APS - questions about Key / ASFS building swap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And you forget that McKinley could loose over 400 kids to Reed, that's a lot of space and not that far from either Ballston or ATS. I think creative boundary drawing is must. We need very thoughtful dive into better data in the fall. If APS projections are correct in 2021 when Fleet and Reed are open and Drew is neighborhood we will have an excess capacity. Well if that's correct this should be able to be worked out. A few of our Board members have alluded to some crazy boundary maps.

They have alluded to crazy boundary maps in the context of them being a horrible thing to be eliminated. They won't do them for socioeconomic diversity reasons; why should they do them to make your numbers and enrollment in just your neck of the woods work out nicely?

Everyone seems to think that the majority of Latino families want immersion but just can't do it unless the program is in their back yard. You're assuming a lot of the Latino families already entrenched in Barrett will salivate at their neighborhood school being taken away and a choice immersion program moving in. It still takes 50% English-dominant speakers, too. Sure, lots of people will sign-up because of the convenience (or because they don't know they have other options). Maybe a lot of the current families will want to remain in the program even if it moves to another nearby facility?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think for me the real problem with a swap is that there isn't a good swap out there that won't immediately overcrowd two schools or three depending on which schools are involved. And let's be honest there will be unavoidable costs as well. I would rather see some crazy boundaries than eliminate neighborhood seats anywhere. APS is terrible at predicting enrollment. Maybe there isn't a good way for them to address this but it should at the very least give them pause that hey we aren't always able to predict where seats will be needed. A bad boundary change is a lot easier to address than correcting the mistake of just switching schools and it turning out that oops we did need those right where they were. And you know they would drag their feet and put their heads in the sand rather than correct. I mean I think if staff came back in the spring and said ok we are going to do our boundaries in the fall 2018 and see these two new schools come on line and then in 2021 let's see what needs drastic change.

Dr. Murphy made it crystal clear that a swap involving schools would only happen once the new school opened near by. So if its a NW school that switches with an option program it would be fall 2021 when Reed opens and if it is a swap around the Drew/Fleet/Henry issues it would be earlier so that is why I think fall 2021 makes sense. Who know maybe by then APS will actually be able to predict where it needs the room for the next 9 years (there magical 2030 estimate) rather than there usual 2-3 window of changes.

I also don't think they will be able to engage parents enough to think through all the unforseen consequences of a swap between two different parts of the county. Will parents from a choice school that starts at an earlier time be ok with one that might start nearly an hour later? Is it just as easy to bus kids at those times? If the recommendation comes mid April and the school board acts 2 months later how are they ensuring this has actually been really well thought through. Not every family that would be impacted by the proposed moves has the time to follow their every changing and quick process.

I completely agree. Deal with this with the boundaries - not moving schools around. I know buses and bus drivers are in short supply, but making a bad decision in moving schools would be disasterous.

[Anonymous]

ATS to McKinley makes a ton of sense. They are very close to each other and McKinley will be losing almost an entire school of kids to Reed. The McKinley building would accomodate ATS which is likely to have to grow between now and 2021 and it coud still have its musicals etc in a brand new, right sized multi purpose space. Pretty central too. But oh. Just imagine. You put McKinley through construction, overcrowd them, and then give away their school to ATS. Better to close ATS in 2021 then to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of two Key alums here and close neighbor to ASFS (whose kids were not able to go to there, despite our house abutting the ASFS "campus"). Key is probably in the most "urban" location of any elementary school in Arlington (with Henry and Drew not far behind). Moving Key to the ASFS building would impact its accessibility by public transportation, which might impact the lower income population it currently serves. Its not clear to me that Key necessarily has to become a neighborhood school. Putting a crossing guard on Kirkwood Road would allow all of Lyon Village to walk to ASFS.

