8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not ready to have to start caring about APS garbage again. Can it please go back to summer?

Then why are you posting/reading here?

I'm just waiting for all the crazy ASF/Key to start fighting about boundaries now that the swap was called off-- isn't this the time where everyone starts complaining about the longest bus ride ever and the Cherrosslyn war (or whatever it was called)? As a neighborhood school, ASF is going to have to have a walk zone and let the actual neighborhood kids attend.

No one had any issue at asfs with there being two neighborhood schools— key, asfs, Taylor, and long branch all staying neighborhood. The conflict came when people thought that only key or asfs could be neighborhood. Most of asfs lives around key, so from that groups perspective, key should be the neighborhood school site. Rosslyn is about as far from key as the neighborhood around asfs is from Taylor. You can see why they thought that was the most equitable solution. The cherry dale/va square parents really didn’t want another school in their neighborhood that they can’t attend. If there’s two neighborhood schools, then everyone in that neighborhood is happy.
I think the upper/lower is for key/asfs personally, it’s something people in the area have been pushing because it helps balance demographics.

OP of #Cherrosslyn and #longestbusride here. PP is right, if Key & ASFS goes neighborhood that is a ceasefire and reasonable bus rides for all.

Suspect actual boundaries may still have some drama (I suspect Key boundary can’t include all Lyon Village and Rosslyn, so we may need an island or bus LV to ASFS). But just a #borderskirmish

[Anonymous]

Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What school is the easy money for where they will move Spanish immersion? Carlin Springs? ATS? Barcroft?

I don’t k ow, but Goldstein was pretty clear he wants an option program in NW Arlington, but centrally located NW Arlington. $5 says he’s privately pushing (again) for it to be Nottingham.

An option program in NW makes little sense unless you want to make it inaccessible to South Arlington residents.

If there are too many seats in NW, the new school — Reed — should be an option school. Then you don’t have to disrupt everyone around it in re-drawing boundaries. It is certainly a better location for an option school than Nottingham.

I agree, but wash “they promised” reed wouldn’t be an option School. So much better not to move everyone around.

+1

APS and the School Board have promised many things over the last two years that never happened. Not sure why Reed-- which is the obvious, least disruptive location for an option school-- should be untouchable.

There was a formal board resolution that Reed would be neighborhood. They can’t just change course on a dime, they’d have to pass another formal board resolution with community participation, etc.

Where is the rule that community participation has to be part of a Board resolution? And what community? Who's to say that THE greater community would not support a new resolution?

DP, and I don’t think it’s true that there has to be a community process. But they would have to vote and have public comment.

I think the only reason they’re talking about an option program anywhere in the NW is that they will have built too many seats too close together. They can’t fill Reed without emptying another school and there just isn’t the density of housing, and there won’t be in the near future despite talk of development along Lee Hwy or at EFC (yeah right), that can support so many neighborhood seats. And once they spend all this money to build another school, they won’t have it to build one anywhere else for quite a few more years, but the kids keep coming. So, I’m not sure what other choice they have really, except very odd boundaries that would make a lot of kids bus riders. To me, an option school, at the least walkable site, would be better planning. Putting the program into Reed would be least disruptive to current boundaries, but it would also be using up a very large number of permanent neighborhood seats that are highly walkable. I don’t think options schools should be getting the newest, largest buildings in areas where there could be a lot of walkers. I don’t think that should be the only consideration, like maybe they don’t have to move option schools for that reason alone, but if they’re starting from scratch, they need to make a sound decision. Also, it should not be Spanish immersion given the demographics.

One could also argue that they can't fill McKinley or Tuckahoe or Nottingham after Reed opens if they make the boundaries sensible to density and to reduce bus traffic. Those pushing for Reed as option just don't want to move their current location. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't want to see another shiny new building go to an option school while others around it still sit in trailers.

I think it's time to return to additions at existing schools. Everyone should be benefiting. The argument has been that it isn't as cost-efficient as building a whole new school. But I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of full costs for a new building plus new boundaries plus new and revised bus routes, etc. And even so, our old buildings should be maintained and provide a comparable pleasant learning facility as the new builds.

