing choice programs isn’t going to end choice programs. If Key doesn’t move because it (with ASFS) provides adequate local seats, however, the chain reaction that threatens to displace Nottingham doesn’t happen.

I disagree. I think there’s a real possibility Key goes to ATS and ATS goes south. I just don’t see how they move ATS to McArlington.

[Anonymous]

Staff has already made up their minds to move Key to Carlin Springs and make Key a neighborhood school. You all are wasting your time.

[Anonymous]

I think people are getting confused between “Key” and “immersion”. The school at Key is now going to be neighborhood. The immersion program is what will be moving. And so the PP meant (I think) that what of immersion moves to ATS building, and ATS moved elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 24 pages of this show that we're all very concerned about our kids schools. The reality is many of them will be changed. The reality is almost everyone will go from one great school to another great school. The reality is the kids will be fine. I'm not 100 percent thrilled with how the process has gone down, but I have no doubt my kid will be happy and won't really care very much.

I agree with you and this is why I don’t get the bellyaching of the NW sometimes. Your school’s May be important to you, but the reality is they are essentially all the same. We’re zoned to Henry and probably (but we don’t know) will get moved from Fleet because we are outside of the expanded walk zone due to the location change. That is a HUGE change. Going from Henry to Drew or Randolph is a pretty big risk, but it’s not like we have a choice. They’re going to do what they’re going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ridiculous thing is that the SB subjects itself to this kind of abuse and ridicule from residents. They should use the information they have to redraw boundaries and figure out option school locations -- no discussions, no input. If people don't like their decisions, they can vote in new SB members at the next opportunity, move, or pay for private. What a colossal waste of time.

+1000. Why is this even a thing? I truly can’t understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Staff has already made up their minds to move Key to Carlin Springs and make Key a neighborhood school. You all are wasting your time.

No, Claremont is going to Carlin Springs and Key is going to ATS or Barcroft. If it goes to Barcroft, though, the distinction won't matter anymore because the plan is to create a common lottery pool and then assign those selected to either Carlin Springs or Barcroft based on busing patterns.

[Anonymous]

I live in Barcroft, I am not keen on having Barcroft potentially being an option school. The school is right smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood that is already burdened by WAZE and other apps that have changed our small streets (some without sidewalks) into a major cut through areas. if this were North Arlington, I bet the traffic considerations would be taken more seriously.

Second, where are all the local Barcorft kids going to go? There is no room at Randolph, Carlin Springs or Barrett for more kids, unless they set up a trailer city and make kids cross, gasp! route 50 and Columbia Pike. We are talking 4 hundred or more kids, although this will ensure that Alcova gets into Fleet. I thought the goal was to reduce the number of buses, not increase them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Barcroft, I am not keen on having Barcroft potentially being an option school. The school is right smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood that is already burdened by WAZE and other apps that have changed our small streets (some without sidewalks) into a major cut through areas. if this were North Arlington, I bet the traffic considerations would be taken more seriously.

Second, where are all the local Barcorft kids going to go? There is no room at Randolph, Carlin Springs or Barrett for more kids, unless they set up a trailer city and make kids cross, gasp! route 50 and Columbia Pike. We are talking 4 hundred or more kids, although this will ensure that Alcova gets into Fleet. I thought the goal was to reduce the number of buses, not increase them.

This will be the reasoning behind keeping Barcroft neighborhood, immersion to ATS, and ATS to Nottingham.

I just wish the SB had been honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Barcroft, I am not keen on having Barcroft potentially being an option school. The school is right smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood that is already burdened by WAZE and other apps that have changed our small streets (some without sidewalks) into a major cut through areas. if this were North Arlington, I bet the traffic considerations would be taken more seriously.

Second, where are all the local Barcorft kids going to go? There is no room at Randolph, Carlin Springs or Barrett for more kids, unless they set up a trailer city and make kids cross, gasp! route 50 and Columbia Pike. We are talking 4 hundred or more kids, although this will ensure that Alcova gets into Fleet. I thought the goal was to reduce the number of buses, not increase them.

This will be the reasoning behind keeping Barcroft neighborhood, immersion to ATS, and ATS to Nottingham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 24 pages of this show that we're all very concerned about our kids schools. The reality is many of them will be changed. The reality is almost everyone will go from one great school to another great school. The reality is the kids will be fine. I'm not 100 percent thrilled with how the process has gone down, but I have no doubt my kid will be happy and won't really care very much.

I agree with you and this is why I don’t get the bellyaching of the NW sometimes. Your school’s May be important to you, but the reality is they are essentially all the same. We’re zoned to Henry and probably (but we don’t know) will get moved from Fleet because we are outside of the expanded walk zone due to the location change. That is a HUGE change. Going from Henry to Drew or Randolph is a pretty big risk, but it’s not like we have a choice. They’re going to do what they’re going to do.

I can't speak for everyone in NW, but I personally don't object to having an option school in NW. I get the arguments for it, they are very reasonable and well-considered. My personal concerns are that when they choose a NW site, I want them to choose one that doesn't needlessly hamstring the SB when it comes to managing future population growth and doesn't create unsafe traffic patterns. I want the selection to reflect the needs of the students and their families over the next several years rather what will make the boundary drawing process easier for the staff for a couple of months. I don't think that is unreasonable.