APS Interesting Responses to Walk Zone Survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see the APS walk zone responses so far. Here is what I noticed thus far:

Tuckahoe vs. Nottingham
Tuckahoe had hundreds of people respond. They are trying to make a land grab for Nottingham’s planning units to increase their walkers.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tuckahoe-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Nottingham has fairly low response rate and doesn’t want to expand their walk zone. Appears Tuckahoe May outmobikoxe them.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nottingham-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Key vs. Science Focus
Key neighbors appear to want a neighborhood school. Tons of responses indicating it’s walkability. You can see on the map that they could easily have 350 walkers in a neighborhood school. Last year, 569 students in the Key zone transferred out.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Key-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Meanwhile, almost a third of Science Focus people said not to expand their 150-kid walk zone at all! Most of the rest only suppprted adding a couple of tiny units. Hmmmm... good candidate for an option school? Data seems to support the idea of a switch between ASFS and Key buildings.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Science-Focus-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

ATS
Very low response - fewer than 70 people. But the vast majority of those seemed to want to expand the walk zone by adding a crossing guard at Wilson and George Mason, which would add a lot of walkers. Perhaps ATS is a good site for a neighborhood school after all. I have to wonder if the neighbors around ATS didn’t realize they could fill out the survey. Or since so many neighbors go to ATS, if they don’t ask to expand the walk zone, ATS stays option.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Arlington-Traditional-Walk-Closed.xlsx

Others
Another idea I have been hearing is to put the option programs at schools that are not thriving and that have a lot of transfers out. Barcroft had 297 transfers out. Abingdon 413. Carlin Springs 352.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf


Interested to hear what others are seeing in the data.

For the Nottingham walkzone - I can't help but wonder if Tuckahoe parents bombarded the survey saying Nottingham shouldn't add more walkers. This would be pretty twisted. I truly hope APS is considering the validity of the responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see the APS walk zone responses so far. Here is what I noticed thus far:

Tuckahoe vs. Nottingham
Tuckahoe had hundreds of people respond. They are trying to make a land grab for Nottingham’s planning units to increase their walkers.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tuckahoe-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Nottingham has fairly low response rate and doesn’t want to expand their walk zone. Appears Tuckahoe May outmobikoxe them.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nottingham-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Key vs. Science Focus
Key neighbors appear to want a neighborhood school. Tons of responses indicating it’s walkability. You can see on the map that they could easily have 350 walkers in a neighborhood school. Last year, 569 students in the Key zone transferred out.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Key-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

Meanwhile, almost a third of Science Focus people said not to expand their 150-kid walk zone at all! Most of the rest only suppprted adding a couple of tiny units. Hmmmm... good candidate for an option school? Data seems to support the idea of a switch between ASFS and Key buildings.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Science-Focus-Walk-Zone-Closed.xlsx

ATS
Very low response - fewer than 70 people. But the vast majority of those seemed to want to expand the walk zone by adding a crossing guard at Wilson and George Mason, which would add a lot of walkers. Perhaps ATS is a good site for a neighborhood school after all. I have to wonder if the neighbors around ATS didn’t realize they could fill out the survey. Or since so many neighbors go to ATS, if they don’t ask to expand the walk zone, ATS stays option.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Arlington-Traditional-Walk-Closed.xlsx

Others
Another idea I have been hearing is to put the option programs at schools that are not thriving and that have a lot of transfers out. Barcroft had 297 transfers out. Abingdon 413. Carlin Springs 352.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf


Interested to hear what others are seeing in the data.

For the Nottingham walkzone - I can't help but wonder if Tuckahoe parents bombarded the survey saying Nottingham shouldn't add more walkers. This would be pretty twisted. I truly hope APS is considering the validity of the responses.

The survey won't be the last word. APS is really making its own independent determination about what is safely walkable. I think that's why many schools just pretty much ignored it. And I don't think it will hurt them.

