APS: Elementary Walk Zone surveys out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an ATS parent, I think the demand is there for a second ATS, given that there are often 300+ applications for a class of 72-100 kids. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to replicate if you found a great principal and dedicated teachers. Part of what makes the school great is that parents really want their kids to be there.

This idea has been explored in the past and rejected because when they poll parents, everyone still wants to be in the original ATS rather than the new ATS because they're concerned the new ATS won't be able to properly recreate the results of the original ATS. If they create a second ATS and it's hard to fill because people opt to stay in the known neighborhood school rather than the untested new ATS, that doesn't help a whole lot. Our school system doesn't have the luxury of a choice program staying under capacity for five or ten years until it proves itself, any new program would have to be one that there's sufficient enthusiasm for that they know they'll be able to fill it from year one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That data on Tuckahoe is wrong. APS Staff is already aware.

In what respect is it wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

That does nothing to increase seats in the eastern part of the county, unfortunately. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a new choice school. All of the communication has been to maintain the current number and just decide where to put them. Choice schools simply can't be the priority when there are not enough seats for kids to begin with. Any changes would only impact current K and 1st graders, incoming students would go in knowing the score.

But the shortage in the eastern part is going to be caused, in part, because Key lost its neighborhood guarantee, right? That has yet to materialize, since the change hasn't happened yet. Are kids in the current Key zone not going to get into Immersion and instead go to the neighborhood school? It's unclear. Are there are enough students in this area to warrant two neighborhood schools within a mile of each other? I'm not sure. I seem to remember there not being all that many within the hypothetical ASFS effective walk zone. I think boundary changes around the new schools that are already in the works will provide cascading relief for the east. Fleet will provide relief for Long Branch. Glebe will get relief from Reed. Jamestown is under capacity and could take some of Taylor PU's to balance enrollment between those two adjacent schools.

I think there may not be an appetite among staff for a new option school, but if I were a neighborhood about to lose my zoned school that's in walking distance from my house, I think I would rather become a stakeholder in a new school on that same site rather than be bused out to a different school so that other kids could be bused in. But that's just me and maybe it's not a perspective shared by current Tuckahoe families. Maybe they don't care one way or the other, or maybe they are sure that none of this is going to happen.

Yes, but look at the link above. If the "walkable" kids in the overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham area go to Nottingham, then Tuckahoe is only left with 78 walkable kids-- that isn't enough walkers to fill a grade-level. And if you give those kids priority admissions to a new choice school at Tuckahoe, then you would need to change that policy for all the choice schools. APS isn't going to change their entire choice school admissions policy for 78 kids, especially when they just revised it last year.

I am aware of the policy, but I think we have to be less rigid in our decisions, when it makes sense. They could make an exception just in the case of opening a new option school within a building that was very recently a full neighborhood school. This would mean currently enrolled students (and their concurrently enrolled younger siblings) would get priority in a lottery. It's how they opened all the other option programs. The problem was that they never went back and revised the policy for decades, even after the programs had taken off and had waitlists and were leaving certain areas completely shut out of the lottery. It would be a (very temporary) thing. If you live near Tuckahoe but haven't entered school yet, you're probably not tied to the neighborhood school community and could make the transition to Nottingham or McKinley or Reed without feeling like you "lost" something. Because it never belonged to you. And if you felt really strongly about attending that school, you'd still have the chance (in theory, as part of the lottery).

I don't know, this is complicated. Like I said, maybe Tuckahoe parents don't really care about it if they're moved to other nearby schools. I'm just thinking how I would feel and what I'd want to do is be proactive and figure out a way that opens seats at my school without displacing the current students. And open transfers are maybe not enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

Which PU are you in? Looks like there are 2 Alcova PU's they don't consider walkable to Barcroft, because of the National Guard/Foreign service campus being in the way. But they consider them walkable to Fleet. If you think that's incorrect, let them know. I have to assume they'd require a crossing guard for Glebe if you were moved to Fleet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

If you think your planning unit could feasibly be walkable to Fleet, respond to that questionnaire and note that, including any safety considerations that would affect walkability. Also, you're not limited to addressing only your own planning unit. If there's another unit in the neighborhood you know well that you believe could be walkable (to Fleet or otherwise), note that as well.

The point of the surveys isn't to poll a neighborhood or school about what they would prefer, it's to get information from people who really know the planning units about what's actually walkable and what isn't rather than relying upon assumptions about what should be walkable based on a map. Any area you know well enough to make that judgment with regard to any school is fair game for a questionnaire response.

Another NP here. I also live in Alcova Heights (although I have not yet filled out the questionnaire). According to the civic association president, APS is interested in getting feedback from the neighborhood about the feasibility of walking to Fleet, Henry, Barcroft, Randolph, and Barrett. There was a recent discussion about this on the neighborhood listserv. I assume that each of those schools must be within one or one-and-a-half miles of some part of the neighborhood. I know that a couple of neighborhood parents have volunteered to engage with APS on this issue on behalf of the civic association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

That does nothing to increase seats in the eastern part of the county, unfortunately. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a new choice school. All of the communication has been to maintain the current number and just decide where to put them. Choice schools simply can't be the priority when there are not enough seats for kids to begin with. Any changes would only impact current K and 1st graders, incoming students would go in knowing the score.

But the shortage in the eastern part is going to be caused, in part, because Key lost its neighborhood guarantee, right? That has yet to materialize, since the change hasn't happened yet. Are kids in the current Key zone not going to get into Immersion and instead go to the neighborhood school? It's unclear. Are there are enough students in this area to warrant two neighborhood schools within a mile of each other? I'm not sure. I seem to remember there not being all that many within the hypothetical ASFS effective walk zone. I think boundary changes around the new schools that are already in the works will provide cascading relief for the east. Fleet will provide relief for Long Branch. Glebe will get relief from Reed. Jamestown is under capacity and could take some of Taylor PU's to balance enrollment between those two adjacent schools.

