New APS Elem Boundaries (ASFS)

[Anonymous]

Sorry, this got caught in blue box:

This is directly from the APS website about Reed -- it says a neighborhood school. Has something changed?

Since the School Board has determined that the new elementary school will be a neighborhood school with its own attendance zone, future elementary school students living near the Reed Building may be impacted by decisions regarding the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, this got caught in blue box:

This is directly from the APS website about Reed -- it says a neighborhood school. Has something changed?

Since the School Board has determined that the new elementary school will be a neighborhood school with its own attendance zone, future elementary school students living near the Reed Building may be impacted by decisions regarding the new school.

Yes, it has been formally decided that Reed will be a neighborhood school. It's the only realistic way for them to address the overcrowding at Glebe and McKinley since none of the surrounding schools have the capacity to take on all of those students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work session tonight to discuss elementary boundaries.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ATBQW96A258D

Are there any docs from this work session? I'm hopeless at navigating the APS site.

Biggest Takeaway, was that they said that middle school boundary is not considered alignment with current elementary school boundaries, because they know the elementary schools are changing . This is the first time I’ve heard them actually say that.

Why aren't they doing es and Ms boundaries at the same time? The SB is so frustrating sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work session tonight to discuss elementary boundaries.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ATBQW96A258D

Are there any docs from this work session? I'm hopeless at navigating the APS site.

Biggest Takeaway, was that they said that middle school boundary is not considered alignment with current elementary school boundaries, because they know the elementary schools are changing . This is the first time I’ve heard them actually say that.

Why aren't they doing es and Ms boundaries at the same time? The SB is so frustrating sometimes.

Because it's too many variables. Right now with the MS boundary process, one tweak over here can potential create a cascading effect that means 5 or 10 more tweaks over there to get everything in balance. If you do ES boundaries at the same time, that one MS tweak that causes 5 more MS tweaks might then produce three ES alignment issues that mean making a few more tweaks to the ES school boundaries, but then that creates some new issue relative to the MS boundaries and you have to make more changes there. You'd effectively create triple the potential moving parts between all of the MS moving parts, all of the ES moving parts, and then all of the places they intersect, than in the MS process alone. By doing the MS boundaries first, they have just that set of moving parts to work with now and then all of that becomes a constant rather than a variable in the ES process, making the ES process much more efficient. This is not a situation where economies of scale come into play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work session tonight to discuss elementary boundaries.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ATBQW96A258D

Are there any docs from this work session? I'm hopeless at navigating the APS site.

Biggest Takeaway, was that they said that middle school boundary is not considered alignment with current elementary school boundaries, because they know the elementary schools are changing . This is the first time I’ve heard them actually say that.

Why aren't they doing es and Ms boundaries at the same time? The SB is so frustrating sometimes.

Because it's too many variables. Right now with the MS boundary process, one tweak over here can potential create a cascading effect that means 5 or 10 more tweaks over there to get everything in balance. If you do ES boundaries at the same time, that one MS tweak that causes 5 more MS tweaks might then produce three ES alignment issues that mean making a few more tweaks to the ES school boundaries, but then that creates some new issue relative to the MS boundaries and you have to make more changes there. You'd effectively create triple the potential moving parts between all of the MS moving parts, all of the ES moving parts, and then all of the places they intersect, than in the MS process alone. By doing the MS boundaries first, they have just that set of moving parts to work with now and then all of that becomes a constant rather than a variable in the ES process, making the ES process much more efficient. This is not a situation where economies of scale come into play.

I buy that, but then why make alignment a criterion at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work session tonight to discuss elementary boundaries.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ATBQW96A258D

Are there any docs from this work session? I'm hopeless at navigating the APS site.

Biggest Takeaway, was that they said that middle school boundary is not considered alignment with current elementary school boundaries, because they know the elementary schools are changing . This is the first time I’ve heard them actually say that.

Why aren't they doing es and Ms boundaries at the same time? The SB is so frustrating sometimes.

Because it's too many variables. Right now with the MS boundary process, one tweak over here can potential create a cascading effect that means 5 or 10 more tweaks over there to get everything in balance. If you do ES boundaries at the same time, that one MS tweak that causes 5 more MS tweaks might then produce three ES alignment issues that mean making a few more tweaks to the ES school boundaries, but then that creates some new issue relative to the MS boundaries and you have to make more changes there. You'd effectively create triple the potential moving parts between all of the MS moving parts, all of the ES moving parts, and then all of the places they intersect, than in the MS process alone. By doing the MS boundaries first, they have just that set of moving parts to work with now and then all of that becomes a constant rather than a variable in the ES process, making the ES process much more efficient. This is not a situation where economies of scale come into play.