As history teaches us, APS staff had its recommendation figure out before this whole process began. And this whole school versus school thing is ridiculous, but APS knew that would happen and doesn't care. Its statements about community being important are a joke. And so far, staff has in now way tried to quantify what cost savings this would bring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

That's with a LOT of trailers, which is not a permanent solution. And there isn't money for an addition, at ATS or anywhere else. So they either have to gradually scale back the size of the program if they are moved to a smaller space, or they have to be moved to a space that more closely matches their current capacity.

I don't know why you guys think they're going to do these multi-step processes. They can barely keep up with what's already planned with program moves, new schools opening, and boundary changes. There is neither the money nor the staff to manage moving multiple schools. And none of the option schools are going away. It's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks that Drew as a neighborhood school will have a lower FARMS rate, then Drew with Montessori- you should know that APS stated at the budget work session that when Montessori is removed from Drew, the Montessori program will no longer be Title I, because the FARMS students who make the school Title I are in the neighborhood program.

I don't actually have a problem with high FARMS schools, and I think the new principal is outstanding. But- if you think the school is going to improve in a Great Schools sense (which is really all based on test scores, which is based on socioeconomic status) then you are dead wrong.

I don't think I said it would have a LOWER fr/l rate. I just don't think it's going to be 80% like Carlin Springs, which, btw, has a GS score of 6. There are other north and south Arlingon schools that have 40-60% fr/l that are GS 5/6. And there are some with similar fr/l rate that have 3/4. I don't know what exactly the difference is, but I suspect strong leadership and buy-in from at least 20% UMC families who donate their time and money to the school helps. I don't see a scenario in which Drew does not have those two things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

That's with a LOT of trailers, which is not a permanent solution. And there isn't money for an addition, at ATS or anywhere else. So they either have to gradually scale back the size of the program if they are moved to a smaller space, or they have to be moved to a space that more closely matches their current capacity.

I don't know why you guys think they're going to do these multi-step processes. They can barely keep up with what's already planned with program moves, new schools opening, and boundary changes. There is neither the money nor the staff to manage moving multiple schools. And none of the option schools are going away. It's not going to happen.

at least some members of the school board think trailers are a good solution.
APS has a written plan to grow all elementary option schools to 700 plus students-
General Principles to Increase Enrollment at Option Schools
? Grow elementary option schools to 700+ students
? If a waitlist exists for the option school, add an entry-level class cohort
? Review the number of classes annually, after APS publishes enrollment projections, to determine if
adjustments are needed; staff will also refer to the class size report and confirm the information with
principals.
? Grow elementary option schools to the “preferred” size identified in the Facility Optimization Study
(August 2017)
? Apply the adjustment to all elementary option schools

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFSAP-Decision-Points-FINAL-03-06-19.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

That's with a LOT of trailers, which is not a permanent solution. And there isn't money for an addition, at ATS or anywhere else. So they either have to gradually scale back the size of the program if they are moved to a smaller space, or they have to be moved to a space that more closely matches their current capacity.

I don't know why you guys think they're going to do these multi-step processes. They can barely keep up with what's already planned with program moves, new schools opening, and boundary changes. There is neither the money nor the staff to manage moving multiple schools. And none of the option schools are going away. It's not going to happen.

at least some members of the school board think trailers are a good solution.
APS has a written plan to grow all elementary option schools to 700 plus students-
General Principles to Increase Enrollment at Option Schools
? Grow elementary option schools to 700+ students
? If a waitlist exists for the option school, add an entry-level class cohort
? Review the number of classes annually, after APS publishes enrollment projections, to determine if
adjustments are needed; staff will also refer to the class size report and confirm the information with
principals.
? Grow elementary option schools to the “preferred” size identified in the Facility Optimization Study
(August 2017)
? Apply the adjustment to all elementary option schools

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFSAP-Decision-Points-FINAL-03-06-19.pdf

I like it and think it is about time they do this. If parents don’t like it, they can go back to their neighborhood school. We will know when it is intolerable when the waitlist goes down. My kid’s class has gotten three new kids so far this year, pushing them to 27. ATS doesn’t have to deal with that so they have a leg up just in that regard to overcrowding. I’ve really heard enough of their complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks that Drew as a neighborhood school will have a lower FARMS rate, then Drew with Montessori- you should know that APS stated at the budget work session that when Montessori is removed from Drew, the Montessori program will no longer be Title I, because the FARMS students who make the school Title I are in the neighborhood program.