I think there may not be an appetite among staff for a new option school, but if I were a neighborhood about to lose my zoned school that's in walking distance from my house, I think I would rather become a stakeholder in a new school on that same site rather than be bused out to a different school so that other kids could be bused in. But that's just me and maybe it's not a perspective shared by current Tuckahoe families. Maybe they don't care one way or the other, or maybe they are sure that none of this is going to happen.

Yes, but look at the link above. If the "walkable" kids in the overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham area go to Nottingham, then Tuckahoe is only left with 78 walkable kids-- that isn't enough walkers to fill a grade-level. And if you give those kids priority admissions to a new choice school at Tuckahoe, then you would need to change that policy for all the choice schools. APS isn't going to change their entire choice school admissions policy for 78 kids, especially when they just revised it last year.

I am aware of the policy, but I think we have to be less rigid in our decisions, when it makes sense. They could make an exception just in the case of opening a new option school within a building that was very recently a full neighborhood school. This would mean currently enrolled students (and their concurrently enrolled younger siblings) would get priority in a lottery. It's how they opened all the other option programs. The problem was that they never went back and revised the policy for decades, even after the programs had taken off and had waitlists and were leaving certain areas completely shut out of the lottery. It would be a (very temporary) thing. If you live near Tuckahoe but haven't entered school yet, you're probably not tied to the neighborhood school community and could make the transition to Nottingham or McKinley or Reed without feeling like you "lost" something. Because it never belonged to you. And if you felt really strongly about attending that school, you'd still have the chance (in theory, as part of the lottery).

I don't know, this is complicated. Like I said, maybe Tuckahoe parents don't really care about it if they're moved to other nearby schools. I'm just thinking how I would feel and what I'd want to do is be proactive and figure out a way that opens seats at my school without displacing the current students. And open transfers are maybe not enough?

DP, but why is this needed? What is so unique about the Tuckahoe community that it would need this kind of accommodation while all of the other students whose planning units change schools will have to change right away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

If you think your planning unit could feasibly be walkable to Fleet, respond to that questionnaire and note that, including any safety considerations that would affect walkability. Also, you're not limited to addressing only your own planning unit. If there's another unit in the neighborhood you know well that you believe could be walkable (to Fleet or otherwise), note that as well.

The point of the surveys isn't to poll a neighborhood or school about what they would prefer, it's to get information from people who really know the planning units about what's actually walkable and what isn't rather than relying upon assumptions about what should be walkable based on a map. Any area you know well enough to make that judgment with regard to any school is fair game for a questionnaire response.

Another NP here. I also live in Alcova Heights (although I have not yet filled out the questionnaire). According to the civic association president, APS is interested in getting feedback from the neighborhood about the feasibility of walking to Fleet, Henry, Barcroft, Randolph, and Barrett. There was a recent discussion about this on the neighborhood listserv. I assume that each of those schools must be within one or one-and-a-half miles of some part of the neighborhood. I know that a couple of neighborhood parents have volunteered to engage with APS on this issue on behalf of the civic association.

Golly gee. I wonder which school they’ll
Want to talk to?
Spoiler alert: Fleet

[Anonymous]

I don’t see the issue here. We need seats. We’ve go too many schools stacked on top of each other in one area. One of those becomes Choice, to release pressure off the other schools. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see the issue here. We need seats. We’ve go too many schools stacked on top of each other in one area. One of those becomes Choice, to release pressure off the other schools. Done.

I think the community around that school should have a say in what program it becomes, and I don't think other programs should be forced to move. Add a new choice.

[Anonymous]

So N. Arlington gets a new neighborhood school AND a new option school. S. Arlington gets one school moved and one option school moved. Hm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

Whatever. Look at the transfer reports. North Arlington has choices and they choose to send their kids to their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

I love this idea. An ATS2 or a second Montessori, perhaps?

Those types of choice programs are *mostly* for South Arlington parents who need an excuse not to go to the neighborhood school. These people have given up on the local community and are sellouts. North Arlington / Tuckahoe will need more of a Science/Arts program to generate support/interest.

We didn't sell out, we bought in. Just like the self-righteous North Arlington types who bought into neighborhood schools that are 3% disadvantaged but consider themselves liberal because they support housing policies that keep South Arlington poorer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So N. Arlington gets a new neighborhood school AND a new option school. S. Arlington gets one school moved and one option school moved. Hm.

They built the new schools where they owned land.
It is what it is.
Besides mc s arl fams should be happy about this. Poor families will be discouraged from further placed choice schools. More spaces for mc kids to opt out of their crappy neighborhood schools. Hooray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9:17 - to piggyback, the option schools that exist don't want to move into the upper northwest corner of Arlington because that would move them further away from the kids in South Arlington who really benefit from these programs. I'm an ATS parent and PTA board member, and a fair amount of discussion recently has revolved around resisting proposals to move us (further North) because it would be an additional barrier to lower-income kids' parents. (yes, we bus, but many/most working parents need to pick up from extended day.)

Tuckahoe really is that far North...why is it always about the South Arlington families having choices? If you decided to live in SA you might end up at a neighborhood school. Deal with it, the North should have options as well.

Whatever. Look at the transfer reports. North Arlington has choices and they choose to send their kids to their neighborhood schools.

Ats is mostly north Arlington families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

I love this idea. An ATS2 or a second Montessori, perhaps?

Yes, consider moving Montessori to Tuckahoe. Green space and room to expand is what the program needs and wants.