Two things:

1. Kids aren’t taking public transit to school at Key. See pages 5 and 7.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Francis_Scott_Key_v2.pdf

2. Relatively few of the Key zone kids live in Lyon Village. Most live further east and south, and most of these kids currently are bussed to ASFS. They would benefit from a closer neighborhood school. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stu17K5_PP.jpg

Most Lyon Village kids are zoned and bused to Taylor and they would also benefit from a closer neighborhood school, as would the kids in Cherrydale and VA Square who are bused out of their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as walking to asfs, there are a lot of concerns with crossing kirkwood to widen its walk zone. Currently only a handful of kids walk to school, mostly from the Clarendon area. Those parents who walk regularly have expressed deep concerns about people regularly crossing kirkwood— it’s objectuvely not a safe road to cross and little can be done short of adding a traffic light. The county has to do a traffic study before doing something like that, so any traffic mitigation’s would be a few years off. There’s a bunch of extra concerns like the back stairs would need to be widened and a handicap ramp added, which is difficult since the county does not own the land directly next to the stairs (it’s someone’s house on either side). They likely will expand the walk zone to include part of Lyon village, but I really hope it doesn’t result in someone being hit by a car.
As far as the swap goes, there are three things:
1. I think the schools would likely change names, but who cares.
2. They have said explicitly when asked by parents from asfs that they would move the equipment and any improvements made to the extent possible.
3. I can’t see Taylor still existing if asfs becomes a neighborhood school. Maybe they do ats —> Taylor and immersion to ats. But that seems like a lot of work especially if ats is more vocal than cherrydale is. But what do I know

The biggest reason why currently only a handful of kids walk to ASFS has nothing to do with safety and is because the vast majority of students who COULD walk there are not allowed to attend and are instead bused to Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS to McKinley makes a ton of sense. They are very close to each other and McKinley will be losing almost an entire school of kids to Reed. The McKinley building would accomodate ATS which is likely to have to grow between now and 2021 and it coud still have its musicals etc in a brand new, right sized multi purpose space. Pretty central too. But oh. Just imagine. You put McKinley through construction, overcrowd them, and then give away their school to ATS. Better to close ATS in 2021 then to do that.

Don't alot of McKinley families choose ATS? It would seem like a natural fit to move ATS to McKinley.

[Anonymous]

Maybe McKinley families wouldn't mind that . . . I think some of them could walk to ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as walking to asfs, there are a lot of concerns with crossing kirkwood to widen its walk zone. Currently only a handful of kids walk to school, mostly from the Clarendon area. Those parents who walk regularly have expressed deep concerns about people regularly crossing kirkwood— it’s objectuvely not a safe road to cross and little can be done short of adding a traffic light. The county has to do a traffic study before doing something like that, so any traffic mitigation’s would be a few years off. There’s a bunch of extra concerns like the back stairs would need to be widened and a handicap ramp added, which is difficult since the county does not own the land directly next to the stairs (it’s someone’s house on either side). They likely will expand the walk zone to include part of Lyon village, but I really hope it doesn’t result in someone being hit by a car.

I agree Kirkwood is a tough street to cross. However, a crossing guard at the crosswalk at the bottom of the stairs would adequately deal with this problem. I don't see any reason why the stairs would have to be widened. I can't see any practical way to add a handicap ramp to get up that hill. Even if you did, it would be so steep as to be essentially unusable. If that is a requirement, then the project wouldn't work. I don't think that the ADA or common decency would require a ramp there. In any event, there is already a sidewalk which runs up 14th St. which could be used if necessary.

The side walk on 14th street doesn’t go all the way to kirkwood. It ends about half a block before. There isn’t a crosswalk at 13th, which has a contiguous sidewalk. So unless you widen the stairs and add a ramp, no way you can force people to cross kirkwood to widen the walk zone.

One side of that block on 14th doesn’t have a sidewalk but the other side does and I cross Kirkwood twice a day at that location no problem. Why does a ramp need to be added to the back entrance of ASFS as long as the front entrance is accessible? Does the law require it? I also don’t understand why you think the stairs need to be widened. I’ve walked up and down them more times than I can count and see no reason why they can’t handle an increase is use. In fact, when my kids were at ASFS those stairs were used by the 4th and fifth graders as a way to exit the property for fire drills.