I don't actually have a problem with high FARMS schools, and I think the new principal is outstanding. But- if you think the school is going to improve in a Great Schools sense (which is really all based on test scores, which is based on socioeconomic status) then you are dead wrong.

I don't think I said it would have a LOWER fr/l rate. I just don't think it's going to be 80% like Carlin Springs, which, btw, has a GS score of 6. There are other north and south Arlingon schools that have 40-60% fr/l that are GS 5/6. And there are some with similar fr/l rate that have 3/4. I don't know what exactly the difference is, but I suspect strong leadership and buy-in from at least 20% UMC families who donate their time and money to the school helps. I don't see a scenario in which Drew does not have those two things.

GS ratings are kinda bogus anyway.consider that the farms rate for the graded program is probably at least 80 percent right now. The Montessori income guidelines aren't the same as farms. That's why the Montessori program won't be title 1 at Henry and aps has said so. Adding a bunch of apartments from arna valley isn't going to make the farms rate go down, and the SFH in Nauck are all already zoned to Drew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

That's with a LOT of trailers, which is not a permanent solution. And there isn't money for an addition, at ATS or anywhere else. So they either have to gradually scale back the size of the program if they are moved to a smaller space, or they have to be moved to a space that more closely matches their current capacity.

I don't know why you guys think they're going to do these multi-step processes. They can barely keep up with what's already planned with program moves, new schools opening, and boundary changes. There is neither the money nor the staff to manage moving multiple schools. And none of the option schools are going away. It's not going to happen.

at least some members of the school board think trailers are a good solution.
APS has a written plan to grow all elementary option schools to 700 plus students-
General Principles to Increase Enrollment at Option Schools
? Grow elementary option schools to 700+ students
? If a waitlist exists for the option school, add an entry-level class cohort
? Review the number of classes annually, after APS publishes enrollment projections, to determine if
adjustments are needed; staff will also refer to the class size report and confirm the information with
principals.
? Grow elementary option schools to the “preferred” size identified in the Facility Optimization Study
(August 2017)
? Apply the adjustment to all elementary option schools

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFSAP-Decision-Points-FINAL-03-06-19.pdf

I like it and think it is about time they do this. If parents don’t like it, they can go back to their neighborhood school. We will know when it is intolerable when the waitlist goes down. My kid’s class has gotten three new kids so far this year, pushing them to 27. ATS doesn’t have to deal with that so they have a leg up just in that regard to overcrowding. I’ve really heard enough of their complaining.

I'm not an ATS parent, but I just don't understand how they're going to grow the option programs permanently without additions or without relocating them into the newly built schools like Fleet and Reed. ATS and Campbell are in really small, very old buildings. If they are growing permanently, they'll need new facilities.

Is that what you want APS to be spending money on? Additions at option schools and growing the option programs? Seems like a pretty bad strategy to decrease the power of the option programs. You're increasing their lobby. Because people aren't going to leave ATS because of some trailers. They'll complain, but they're not going to leave the school. And new parents will continue to apply. Option schools are the perfect fit for type-A Arlington parents. They provide a self-selecting community of highly motivated families. They'll just lobby and win the money for permanent expansions that could've been used for new neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks that Drew as a neighborhood school will have a lower FARMS rate, then Drew with Montessori- you should know that APS stated at the budget work session that when Montessori is removed from Drew, the Montessori program will no longer be Title I, because the FARMS students who make the school Title I are in the neighborhood program.