I buy that, but then why make alignment a criterion at all?

Alignment with high schools. Elementary schools have been the focus of the community because the people who will be affected by this have kids in elementary school right now, so they're thinking about where their elementary-aged kids will move on to, but aren't thinking beyond that to high school. The SB is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some proposal have reed as choice, I think to increase diversity in NoArl?

Aside from immersion, what choice program increases diversity?

ATS. If the SB really had their druthers, they'd look at relocating ATS to Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham, turning the current ATS building into a neighborhood school, and redistributing students accordingly.

ATS is about 20% ED, and so is Ashlawn. If they're determined to keep ATS and other choice programs, it ought to be require them to be as diverse as the APS population in general.

Is there something on the APS site that shows the ED status of transfers to ATS by sending school?

[Anonymous]

From the comments last night I think they have a draft Es boundaries and that is being used to drive MS boundaries but unofficially. So if your ES is on MS boundaries, you should see where things shift in MS and that will inform futur ES zones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some proposal have reed as choice, I think to increase diversity in NoArl?

Aside from immersion, what choice program increases diversity?

ATS. If the SB really had their druthers, they'd look at relocating ATS to Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham, turning the current ATS building into a neighborhood school, and redistributing students accordingly.

ATS is about 20% ED, and so is Ashlawn. If they're determined to keep ATS and other choice programs, it ought to be require them to be as diverse as the APS population in general.

Is there something on the APS site that shows the ED status of transfers to ATS by sending school?

This is the report they provide: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf. It shows how many students transferred to ATS from each elementary school, but does not breakdown those students by other demographics. Breaking down the data like that would probably result in some FERPA violations where it ended up inadvertently identifying particular students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people have argued on here that they are only doing S. Arlington elementary boundaries for 2019, but the agenda from the work session says for 2019: "Implement new elementary boundaries in S. Arlington and where possible in N. Arlington to alleviate crowding." Then for 2021: "Implement remaining elementary boundaries."

To me it would make sense to do redraw all the elementary boundaries at one time next year, then enact them in waves as schools come online, so S. Arlington/ASFS boundaries would take effect in 2019 when Fleet opens, and the rest would take effect in 2021 when Reed opens. Because going through it twice seems ridiculous.

I'm sure they'll tweak a little bit in North Arlington where they can based on the new south Arlington boundaries to alleviate some of the overcrowding at McKinley and 5Glebe, but they're not going to do a full re-draw in North Arlington this spring. Not only would it make the process substantially more complex for the spring to have so many more moving parts, but Reed is still almost four years away and the projections will shift (as they always do) in the two years between this elementary boundary process and when they've scheduled to it for Reed. They're not going to re-draw North Arlington now and take the risk they'll have to do it again in two years anyway because something about the population has changed that will make the post-Reed boundaries significantly imbalanced.

I'm the pp above. I just watched the work session, and what was proposed to the board was indeed a comprehensive review of all elementary boundaries--"everything is on the table." This would be a phased approach, so implementation would be delayed for some N Arlington PUs until Reed opens. They also wouldn't necessarily draw the exact boundaries but could identify PUs that would possibly shift (those PUs not in the walk zone for any school, for example), and closer to 2021 would make the call on exactly where those PUs go.

Bottom line, they recommended to the board to take a big view approach, and I agree with that. If you want to watch the discussion, it starts around minute 85 of the work session.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people have argued on here that they are only doing S. Arlington elementary boundaries for 2019, but the agenda from the work session says for 2019: "Implement new elementary boundaries in S. Arlington and where possible in N. Arlington to alleviate crowding." Then for 2021: "Implement remaining elementary boundaries."

To me it would make sense to do redraw all the elementary boundaries at one time next year, then enact them in waves as schools come online, so S. Arlington/ASFS boundaries would take effect in 2019 when Fleet opens, and the rest would take effect in 2021 when Reed opens. Because going through it twice seems ridiculous.

I'm sure they'll tweak a little bit in North Arlington where they can based on the new south Arlington boundaries to alleviate some of the overcrowding at McKinley and 5Glebe, but they're not going to do a full re-draw in North Arlington this spring. Not only would it make the process substantially more complex for the spring to have so many more moving parts, but Reed is still almost four years away and the projections will shift (as they always do) in the two years between this elementary boundary process and when they've scheduled to it for Reed. They're not going to re-draw North Arlington now and take the risk they'll have to do it again in two years anyway because something about the population has changed that will make the post-Reed boundaries significantly imbalanced.

