Reply to 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What school is the easy money for where they will move Spanish immersion?  Carlin Springs?  ATS?  Barcroft?[/quote]

I don’t k ow, but Goldstein was pretty clear he wants an option program in NW Arlington, but centrally located NW Arlington.  $5 says he’s privately pushing (again) for it to be Nottingham.[/quote]

An option program in NW makes little sense unless you want to make it inaccessible to South Arlington residents.

If there are too many seats in NW, the new school — Reed — should be an option school. Then you don’t have to disrupt everyone around it in re-drawing boundaries. It is certainly a better location for an option school than Nottingham. [/quote]
[b]
I agree, but wash “they promised” reed wouldn’t be an option School. So much better not to move everyone around. [/quote][/b]

APS and the School Board have promised many things over the last two years that never happened.  Not sure why Reed-- which is the obvious, least disruptive location for an option school-- should be untouchable. [/quote]

There was a formal board resolution that Reed would be neighborhood.  They can’t just change course on a dime, they’d have to pass another formal board resolution with community participation, etc.[/quote]

Where is the rule that community participation has to be part of a Board resolution?  And what community?  Who's to say that THE greater community would not support a new resolution?[/quote]

DP, and I don’t think it’s true that there has to be a community process. But they would have to vote and have public comment.

I think the only reason they’re talking about an option program anywhere in the NW is that they will have built too many seats too close together. They can’t fill Reed without emptying another school and there just isn’t the density of housing, and there won’t be in the near future despite talk of development along Lee Hwy or at EFC (yeah right), that can support so many neighborhood seats. And once they spend all this money to build another school, they won’t have it to build one anywhere else for quite a few more years, but the kids keep coming. So, I’m not sure what other choice they have really, except very odd boundaries that would make a lot of kids bus riders. To me, an option school, at the least walkable site, would be better planning. Putting the program into Reed would be least disruptive to current boundaries, [b]but it would also be using up a very large number of permanent neighborhood seats that are highly walkable.[/b] I don’t think options schools should be getting the newest, largest buildings in areas where there could be a lot of walkers. I don’t think that should be the only consideration, like maybe they don’t have to move option schools for that reason alone, but if they’re starting from scratch, they need to make a sound decision. Also, it should not be Spanish immersion given the demographics.[/quote]

One could also argue that they can't fill McKinley or Tuckahoe or Nottingham after Reed opens if they make the boundaries sensible to density and to reduce bus traffic.  Those pushing for Reed as option just don't want to move their current location.  I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't want to see another shiny new building go to an option school while others around it still sit in trailers.  [/quote]

I think it's time to return to additions at existing schools.  Everyone should be benefiting.  The argument has been that it isn't as cost-efficient as building a whole new school.  But I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of full costs for a new building plus new boundaries plus new and revised bus routes, etc.  And even so, our old buildings should be maintained and provide a comparable pleasant learning facility as the new builds.

I second the recommendation to move Key immersion to ATS and eliminate ATS as a program.  Those kids will do just as well wherever they go, with the exception of the VPI students who will then merely be sent back to their 65% and up FRL and high ELL % schools.  But I want to see the projections - once there are two new neighborhood schools in the north, I suspect the north schools will all be nice and comfy while all the south schools become increasingly crowded.

[/quote]

I support expanding existing schools, but rather than incur the cost of building additions, I think they should do more with looking at sites that can take a lot of trailers and creating better trailer spaces there instead of putting a couple of random trailers here and there.  I have a fifth grader at Nottingham and recently got a glimpse of the trailer they installed there to accommodate the fifth grade.  Instead of doing individual trailers for each class like they did in the past for the fourth grade, they installed a unit that has four classrooms, four bathrooms (two student, two teacher) and a connecting hallway.  There will only be three classes out there (which is a different issue, but would be an issue even if they were inside the building), so they could potentially use that fourth room as flex space for specials that are on carts or where students don't necessarily need to be in a particular classroom (e.g., FLES, in contrast to PE).  They'll still go inside for some things, but having the whole grade in one contiguous space makes it not feel so "lesser."  There are also trailer units that can be installed at sites to create cafeteria and other open spaces to further expand the comfortable capacity of a school at a lesser cost than a formal addition.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics