APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

It would be nice if all schools could be a bit below capacity, but there are so many competing considerations there will never be parity across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

Take a close look at the "Actual Reed Walkzone" everything not in the walkzone could be bused elsewhere.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ES_Reed_WZ_Policy_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

The no move does not go a better job at anything other than placating some DH/MM families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

If the moves go forward and APS genuinely aims to balance boundaries across the county, some of the NW capacity might be absorbed by those shifts (but I don't know enough to say if that makes sense). Some capacity will be lost because Reed is smaller than the number of students currently at McKinley. But your question makes the point of the move proposal well--if it's not clear how to make this work if McKinley were closed, how the heck would it work if it were open?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

Take a close look at the "Actual Reed Walkzone" everything not in the walkzone could be bused elsewhere.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ES_Reed_WZ_Policy_Final.pdf

Stop spreading rumors. Everything south of Lee will be at Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Boundaries.

Assuming the move we know that 1/2 of McK will go to Reed, where are the other half of McK's crowd GOING.

Also, where's the other half of Reed COMING FROM?

I've seen the various maps; just find them really hard to read.

Is there a chart?

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.

Regarding filling Reed, Glebe and Tuckahoe have planning units nearby. There’s going to be so much shuffling around it’s hard to say who will end up where. Plus, schools don’t have to be at 100% capacity.

Reed actually sits in a Tuckahoe unit--all PUs north and west of the site (but south of Lee Highway) are Tuckahoe. The one Nottingham PU south of Lee Highway isn't as close as some Tuckahoe units, but there will be a push to include them since they're the only Nottingham unit that goes to Swanson (walkable). Parts of one Glebe unit are quite close to Reed; they should swap that one out for the easternmost McKinley unit that is closer to Glebe. Presuming the move scenario happens, I predict some tension between trying to keep McKinley "together" and assigning the Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Glebe units that are walkable to Reed to Reed. The staff proposal of sending about 100 Tuckahoe kids to Reeds only envisioned sending the closest/most highly walkable Tuckahoe units to Reed.

I';m probably going to get this wrong but isn't Nottingham under capacity and Tuckahoe right at capacity? I don't see how, under any circumstance, those two are at parity capacity-wise. I'm all for doing away with all options and just make all school PUs go to the school that they are closer to but nobody likes that in APS

Take a close look at the "Actual Reed Walkzone" everything not in the walkzone could be bused elsewhere.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ES_Reed_WZ_Policy_Final.pdf

Stop spreading rumors. Everything south of Lee will be at Reed.

This makes sense. But then how do we fill Tuckahoe and Nottingham?

[Anonymous]

Not all of Tuckahoe south of 29 will be going to read. Tuckahoe will also absorb some of the Mckinley units that are closer to Sycamore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll assume arguendo that Key is going to move to ATS. How will this work in 2021-22 in terms of new boundary? Will Key have a new boundary and name when it reopens as a neighborhood school in 2021?

Boundaries will be defined this fall. Use current ASFS boundary as a starting point.

It needs a name, program/curriculum, principal, etc. Takes time to start a new school.

Is the idea of actually including all of the Key walk zone in its boundary completely off the table? As a tax payer, I'm really disturbed by all of the maps I see where they are busing hundreds of kids from LV/Clarendon/Courthouse who could walk to Key, in order to make space to bus kids from Rosslyn to Key. My kids will have aged out of this by the time this takes place, but what a waste of money! Can they at least do the upper and lower schools between Key and ASFS so you're only busing half of them? Especially the posters on here that are convinced that houses a block from Key won't be zoned there! Key's zone isn't going to go past Bryan Street -- you realize that that means busing kids that are within a third of a mile of the school? Give me a break! What a waste of money!

It's basic math, folks. There are not enough seats at Key neighborhood elementary for all of Rosslyn AND Clarendon/Courthouse. Something has to to give. Let me guess, you want Rosslyn to take their long bus ride to Taylor so you can keep Clarendon and Courthouse at Key neighborhood.

Yeah, let’s bus kids past Key, past ASFS, to Taylor halfway across the county (3.1 miles from River Place a huge bus stop; it’s 5.8 miles to East Falls Church) so PP can walk.

#longestbusride

So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

Where has your outrage been for the last several YEARS of APS children being bussed when they could instead walk to schools near them? Not invested, yeah right. Yet, you're still here touting your upper/lower garbage. Just move on to your MS and HS arguments. No one is buying what you are selling here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

For someone not invested you sure wrote a lot.

As for fiscally responsible, busing Rosslyn kids to Key and Key walkers to ASFS etc is FAR FAR cheaper than buying land and building a neighborhood elementary school closer to Rosslyn. That’s the reality we are dealing with. You could argue that buying land in Rosslyn would be a better long term investment but cash flow wise its a hard sell.

So other than complaining about too many buses and Key walkers being bused, in your long paragraph you never actually offered an alternative???

Anywyays, no movers will prevail so it’s all moot anyways.

I am invested in that the Key is in my neighborhood, and I've been at ASFS for the past 8+ years. That and we should all be invested, you can't spend money like this and then complain about them having to defund crew or take away the outdoor lab.
Anywyays, I did offer an alternative -- have an upper and lower school. Have ASFS be the upper school, Key be the lower school. You are only adding half as many buses. You can revisit the decision in a few years if it isn't working out well, you won't have rezoned anyone outside of a walk zone at that point, so you can divy up boundaries at that point. It would be better to wait a few years to see how many kids follow immersion before drawing boundaries anyways. I think it may be the only way to avoid sending parts of Rosslyn to Taylor, and it helps with demographics. You'd avoid a lot of the pain of boundaries too -- everyone I've talked to with younger kids at ASFS is extremely unhappy about "losing the science". Its going to be a real mess when they get to that stage. Glad I don't have to pay attention to it.

