Reply to New APS Elem Boundaries (ASFS)

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "New APS Elem Boundaries (ASFS)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Some people have argued on here that they are only doing S. Arlington elementary boundaries for 2019, but the agenda from the work session says for 2019: "Implement new elementary boundaries in S. Arlington and where possible in N. Arlington to alleviate crowding." Then for 2021: "Implement remaining elementary boundaries."

To me it would make sense to do redraw all the elementary boundaries at one time next year, then enact them in waves as schools come online, so S. Arlington/ASFS boundaries would take effect in 2019 when Fleet opens, and the rest would take effect in 2021 when Reed opens. Because going through it twice seems ridiculous.[/quote]

I'm sure they'll tweak a little bit in North Arlington where they can based on the new south Arlington boundaries to alleviate some of the overcrowding at McKinley and 5Glebe, but they're not going to do a full re-draw in North Arlington this spring. Not only would it make the process substantially more complex for the spring to have so many more moving parts, but Reed is still almost four years away and the projections will shift (as they always do) in the two years between this elementary boundary process and when they've scheduled to it for Reed. They're not going to re-draw North Arlington now and take the risk they'll have to do it again in two years anyway because something about the population has changed that will make the post-Reed boundaries significantly imbalanced.[/quote]

I'm the pp above. I just watched the work session, and what was proposed to the board was indeed a comprehensive review of all elementary boundaries--"everything is on the table." This would be a phased approach, so implementation would be delayed for some N Arlington PUs until Reed opens. They also wouldn't necessarily draw the exact boundaries but could identify PUs that would possibly shift (those PUs not in the walk zone for any school, for example), and closer to 2021 would make the call on exactly where those PUs go.

Bottom line, they recommended to the board to take a big view approach, and I agree with that. If you want to watch the discussion, it starts around minute 85 of the work session. [/quote]

I think this new approach to elementary boundaries would fantastic, it's very much needed. They did specifically later on, though, that they don't want to make any big changes around Reed until Reed is ready to open. It sounds like what they'd do in the near term in the north is figure out where they can move McKinley/Glebe planning units further south when Fleet opens, but Kanninen specifically said (around 1:39) that otherwise they probably won't in a position to meaningfully relieve the overcrowding in McKinley and Glebe in 2019.

I also think I called it earlier when I said one of Discovery, Jamestown or Nottingham will become an option school, ATS or otherwise. They specifically said too many times that they'd look at areas with overlapping walk zones as places where you could move an option school. There are PUs that are within the walk zone for all three of those schools. My guess would be Jamestown, because so many of the students there are already bus riders, it really doesn't affect them to ride a bus to Discovery or Taylor instead. Plus it will give them an excuse to given Jamestown a much-needed renovation without it being prioritizing North Arlington students at the expense of others.[/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