I second the recommendation to move Key immersion to ATS and eliminate ATS as a program. Those kids will do just as well wherever they go, with the exception of the VPI students who will then merely be sent back to their 65% and up FRL and high ELL % schools. But I want to see the projections - once there are two new neighborhood schools in the north, I suspect the north schools will all be nice and comfy while all the south schools become increasingly crowded.

I support expanding existing schools, but rather than incur the cost of building additions, I think they should do more with looking at sites that can take a lot of trailers and creating better trailer spaces there instead of putting a couple of random trailers here and there. I have a fifth grader at Nottingham and recently got a glimpse of the trailer they installed there to accommodate the fifth grade. Instead of doing individual trailers for each class like they did in the past for the fourth grade, they installed a unit that has four classrooms, four bathrooms (two student, two teacher) and a connecting hallway. There will only be three classes out there (which is a different issue, but would be an issue even if they were inside the building), so they could potentially use that fourth room as flex space for specials that are on carts or where students don't necessarily need to be in a particular classroom (e.g., FLES, in contrast to PE). They'll still go inside for some things, but having the whole grade in one contiguous space makes it not feel so "lesser." There are also trailer units that can be installed at sites to create cafeteria and other open spaces to further expand the comfortable capacity of a school at a lesser cost than a formal addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.

ATS isn't going to be eliminated any time soon. Let it go. They had the opportunity to move ATS back in 2014ish to the Kenmore site or expand it, and both options disappeared. Don't think any current SB members have kids there, but County Board member Dorsey does (or did - not sue what grades they are in.). ATS has a very small walk zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

It's not a problem. FCC does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.

Agree with at least some of this. N Arlington just doesn’t have the Spanish speaking students necessary to fill half of an immersion school. ATS will likely be eliminated in favor of an IB program, and the ATS site is not good for a neighborhood school as far as walking goes, so maybe IB will just go there. The IB kids can just tuck their shirts in until ATS is grandfathered out of the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

That seems needlessly complex just to avoid demographic embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to start from scratch and make boundaries based on where schools will be in 2021 and where the kids will be living then. Being held hostage by current boundaries and "least disruptive" is why were have some schools so crowded while others have space and why we have weird boundaries that make for crazy numbers of buses.

They SHOULD determine locations and start from scratch. But they don't have the wherewithal or the courage to do that. The SB is talking "big" to warn people that all boundaries are up for potential revisions; but when it comes down to it, they will cave and continue to avoid as much conflict as possible rather than think about what is best for the school system and what would allow the system to best serve the children.

I don't know, I think Priddy's failed attempt to caucus Goldstein might make other SB members a little more comfortable making big changes. Goldstein will get re-elected this fall before location decisions are made, so he can take some risks in the next couple of years. Talento and Van Doren are up for re-election this year, but I don't know that I see option school moves driving enough groundswell to force them out, and they'll have been re-elected (or not) because the actual boundary process, so that at that point they can take some risks too. Only O'Grady is up the year after that, so she might want to lay low on some of the more controversial decisions, but the board could agree to give her a pass on some things in the interest of re-election, knowing the other four can pass whatever they want without here (or even three, if Talento is concerned about her own re-election the year after that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

Ugh, part of the joy of elementary is starting out young there; by 3rd grade you have cynical tweens so community will suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

Ugh, part of the joy of elementary is starting out young there; by 3rd grade you have cynical tweens so community will suffer.

What? The schools would have a shared pta, I’m not sure why you think kids would suffer if they go to a separate school site for 3-5 grade (especially when they go to middle school for 6-8).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

No that was not the idea. They floated upper and lower for this neighborhood school when they thought the Buck property was on the table. That’s never happening and this conversation ended. There was never discussion about upper and lower at the two existing school locations. That’s a horrible idea that limits parent involvement with children split between school locations. As PP mentioned this concept was only brought up in context of option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

No that was not the idea. They floated upper and lower for this neighborhood school when they thought the Buck property was on the table. That’s never happening and this conversation ended. There was never discussion about upper and lower at the two existing school locations. That’s a horrible idea that limits parent involvement with children split between school locations. As PP mentioned this concept was only brought up in context of option schools.

These are all excuses for the real dealbreaker: a lot of parents will fight tooth and nail to avoid integration with the less fortunate, which is what an upper and lower plan is all about.