Overcrowding at Arlington Traditional School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS won't be moving. It's not in a walkable neighborhood and that's the new priority (rightly) b/c it reduces annual transportation costs.

I think they will recommend moving it. I don't think the School Board will pull the trigger, but they will debate it this spring.

I totally agree. It makes sense to move it if it had a huge walk zone full of kids that couldn't go there. But, it doesn't. It has one of the smallest, if not the smallest, walk zones.

But, if they think that they have extra capacity in that area and want to grow ATS, it makes sense (other than when you consider walkers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS won't be moving. It's not in a walkable neighborhood and that's the new priority (rightly) b/c it reduces annual transportation costs.

Yes and no. If APS could pick up a boatload of walkers from the other side of Bluemont & Ballston by adding a crossing guard at Wilson and George Mason, then it might be worth the cost to do that. It really depends on how many kids live on the other side of Wilson and/or George Mason who would otherwise need busing to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS won't be moving. It's not in a walkable neighborhood and that's the new priority (rightly) b/c it reduces annual transportation costs.

I think they will recommend moving it. I don't think the School Board will pull the trigger, but they will debate it this spring.

I totally agree. It makes sense to move it if it had a huge walk zone full of kids that couldn't go there. But, it doesn't. It has one of the smallest, if not the smallest, walk zones.

But, if they think that they have extra capacity in that area and want to grow ATS, it makes sense (other than when you consider walkers).

Growing capacity at ATS is less of a priority for the SB than making sure neighborhood school seats are efficiently distributed. With the current budget crunch, they need to reduce costs as much as possible, and taking away walkable neighborhood schools and increasing the size of ATS both increase transportation costs. They'll increase ATS as much as they need to in order to avoid revolt at the neighborhood schools, but that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 - I get your point, and I sympathize. But this is not unique to Arlington. Neighborhood schools all over the country have to deal with this too. You also have kids leaving mid-year with no attempt to fill the spaces. When a family leaves ATS, the next family on the wait list for that grade (or grades) is contacted and the slot is filled. It's more common in the lower grades, but I've heard of even 5th graders switching schools to attend ATS. So it's rare that classes dip below 24 students per class for very long.

I'm not saying you have no right to complain. Of course you do. Overcrowding sucks, and I hope the SB gets better at handling it in the future, and not closing or repurposing schoools when we have what turns out to be a temporary dip in enrollment.

Nobody is talking about closing schools except for one or two trolls on DCUM. Stop with this talking point, you make ATS parents look deeply ignorant and destroy their credibility.

NP here, but I think the PP is taking the long view. In the past, the SB has closed schools. And it's now all but impossible (politically) to get those facilities back now that we need more land for new schools. PP is just urging the SB to engage in serious long term planning for seats and land use, rather than living year to year in enrollment crises (too many seats! too few seats! and back again!). Yes, it's hard. But other jurisdictions seem to be better at it than APS.

PP here. Yes, this exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS won't be moving. It's not in a walkable neighborhood and that's the new priority (rightly) b/c it reduces annual transportation costs.

Yes and no. If APS could pick up a boatload of walkers from the other side of Bluemont & Ballston by adding a crossing guard at Wilson and George Mason, then it might be worth the cost to do that. It really depends on how many kids live on the other side of Wilson and/or George Mason who would otherwise need busing to school.

The added benefit of this is that those kids who live less than .5 miles away can walk and then the bus to ATS and the neighborhood school can be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't understand why the ATS parents are wasting their time fighting growth instead of working as a team to move to a 700+ seat building. I don't think any SB has the political cover in a Dem primary to have a vote the looks like Choice over neighborhood decision. Maybe they could deal with a switch of location. So why all the energy on a decision for next year that is done deal when you could be working to get into a building that is significantly larger. There are a number of these 725 seat buildings around!

There aren't that many built for 725. I guess they could take over Reed though.

Yes. Reed. Ashlawn. Fleet. Those are schools built for 725+ that come to mind.
All of these have a great walk zone. So that makes little sense.

PP - where are all these great buildings with 725 seats for ATS you are speaking by of??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't understand why the ATS parents are wasting their time fighting growth instead of working as a team to move to a 700+ seat building. I don't think any SB has the political cover in a Dem primary to have a vote the looks like Choice over neighborhood decision. Maybe they could deal with a switch of location. So why all the energy on a decision for next year that is done deal when you could be working to get into a building that is significantly larger. There are a number of these 725 seat buildings around!

There aren't that many built for 725. I guess they could take over Reed though.

Yes. Reed. Ashlawn. Fleet. Those are schools built for 725+ that come to mind.
All of these have a great walk zone. So that makes little sense.

PP - where are all these great buildings with 725 seats for ATS you are speaking by of??

Right. Most of the bigger schools can actually be filled with neighborhood (non-bussed kids). Where will there be a school where busses are required anyway? I can't think of one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is crying about five kindergartens. BOO HOO. Other schools have had seven.

