8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

No that was not the idea. They floated upper and lower for this neighborhood school when they thought the Buck property was on the table. That’s never happening and this conversation ended. There was never discussion about upper and lower at the two existing school locations. That’s a horrible idea that limits parent involvement with children split between school locations. As PP mentioned this concept was only brought up in context of option schools.

These are all excuses for the real dealbreaker: a lot of parents will fight tooth and nail to avoid integration with the less fortunate, which is what an upper and lower plan is all about.

??

It’s already integrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.

Agree with at least some of this. N Arlington just doesn’t have the Spanish speaking students necessary to fill half of an immersion school. ATS will likely be eliminated in favor of an IB program, and the ATS site is not good for a neighborhood school as far as walking goes, so maybe IB will just go there. The IB kids can just tuck their shirts in until ATS is grandfathered out of the building.

N Arlington doesn't need the Spanish speakers to fill the program if the program is located more centrally - like at current ATS location.

What? It needs roughly half Spanish speakers. Those families probably aren’t going to choose a school that isn’t close, whether it’s key or ATS.

Why not?

The inconvenient truth is that Spanish speakers aren’t choosing immersion even if it is close. Claremont wasn’t exactly raking in the native speakers in the lottery either. They only filled 43/72 K spots in the lottery vs Key 35/72 K spots. For non native speakers the numbers were 182 and 114 for K. https://www.apsva.us/school-options/school-transfer-data-2/pre-k-elementary-options-transfers-application-data-school-year-2019-20/

The demand for immersion is coming from non Spanish speakers, so why not move one to Nottingham or wherever?

... because then there will be even fewer Spanish speakers, and the English speakers will have no one to immerse with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.

Agree with at least some of this. N Arlington just doesn’t have the Spanish speaking students necessary to fill half of an immersion school. ATS will likely be eliminated in favor of an IB program, and the ATS site is not good for a neighborhood school as far as walking goes, so maybe IB will just go there. The IB kids can just tuck their shirts in until ATS is grandfathered out of the building.

N Arlington doesn't need the Spanish speakers to fill the program if the program is located more centrally - like at current ATS location.

What? It needs roughly half Spanish speakers. Those families probably aren’t going to choose a school that isn’t close, whether it’s key or ATS.

What I mean is, the Spanish speakers don't need to live in North Arlington if the school is located at the ATS site in order to fill the 50% enrollment -- that location can still draw Spanish-speakers from the Barrett, barcroft, and Carlin Springs areas. While Key argues that the Spanish-speaking community in Rosslyn has to have immersion at Key, ATS would bring the immersion opportunity to a lot more native Spanish-speakers if it is relocated to the western part of the County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe can easily be swallowed up by McKinley, Reed & Nottingham. It's the obvious choice and has easy access via 66 and EFC.

South Arlington doesn't have "easy access" to 66 and EFC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which buildings are you thinking of that are currently for sale and don't have existing tenants?

Why do they have to buy the buildings? That would add to the time and capital cost. They would just need to lease full floors and ensure isolated access to the school floors (dedicated elevators). I'm not saying it's easy but it allows flexibility that traditional campuses don't allow. How long was Reed coming? Alternatively, why not comingle say a school and a library on different floors?

There are also plenty of examples of developers willing to give a building or land in order to get a right of way ect and they are always turned down. If there was a will there would be a way and building conversation whether it be office to modular units or schools are not as expensive as we think if we don't shoot for the stars over design issues like we tend to do. I think the real problem is parents unwilling to see their kids in an office building.

Such as?

DP - there were two during the S outh Arlington Working Group period: Dominion Arms across from TJ where Fleet was built, and Vornado in Pentagon City.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which buildings are you thinking of that are currently for sale and don't have existing tenants?

Why do they have to buy the buildings? That would add to the time and capital cost. They would just need to lease full floors and ensure isolated access to the school floors (dedicated elevators). I'm not saying it's easy but it allows flexibility that traditional campuses don't allow. How long was Reed coming? Alternatively, why not comingle say a school and a library on different floors?

There are also plenty of examples of developers willing to give a building or land in order to get a right of way ect and they are always turned down. If there was a will there would be a way and building conversation whether it be office to modular units or schools are not as expensive as we think if we don't shoot for the stars over design issues like we tend to do. I think the real problem is parents unwilling to see their kids in an office building.

Such as?

DP - there were two during the S outh Arlington Working Group period: Dominion Arms across from TJ where Fleet was built, and Vornado in Pentagon City.

Isn’t Dominion Arms an apartment building? What kind of deals were these owners offering?

[Anonymous]

Tara N. was pushing the options agenda. Now that she's gone, we may see a swing back to neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tara N. was pushing the options agenda. Now that she's gone, we may see a swing back to neighborhood schools.

The SB was pushing it too. Option schools aren’t going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

OMG. 7 pages of comments already. Good lord. Get ready for a wild year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which buildings are you thinking of that are currently for sale and don't have existing tenants?

Why do they have to buy the buildings? That would add to the time and capital cost. They would just need to lease full floors and ensure isolated access to the school floors (dedicated elevators). I'm not saying it's easy but it allows flexibility that traditional campuses don't allow. How long was Reed coming? Alternatively, why not comingle say a school and a library on different floors?

There are also plenty of examples of developers willing to give a building or land in order to get a right of way ect and they are always turned down. If there was a will there would be a way and building conversation whether it be office to modular units or schools are not as expensive as we think if we don't shoot for the stars over design issues like we tend to do. I think the real problem is parents unwilling to see their kids in an office building.

Such as?

DP - there were two during the S outh Arlington Working Group period: Dominion Arms across from TJ where Fleet was built, and Vornado in Pentagon City.

Uh, no. They weren’t proposing giving away office or apartment buildings. They were proposing giving vacant land for schools, in exchange for bonus density. APS would be on the hook to construct buildings on that land. The county attorney says that’s not allowed, but they can give donations to the AH fund or build units of AH within luxury properties to get the additional density. Vornado no longer exists, and JBG Smith isn’t going to give away any land in National Landing for either schools OR affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option locations will be decided in December/January, and then in the spring they’ll be reviewing projections. Boundaries will be redrawn next fall.

Was this timeline stated somewhere? When I called APS a month or two ago, they said the new zones would be decided this winter and in time for the Spring school open houses.

[Anonymous]

They can’t move Key to far N. Arlington. How the heck can any Spanish speakers get to Nottingham or Tuckahoe or Duscovery. Forget it. Just shut down the program if that’s the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option locations will be decided in December/January, and then in the spring they’ll be reviewing projections. Boundaries will be redrawn next fall.

Was this timeline stated somewhere? When I called APS a month or two ago, they said the new zones would be decided this winter and in time for the Spring school open houses.

It was in last night’s presentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option locations will be decided in December/January, and then in the spring they’ll be reviewing projections. Boundaries will be redrawn next fall.

Was this timeline stated somewhere? When I called APS a month or two ago, they said the new zones would be decided this winter and in time for the Spring school open houses.

It was in last night’s presentation.

Thanks. I’m watching it now. If anyone knows around what point it occurs in the meeting I would appreciate knowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

How is it different than having a kid in middle school and elementary, or preschool and elementary, or daycare and any of the above? It’s not, and plenty of people do it. Probably anyone with 2+ kids? Upper and lower elem tart is an idea worth exploring. Of course it’ll get attacked by parents in wealthy neighborhoods adjacent to poor ones, but that right there tells you it’s worthy of consideration.

So was the idea a KeyZone + LV + Va Sq/Cherrydale boundary with lower elem grades going to key and upper elem to ASFS (or something like that?)

Yes this was the idea. That way you don’t have all affordable housing in ne concentrated at neighborhood school at key. Schools are only about a mile apart.

No that was not the idea. They floated upper and lower for this neighborhood school when they thought the Buck property was on the table. That’s never happening and this conversation ended. There was never discussion about upper and lower at the two existing school locations. That’s a horrible idea that limits parent involvement with children split between school locations. As PP mentioned this concept was only brought up in context of option schools.

These are all excuses for the real dealbreaker: a lot of parents will fight tooth and nail to avoid integration with the less fortunate, which is what an upper and lower plan is all about.

??



It’s already integrated.

The upper and lower idea is not limited to or even really feasible for an option program. My comment was in reference to the earlier poster who observed that it was an idea floated at the meeting: “5. They are considering pairing some schools upper and lower to better balance demographics- e.g. pair Abindgon and Drew.“

That pairing could improve Drew’s demographic balance but real progress via adjacent pairings would involve Fleet and Barcroft, Randolph and Abingdon, Drew and Oakridge, CS and Ashlawn. And I think you’d probably see a lot of pushback from fleet, Oakridge, and abingdon and Ashlawn. The specter of ‘busing’ would emerge, despite all the die hard liberal mommies who prefer Kamala Harris to Joe Biden.