So you’ll be invested until you won’t be invested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick and tired of entitled Arlington parents and all the lobbying they do regarding school boundaries and potential school moves. I just want APS to do their job and shut all them down.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

For someone not invested you sure wrote a lot.

As for fiscally responsible, busing Rosslyn kids to Key and Key walkers to ASFS etc is FAR FAR cheaper than buying land and building a neighborhood elementary school closer to Rosslyn. That’s the reality we are dealing with. You could argue that buying land in Rosslyn would be a better long term investment but cash flow wise its a hard sell.

So other than complaining about too many buses and Key walkers being bused, in your long paragraph you never actually offered an alternative???

Anywyays, no movers will prevail so it’s all moot anyways.

I am invested in that the Key is in my neighborhood, and I've been at ASFS for the past 8+ years. That and we should all be invested, you can't spend money like this and then complain about them having to defund crew or take away the outdoor lab.
Anywyays, I did offer an alternative -- have an upper and lower school. Have ASFS be the upper school, Key be the lower school. You are only adding half as many buses. You can revisit the decision in a few years if it isn't working out well, you won't have rezoned anyone outside of a walk zone at that point, so you can divy up boundaries at that point. It would be better to wait a few years to see how many kids follow immersion before drawing boundaries anyways. I think it may be the only way to avoid sending parts of Rosslyn to Taylor, and it helps with demographics. You'd avoid a lot of the pain of boundaries too -- everyone I've talked to with younger kids at ASFS is extremely unhappy about "losing the science". Its going to be a real mess when they get to that stage. Glad I don't have to pay attention to it.

how convenient this keeps your kids in ASFS and your children experience no moves because they are older

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

For someone not invested you sure wrote a lot.

As for fiscally responsible, busing Rosslyn kids to Key and Key walkers to ASFS etc is FAR FAR cheaper than buying land and building a neighborhood elementary school closer to Rosslyn. That’s the reality we are dealing with. You could argue that buying land in Rosslyn would be a better long term investment but cash flow wise its a hard sell.

So other than complaining about too many buses and Key walkers being bused, in your long paragraph you never actually offered an alternative???

Anywyays, no movers will prevail so it’s all moot anyways.

I am invested in that the Key is in my neighborhood, and I've been at ASFS for the past 8+ years. That and we should all be invested, you can't spend money like this and then complain about them having to defund crew or take away the outdoor lab.
Anywyays, I did offer an alternative -- have an upper and lower school. Have ASFS be the upper school, Key be the lower school. You are only adding half as many buses. You can revisit the decision in a few years if it isn't working out well, you won't have rezoned anyone outside of a walk zone at that point, so you can divy up boundaries at that point. It would be better to wait a few years to see how many kids follow immersion before drawing boundaries anyways. I think it may be the only way to avoid sending parts of Rosslyn to Taylor, and it helps with demographics. You'd avoid a lot of the pain of boundaries too -- everyone I've talked to with younger kids at ASFS is extremely unhappy about "losing the science". Its going to be a real mess when they get to that stage. Glad I don't have to pay attention to it.

Seriously. Give me a break. This upper and lower business is a non-starter and APS knows that so don't waste your time with this. I have middle school and elementary children so you are asking me to be involved in yet another PTA, attend events at multiple elementary schools in addition to middle schools, sorry, no that does not work. And don't worry yourself with diversity - you don't need upper and lower schools to ensure this - these are much more diverse areas than other NA by comparison. It will be plenty diverse at both sites. If you care so much about this precious diversity, what are you doing to diversify Jamestown, Discovery, Taylor, Nottingham, and on and on.

If young families are worried about "losing the science" why would they just not work to advocate for a science focus at the new neighborhood school. Key Science Focus Elementary (KSFS) coming to a neighborhood near you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick and tired of entitled Arlington parents and all the lobbying they do regarding school boundaries and potential school moves. I just want APS to do their job and shut all them down.

Like APS preemptively did with summer enrichment?

We don’t need a poll every time APS needs to make a decision. I’m glad they didn’t seek input before discontinuing subsidized summer enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Probably more than half to Reed. Ashlawn can absorb some.
APS

Stop spreading rumors. Everything south of Lee will be at Reed.

This makes sense. But then how do we fill Tuckahoe and Nottingham?

It all depends on growth rates. Currently APS forecast doesn't have the NW schools growing by that much. Their most recent predictions have the north west arlington neighborhood schools growing by 343 students fewer over the next 4 years than these schools grew over the last 4 years, not including pre-K. IF these schools have the same growth they did over the past 4 years, rather than APS's drastically lower predictions than they are all over capacity (except for 21 open seats at Discovery and 10 seats at Nottingham) with zero pre-K students included. These schools currently house 184 pre-K students.

For K-5 enrollment the north western neighborhood schools:
Jamestown - 2015-2019: increased 55 students. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will decrease by 17.
Discovery - '15-'19: enrollment increased by 51 students. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will increase by 6.
Nottingham - '15-'19 enrollment increased by 31. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will decrease by 36.
Tuckahoe/McK (combined because of boundary changes growth during this period is hard to separate)
-'15-'19 enrollment increased by 39 students. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will decrease by 39 students.
Ashlawn - '15-'19 enrollment increased by 73. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will increase by 57.
Glebe - '15-'9 enrollment decreased by19. 2020-2024: APS predicts enrollment will decrease by 54.