I'm the pp above. I just watched the work session, and what was proposed to the board was indeed a comprehensive review of all elementary boundaries--"everything is on the table." This would be a phased approach, so implementation would be delayed for some N Arlington PUs until Reed opens. They also wouldn't necessarily draw the exact boundaries but could identify PUs that would possibly shift (those PUs not in the walk zone for any school, for example), and closer to 2021 would make the call on exactly where those PUs go.

Bottom line, they recommended to the board to take a big view approach, and I agree with that. If you want to watch the discussion, it starts around minute 85 of the work session.

I think this new approach to elementary boundaries would fantastic, it's very much needed. They did specifically later on, though, that they don't want to make any big changes around Reed until Reed is ready to open. It sounds like what they'd do in the near term in the north is figure out where they can move McKinley/Glebe planning units further south when Fleet opens, but Kanninen specifically said (around 1:39) that otherwise they probably won't in a position to meaningfully relieve the overcrowding in McKinley and Glebe in 2019.

I also think I called it earlier when I said one of Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham will become an option school, ATS or otherwise. They specifically said too many times that they'd look at areas with overlapping walk zones as places where you could move an option school. There are PUs that are within the walk zone for all three of those schools. My guess would be Jamestown, because so many of the students there are already bus riders, it really doesn't affect them to ride a bus to Discovery or Taylor instead. Plus it will give them an excuse to given Jamestown a much-needed renovation without it being prioritizing North Arlington students at the expense of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I also think I called it earlier when I said one of Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham will become an option school, ATS or otherwise. They specifically said too many times that they'd look at areas with overlapping walk zones as places where you could move an option school. There are PUs that are within the walk zone for all three of those schools. My guess would be Jamestown, because so many of the students there are already bus riders, it really doesn't affect them to ride a bus to Discovery or Taylor instead. Plus it will give them an excuse to given Jamestown a much-needed renovation without it being prioritizing North Arlington students at the expense of others.

I can't stop laughing at the smug.

Moving a choice program so far from SArl eliminates attendance by parents who need to use public transportation and extended day. Talk about prioritizing the privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also think I called it earlier when I said one of Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham will become an option school, ATS or otherwise. They specifically said too many times that they'd look at areas with overlapping walk zones as places where you could move an option school. There are PUs that are within the walk zone for all three of those schools. My guess would be Jamestown, because so many of the students there are already bus riders, it really doesn't affect them to ride a bus to Discovery or Taylor instead. Plus it will give them an excuse to given Jamestown a much-needed renovation without it being prioritizing North Arlington students at the expense of others.

I can't stop laughing at the smug.

Moving a choice program so far from SArl eliminates attendance by parents who need to use public transportation and extended day. Talk about prioritizing the privileged.

Absolutely. And then people will say that ATS isn't diverse enough. Choice programs should be in the middle of the county wherever possible. ATS's location right now makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I also think I called it earlier when I said one of Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham will become an option school, ATS or otherwise. They specifically said too many times that they'd look at areas with overlapping walk zones as places where you could move an option school. There are PUs that are within the walk zone for all three of those schools. My guess would be Jamestown, because so many of the students there are already bus riders, it really doesn't affect them to ride a bus to Discovery or Taylor instead. Plus it will give them an excuse to given Jamestown a much-needed renovation without it being prioritizing North Arlington students at the expense of others.

I can't stop laughing at the smug.

Moving a choice program so far from SArl eliminates attendance by parents who need to use public transportation and extended day. Talk about prioritizing the privileged.

Absolutely. And then people will say that ATS isn't diverse enough. Choice programs should be in the middle of the county wherever possible. ATS's location right now makes perfect sense.

+1. ATS is in a great spot right now for county-wide access. If it moves, it should be to somewhere in the central part of the county (north or south). Jamestown wouldn't work. The only other true county-wide program - Montessori - is moving closer to the center of the county (from Drew to Henry), not further away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Moving a choice program so far from SArl eliminates attendance by parents who need to use public transportation and extended day. Talk about prioritizing the privileged.

Absolutely. And then people will say that ATS isn't diverse enough. Choice programs should be in the middle of the county wherever possible. ATS's location right now makes perfect sense.

I'm willing to say that now.

It's no more diverse than the nearest ES (Ashlawn), and less so than APS as a whole, and it offers developmentally inappropriate instruction at the cost of a neighborhood school. It should go.