It's about time the choice schools share in this overcrowding pain. Either utilize the choice schools as fully as all the neighborhood schools, or disband them altogether. The entitlement is astonishing.

So, not an ATS parent but I wonder what happens when we catch up at the neighborhood schools. After Reed is built, there won't be any schools in NW Arlington over capacity, supposedly they will even have to close one neighborhood school and move an option program into its building. Does ATS get to scale back at that point? Or is it forced to keep growing when neighborhood schools are no longer in such dire straights? I don't really think parents at ATS would be freaking out so much if it were clear that this was a temporary situation that would mirror whatever is happening across the system. If increased enrollment is permanent, at ATS or Campbell, or at any neighborhood school, then I think they need to be renovating to enlarge the schools and the common spaces.

Also, what of HB? Why are we talking about that? I know they can't have trailers because of their location in Rosslyn, but how else can they do their share? Are they having that discussion yet?

The bolded part is exactly right. A lot of ATS parents are worried, because in two years, according to APS, all overcrowding in the elementary schools will be over, and APS doesn’t even know, if they can fill all the seats, perhaps closing down an entire school?! But ATS shall sit there with 16 (!) trailers, if they make a decision right now to add 6 classes to ATS and take it over to 700 students? It will stay that way for 6 years.

So while all trailers are gone from all the other schools (fingers crossed!), you want ATS to sit there with 16 trailers?
Really? Right now, the record of any elementary is 10 trailers! You can hate ATS as much as you want, but that is just purely malicious.
And has nothing to do anymore with sharing the burden.

The other choice programs loose kids through moves, etc. and those seats do NOT refill. Their upper grades are always at least an entire class smaller. ATS is different in that all its classes are filled to capacity all the way through, and 5K classes now are 5th grade classes years later. The common areas can’t hold that many kids for their mandatory assemblies and theater and orchestra and all that’s part of the program.

No one is talking about closing down a school. They are talking about relocating an option program so that the neighborhood seats are in a different location. The seats will all be full, there will just potentially be a neighborhood school in the east (Key?) and option program in the west (at Tuckahoe?) instead of how it is now.

Not only is no one talking about closing down a school, but no one is talking about 16 trailers at APS (they have 4 now, and Facilities Optimization says they can only accommodate a maximum of 12 on the site). Further, there is no expectation that the trailers will be gone from all of the other elementary schools after Reed opens because, given the projected school-age population growth, APS as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level at that point. Some schools may no longer have trailers, but others will.

Wrong.
Not only has there been talk on this very board about closing Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school and distributing all those kids elsewhere, but on top of that the facilities optimization study by APS study shows maps and charts, adding up to 14 trailers to the ATS site, *in addition to their existing 4 trailers*. Are you surprised ATS parents (and Tuckahoe parents) have been worried??

[Anonymous]

Reality check:

Schools with NO relocatables, none, right now:
Discovery
Abington
Drew
Hoffman Boston
Jamestown


Schools with ONE or TWO now:
Nottingham
Randolph
Campbell
Ashlawn

[Anonymous]

Schools with the most relocatables right now:

TEN:
Patrick Henry
Barcroft

EIGHT:
Oakridge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reality check:

Schools with NO relocatables, none, right now:
Discovery
Abington
Drew
Hoffman Boston
Jamestown


Schools with ONE or TWO now:
Nottingham
Randolph
Campbell
Ashlawn

This isn't a very good metric to use. Several of these schools do not really need trailers. They just have them to open up classrooms in the building for other priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools with the most relocatables right now:

TEN:
Patrick Henry
Barcroft

EIGHT:
Oakridge

Is that figure right about Barcroft? That has to be old data. They aren't even at capacity this year. How are they using ten trailers there? Are they sitting empty waiting to be distributed to the next overcrowded school?

If we're serious about solving overall capacity, we have to stop fighting boundary changes like they're going to ruin our lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with the most relocatables right now:

TEN:
Patrick Henry
Barcroft

EIGHT:
Oakridge

Is that figure right about Barcroft? That has to be old data. They aren't even at capacity this year. How are they using ten trailers there? Are they sitting empty waiting to be distributed to the next overcrowded school?

If we're serious about solving overall capacity, we have to stop fighting boundary changes like they're going to ruin our lives.

I was surprised about Barcroft, too! But this is new and straight from APS. The optimization report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with the most relocatables right now:

TEN:
Patrick Henry
Barcroft

EIGHT:
Oakridge

Is that figure right about Barcroft? That has to be old data. They aren't even at capacity this year. How are they using ten trailers there? Are they sitting empty waiting to be distributed to the next overcrowded school?

If we're serious about solving overall capacity, we have to stop fighting boundary changes like they're going to ruin our lives.

I was surprised about Barcroft, too! But this is new and straight from APS. The optimization report.

That's very odd. As of last month, they only had 390 k-5 students. And only 46 Pre-K students. How could they be using 10 trailers? The school has actual capacity for 460 students without trailers.

[Anonymous]

that they have ten on school grounds but aren't actually using many? could be the same for other schools too?