I was on the task force for another school and the hill and width of the steps are actually valid concerns. This is eliminating a bus for a large number of children. Things we were supposed to look for were if three people (so a parent walking two children) could walk reasonably. Not having handicap access for parents for your established safe route is kind of unreasonable. So not really grasping at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as walking to asfs, there are a lot of concerns with crossing kirkwood to widen its walk zone. Currently only a handful of kids walk to school, mostly from the Clarendon area. Those parents who walk regularly have expressed deep concerns about people regularly crossing kirkwood— it’s objectuvely not a safe road to cross and little can be done short of adding a traffic light. The county has to do a traffic study before doing something like that, so any traffic mitigation’s would be a few years off. There’s a bunch of extra concerns like the back stairs would need to be widened and a handicap ramp added, which is difficult since the county does not own the land directly next to the stairs (it’s someone’s house on either side). They likely will expand the walk zone to include part of Lyon village, but I really hope it doesn’t result in someone being hit by a car.

I agree Kirkwood is a tough street to cross. However, a crossing guard at the crosswalk at the bottom of the stairs would adequately deal with this problem. I don't see any reason why the stairs would have to be widened. I can't see any practical way to add a handicap ramp to get up that hill. Even if you did, it would be so steep as to be essentially unusable. If that is a requirement, then the project wouldn't work. I don't think that the ADA or common decency would require a ramp there. In any event, there is already a sidewalk which runs up 14th St. which could be used if necessary.

The side walk on 14th street doesn’t go all the way to kirkwood. It ends about half a block before. There isn’t a crosswalk at 13th, which has a contiguous sidewalk. So unless you widen the stairs and add a ramp, no way you can force people to cross kirkwood to widen the walk zone.

One side of that block on 14th doesn’t have a sidewalk but the other side does and I cross Kirkwood twice a day at that location no problem. Why does a ramp need to be added to the back entrance of ASFS as long as the front entrance is accessible? Does the law require it? I also don’t understand why you think the stairs need to be widened. I’ve walked up and down them more times than I can count and see no reason why they can’t handle an increase is use. In fact, when my kids were at ASFS those stairs were used by the 4th and fifth graders as a way to exit the property for fire drills.

I was on the task force for another school and the hill and width of the steps are actually valid concerns. This is eliminating a bus for a large number of children. Things we were supposed to look for were if three people (so a parent walking two children) could walk reasonably. Not having handicap access for parents for your established safe route is kind of unreasonable. So not really grasping at straws.

A parent and two children could easily use the stairs. And there are at least two other exits from the building in addition to the main entrance that are accessible to someone in a wheelchair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as walking to asfs, there are a lot of concerns with crossing kirkwood to widen its walk zone. Currently only a handful of kids walk to school, mostly from the Clarendon area. Those parents who walk regularly have expressed deep concerns about people regularly crossing kirkwood— it’s objectuvely not a safe road to cross and little can be done short of adding a traffic light. The county has to do a traffic study before doing something like that, so any traffic mitigation’s would be a few years off. There’s a bunch of extra concerns like the back stairs would need to be widened and a handicap ramp added, which is difficult since the county does not own the land directly next to the stairs (it’s someone’s house on either side). They likely will expand the walk zone to include part of Lyon village, but I really hope it doesn’t result in someone being hit by a car.

I agree Kirkwood is a tough street to cross. However, a crossing guard at the crosswalk at the bottom of the stairs would adequately deal with this problem. I don't see any reason why the stairs would have to be widened. I can't see any practical way to add a handicap ramp to get up that hill. Even if you did, it would be so steep as to be essentially unusable. If that is a requirement, then the project wouldn't work. I don't think that the ADA or common decency would require a ramp there. In any event, there is already a sidewalk which runs up 14th St. which could be used if necessary.

The side walk on 14th street doesn’t go all the way to kirkwood. It ends about half a block before. There isn’t a crosswalk at 13th, which has a contiguous sidewalk. So unless you widen the stairs and add a ramp, no way you can force people to cross kirkwood to widen the walk zone.

Totally agree! The three-person rule is ridiculous. Most parts of Arlington don’t have sidewalks that wide.

One side of that block on 14th doesn’t have a sidewalk but the other side does and I cross Kirkwood twice a day at that location no problem. Why does a ramp need to be added to the back entrance of ASFS as long as the front entrance is accessible? Does the law require it? I also don’t understand why you think the stairs need to be widened. I’ve walked up and down them more times than I can count and see no reason why they can’t handle an increase is use. In fact, when my kids were at ASFS those stairs were used by the 4th and fifth graders as a way to exit the property for fire drills.

I was on the task force for another school and the hill and width of the steps are actually valid concerns. This is eliminating a bus for a large number of children. Things we were supposed to look for were if three people (so a parent walking two children) could walk reasonably. Not having handicap access for parents for your established safe route is kind of unreasonable. So not really grasping at straws.

A parent and two children could easily use the stairs. And there are at least two other exits from the building in addition to the main entrance that are accessible to someone in a wheelchair.

[Anonymous]

Pp who helped with walk zoned for another school. The issue isn’t that three people can’t walk because lots of residential streets are like that. The issue is that you have a narrow sidewalk on a busy road. If there weren’t cars going very fast on that street, not having a wide side walk wouldn’t matter. But it’s a busy street and right off the highway. The fact that the only way parents can walk to that school from that side is crossing into a back entrance that isn’t handicap accessible is an issue. If it’s a steep hill without a continuous sidewalk, that’s an issue. If crossing a street is potentially unsafe, people are more likely to get in their cars. That’s not what aps wants.
Again my kids are at another school. I have no dog in this fight. I know you guys want to expand the asfs walk zone, but please don’t shout down reasonable safety concerns. If a kid gets hit or the traffic gets horrendous, it will be on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who helped with walk zoned for another school. The issue isn’t that three people can’t walk because lots of residential streets are like that. The issue is that you have a narrow sidewalk on a busy road. If there weren’t cars going very fast on that street, not having a wide side walk wouldn’t matter. But it’s a busy street and right off the highway. The fact that the only way parents can walk to that school from that side is crossing into a back entrance that isn’t handicap accessible is an issue. If it’s a steep hill without a continuous sidewalk, that’s an issue. If crossing a street is potentially unsafe, people are more likely to get in their cars. That’s not what aps wants.
Again my kids are at another school. I have no dog in this fight. I know you guys want to expand the asfs walk zone, but please don’t shout down reasonable safety concerns. If a kid gets hit or the traffic gets horrendous, it will be on you.

NP with no dog in this fight since my kids are in college but live in the neighborhood. The only possibly legitimate argument you might have is that the one block of sidewalk students would use on Kirkwood is too narrow and that is something the County could easily address. Otherwise:

1) You are acting like Kirkwood is a virtual race track and right off of 66 (unless you are talking about Spout Run, which is hardly a highway considering the speed limit is 35 MPH and strictly enforced), neither of which is accurate. The intersection of Henderson and George Mason, as well as the traffic on Henderson,are significantly busier than Kirkwood and students are able to cross it just fine with a crossing guard to walk to Barrett. And to get from 66 to Kirkwood requires exiting to Lee Highway and either stopping at two traffic lights first or stopping at one traffic light and then slowing down to cut through a parking lot.

2) Walking up the back stairs is not the only way parents can walk to ASFS from Lyon Village.

3) The steep hill has a continuous sidewalk. And half of this OMG steep hill can be avoided by entering the school property at the playground rather than the front entrance.

4) The school has existed for 30+ years and has numerous ADA compliant entrances and exits. The law does not require each and every possible way to get to the school be handicap accessible.

5) If a kid gets hit by a car, that will not be "on" the people who advocate for an expanded walk zone. That would be the responsibility of either the driver, the kid, or both, and the School Board, which employs professionals to study these matters before making such decisions.

6) Traffic at the school is already horrendous, mostly for two reasons. Since school doesn't start until 8:55, many parents drive to ASFS on their way to work because they don't have the 10-15 minutes it might take to walk their kids to school or have no choice but to drive there to put their kid in extended day before school starts. I also know plenty of families around Courthouse who could put their kids on a school bus but choose not to for whatever reason and instead drive.

Like a pp said, there may be reasons for not swapping ASFS and Key but access from Lyon Village is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

I’m the pp who’s quoted above.
Again, I don’t live in cherrydale or Lyon village and want nothing to do with your community. I don’t care if you expand the asfs walk zone. Seriously I don’t.
My only thought is that the county should err on the side of caution when expanding these walk zones. The aps staff was really trusting surveys and the members of the task force. I really don’t think they are doing very much independent verification.
Reading the responses of the asfs survey, there were two trains of thought:
1. Of course no one walks because it’s neighborhood is not zoned for the school and everything within a mile should be zoned for it because they can walk.
2. Kirkwood, Lee highway, and wash blvd are too busy to cross.
Again I don’t live there, but the first poster who said that there were safety concerns and got beat up on appears to be in the second camp. The rest of you appear to be in the first. The fact that there are even camps in this discussion indicates that it warrants further study and since Aps doesn’t have time to do that, it probably shouldn’t be expanded.
I don’t know the specifics about sidewalks being contiguous or not, but the concerns about handicap access should be addressed. If the route advocated to justify an expanded walk zone involves a steep set of stairs with no walkable alternative from that direction, you need to add a ramp or have a handicap accessible route from that direction. It doesn’t matter if there are other entrances— that is the entrance being advertised as the safe route from that direction. Again I don’t live there but you all shouldn’t shout down safety concerns.

[Anonymous]

There should be traffic calming devices on Kirkwood. The road is a nightmare. If you obey the speed limit you will be cruelly tailgated. Lots of speed humps in LV—a comical number, actually. Maybe add some to Kirkwood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who helped with walk zoned for another school. The issue isn’t that three people can’t walk because lots of residential streets are like that. The issue is that you have a narrow sidewalk on a busy road. If there weren’t cars going very fast on that street, not having a wide side walk wouldn’t matter. But it’s a busy street and right off the highway. The fact that the only way parents can walk to that school from that side is crossing into a back entrance that isn’t handicap accessible is an issue. If it’s a steep hill without a continuous sidewalk, that’s an issue. If crossing a street is potentially unsafe, people are more likely to get in their cars. That’s not what aps wants.
Again my kids are at another school. I have no dog in this fight. I know you guys want to expand the asfs walk zone, but please don’t shout down reasonable safety concerns. If a kid gets hit or the traffic gets horrendous, it will be on you.

NP with no dog in this fight since my kids are in college but live in the neighborhood. The only possibly legitimate argument you might have is that the one block of sidewalk students would use on Kirkwood is too narrow and that is something the County could easily address. Otherwise:

1) You are acting like Kirkwood is a virtual race track and right off of 66 (unless you are talking about Spout Run, which is hardly a highway considering the speed limit is 35 MPH and strictly enforced), neither of which is accurate. The intersection of Henderson and George Mason, as well as the traffic on Henderson,are significantly busier than Kirkwood and students are able to cross it just fine with a crossing guard to walk to Barrett. And to get from 66 to Kirkwood requires exiting to Lee Highway and either stopping at two traffic lights first or stopping at one traffic light and then slowing down to cut through a parking lot.

2) Walking up the back stairs is not the only way parents can walk to ASFS from Lyon Village.

3) The steep hill has a continuous sidewalk. And half of this OMG steep hill can be avoided by entering the school property at the playground rather than the front entrance.

4) The school has existed for 30+ years and has numerous ADA compliant entrances and exits. The law does not require each and every possible way to get to the school be handicap accessible.

5) If a kid gets hit by a car, that will not be "on" the people who advocate for an expanded walk zone. That would be the responsibility of either the driver, the kid, or both, and the School Board, which employs professionals to study these matters before making such decisions.

6) Traffic at the school is already horrendous, mostly for two reasons. Since school doesn't start until 8:55, many parents drive to ASFS on their way to work because they don't have the 10-15 minutes it might take to walk their kids to school or have no choice but to drive there to put their kid in extended day before school starts. I also know plenty of families around Courthouse who could put their kids on a school bus but choose not to for whatever reason and instead drive.

Like a pp said, there may be reasons for not swapping ASFS and Key but access from Lyon Village is not one of them.

Enter at playground?? Please explain.

Lots of people do cut through from 66 to the Clarendon/VA Square area on Kirkwood. It is a busy, fast-moving road. But that can be fixed with a crossing guard or light.