I don't actually have a problem with high FARMS schools, and I think the new principal is outstanding. But- if you think the school is going to improve in a Great Schools sense (which is really all based on test scores, which is based on socioeconomic status) then you are dead wrong.

I don't think I said it would have a LOWER fr/l rate. I just don't think it's going to be 80% like Carlin Springs, which, btw, has a GS score of 6. There are other north and south Arlingon schools that have 40-60% fr/l that are GS 5/6. And there are some with similar fr/l rate that have 3/4. I don't know what exactly the difference is, but I suspect strong leadership and buy-in from at least 20% UMC families who donate their time and money to the school helps. I don't see a scenario in which Drew does not have those two things.

GS ratings are kinda bogus anyway.consider that the farms rate for the graded program is probably at least 80 percent right now. The Montessori income guidelines aren't the same as farms. That's why the Montessori program won't be title 1 at Henry and aps has said so. Adding a bunch of apartments from arna valley isn't going to make the farms rate go down, and the SFH in Nauck are all already zoned to Drew

Right, but now they don't have guaranteed admission to Montessori or Immersion, so if they don't get a countywide lottery spot, they either have to move, go private, or enroll at Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder why, as you say, there is a strong preference for nonimmersion in “the neighborhood.” I hear lots of talk about giving the gift of a second language, but then people don’t follow through. Key gets screwed in this plan.

I don't know the full history, but I think in the past there just weren't as many school age kids living in the zone and the ones that did live there were more likely to be Spanish speaking. There are so many condos, townhouses, and apartments that have been built in the last 10-15 years and the assumption was that families with children would move away when they hit school age. Surprise! We're still here!

Key is not at all getting screwed. If you look at the transfer report, two-thirds of Key is coming from outside the Key zone (so therefore being bused or driven). Key has students from every single elementary in Arlington. Moving it nearer to a large Spanish-speaking population could be positive. Many of the Spanish-speaking community has migrated out of the neighborhood immediately surrounding Key.

It’s being screwed in the sense that I don’t see how it gets anywhere close to the 50-50 point. The shared boundary with ASFS has been its safety valve.

But the shared boundary is already gone in any meaningful sense now that there is no neighborhood preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I like it and think it is about time they do this. If parents don’t like it, they can go back to their neighborhood school. We will know when it is intolerable when the waitlist goes down. My kid’s class has gotten three new kids so far this year, pushing them to 27. ATS doesn’t have to deal with that so they have a leg up just in that regard to overcrowding. I’ve really heard enough of their complaining.

I'm not an ATS parent, but I just don't understand how they're going to grow the option programs permanently without additions or without relocating them into the newly built schools like Fleet and Reed. ATS and Campbell are in really small, very old buildings. If they are growing permanently, they'll need new facilities.

Is that what you want APS to be spending money on? Additions at option schools and growing the option programs? Seems like a pretty bad strategy to decrease the power of the option programs. You're increasing their lobby. Because people aren't going to leave ATS because of some trailers. They'll complain, but they're not going to leave the school. And new parents will continue to apply. Option schools are the perfect fit for type-A Arlington parents. They provide a self-selecting community of highly motivated families. They'll just lobby and win the money for permanent expansions that could've been used for new neighborhood schools.

I don't know -- I think it makes sense, once you've established that every school possible should be expended to 700-750, that neighborhood schools expand via additions and option schools expand via trailers, and the schools with the longest waiting lists are the ones to have trailers longest.

Because look: APS is not going to build for the peak school populations. Trailers have to be part of how students are housed -- they're not a permanent solution, but they're part of the long-term solution. Option schools are a way of providing a valve -- they decrease or increase as needed. So they get the nonpermanent additions. If they need to stay big, eventually they can be moved into a large but shabby school that the neighborhood couldn't fill.

If the only thing option schools have going for them is the program, only people who want it for the program will apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Interested to hear what others are seeing in the data.

For the Nottingham walkzone - I can't help but wonder if Tuckahoe parents bombarded the survey saying Nottingham shouldn't add more walkers. This would be pretty twisted. I truly hope APS is considering the validity of the responses.

What are the chances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone is saying move ATS south, and not Key.
The Spanish speakers are in South Arlington.
Barcroft elementary should be converted to immersion.

Not all are. Buckingham is in North Arlington, and it's one of the densest Latino populations in Arlington. If Key moves S, it can't be moved too close to Claremont or too far W because the Immersion division is E/W rather than N/S, again, to balance English/Spanish speakers and to encourage economic diversity. It might make sense to move Key to Barett. They'd have hundreds of Spanish speaking kids in the walk zone at that location.

Barrett has a pretty good walk zone. But ATS is less than a mile from Barrett, and doesn't have a good walk zone. Moving Key to the ATS location makes a lot of sense, and would make immersion easily accessible for the large spanish dominant population clustered in the area.

In terms of the E/W N/S divide- APS is very quietly redrawing this boundary. It can't be to close to Claremont, true- but it could move west.

How could they possibly fit the Key students at ATS? ATS is too small.

And I’m not defending ATS. I think it should just go away and transition to a neighborhood school. But, it isn’t big enough for the immersion programs.

The facilities optimization study identifies ATS as having the ability to have 753 seats (as compared to 749 at Key)
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Facilities-Optimization-Study.pdf

That's with a LOT of trailers, which is not a permanent solution. And there isn't money for an addition, at ATS or anywhere else. So they either have to gradually scale back the size of the program if they are moved to a smaller space, or they have to be moved to a space that more closely matches their current capacity.

I don't know why you guys think they're going to do these multi-step processes. They can barely keep up with what's already planned with program moves, new schools opening, and boundary changes. There is neither the money nor the staff to manage moving multiple schools. And none of the option schools are going away. It's not going to happen.

at least some members of the school board think trailers are a good solution.
APS has a written plan to grow all elementary option schools to 700 plus students-
General Principles to Increase Enrollment at Option Schools
? Grow elementary option schools to 700+ students
? If a waitlist exists for the option school, add an entry-level class cohort
? Review the number of classes annually, after APS publishes enrollment projections, to determine if
adjustments are needed; staff will also refer to the class size report and confirm the information with
principals.
? Grow elementary option schools to the “preferred” size identified in the Facility Optimization Study
(August 2017)
? Apply the adjustment to all elementary option schools

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFSAP-Decision-Points-FINAL-03-06-19.pdf

I like it and think it is about time they do this. If parents don’t like it, they can go back to their neighborhood school. We will know when it is intolerable when the waitlist goes down. My kid’s class has gotten three new kids so far this year, pushing them to 27. ATS doesn’t have to deal with that so they have a leg up just in that regard to overcrowding. I’ve really heard enough of their complaining.

I'm not an ATS parent, but I just don't understand how they're going to grow the option programs permanently without additions or without relocating them into the newly built schools like Fleet and Reed. ATS and Campbell are in really small, very old buildings. If they are growing permanently, they'll need new facilities.

Is that what you want APS to be spending money on? Additions at option schools and growing the option programs? Seems like a pretty bad strategy to decrease the power of the option programs. You're increasing their lobby. Because people aren't going to leave ATS because of some trailers. They'll complain, but they're not going to leave the school. And new parents will continue to apply. Option schools are the perfect fit for type-A Arlington parents. They provide a self-selecting community of highly motivated families. They'll just lobby and win the money for permanent expansions that could've been used for new neighborhood schools.

They aren’t getting expansions. They will get an additional class for a bit, then they may go back to 3 or 4 and then have to ramp up again when all the new schools are overcrowded. They will plop trailers where they can and move the helicopter landing area somewhere else. What they won’t get is one of the new Schools. That would be political suicide for the SB. And if parents are fine in trailers at ATS, then they shouldn’t be out there saying it will ruin the program, whatever that is.