they think that option parents should be happy with trailers. The cost of moving the school isn't actually that great- 50K.
I think what actually moves will also depend heavily on what the principals say. If the principal at Campbell says the school can't function away from its wetlands- it will stay.
Similarly if the principals of the immersion schools say it needs to be near a spanish speaking population- it will happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From following this whole thing way too closely, I'm getting the impression that staff have two main objectives in school location:

1. Get an option school in the western corner of the county - apparently Nottingham is now the frontrunner.
2. Turn Key into a neighborhood school.

If they can't get these two things to happen, they will have to draw very strange and stringy neighborhood boundary lines. I think they would just switch them if they weren't concerned about getting native Spanish speakers to sign up to go to Nottingham.

I think this is correct. This has certiainly been my impression, also from following it way to closely. Those are the motivating factors- the excess seats in the West when Reed comes on line, and the seat deficit in the East (where Key is). But they are trying to come up with criteria and be disciplined about the whole thing- they are trying to make sure they are not accidently missing something.

So then what do you think the potential moves are? I can't imagine they will actually move more than two schools because of the cost.

I think Immersion to ATS and ATS to Nottingham. ATS has the longest wait list, so it is the most likely to fill up no matter where it is actually placed in the county.

But are they adding on to the ATS building? Because there are over 700 students at Key now, and I think the majority would follow the school. I thin it would be bad to move a bigger school into a smaller building, right? Don't they need a closer match?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From following this whole thing way too closely, I'm getting the impression that staff have two main objectives in school location:

1. Get an option school in the western corner of the county - apparently Nottingham is now the frontrunner.
2. Turn Key into a neighborhood school.

If they can't get these two things to happen, they will have to draw very strange and stringy neighborhood boundary lines. I think they would just switch them if they weren't concerned about getting native Spanish speakers to sign up to go to Nottingham.

I think this is correct. This has certiainly been my impression, also from following it way to closely. Those are the motivating factors- the excess seats in the West when Reed comes on line, and the seat deficit in the East (where Key is). But they are trying to come up with criteria and be disciplined about the whole thing- they are trying to make sure they are not accidently missing something.

So then what do you think the potential moves are? I can't imagine they will actually move more than two schools because of the cost.

I think Immersion to ATS and ATS to Nottingham. ATS has the longest wait list, so it is the most likely to fill up no matter where it is actually placed in the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From following this whole thing way too closely, I'm getting the impression that staff have two main objectives in school location:

1. Get an option school in the western corner of the county - apparently Nottingham is now the frontrunner.
2. Turn Key into a neighborhood school.

If they can't get these two things to happen, they will have to draw very strange and stringy neighborhood boundary lines. I think they would just switch them if they weren't concerned about getting native Spanish speakers to sign up to go to Nottingham.

I think this is correct. This has certiainly been my impression, also from following it way to closely. Those are the motivating factors- the excess seats in the West when Reed comes on line, and the seat deficit in the East (where Key is). But they are trying to come up with criteria and be disciplined about the whole thing- they are trying to make sure they are not accidently missing something.

So then what do you think the potential moves are? I can't imagine they will actually move more than two schools because of the cost.

Anonymous wrote:From following this whole thing way too closely, I'm getting the impression that staff have two main objectives in school location:

1. Get an option school in the western corner of the county - apparently Nottingham is now the frontrunner.
2. Turn Key into a neighborhood school.

If they can't get these two things to happen, they will have to draw very strange and stringy neighborhood boundary lines. I think they would just switch them if they weren't concerned about getting native Spanish speakers to sign up to go to Nottingham.

I think this is correct. This has certiainly been my impression, also from following it way to closely. Those are the motivating factors- the excess seats in the West when Reed comes on line, and the seat deficit in the East (where Key is). But they are trying to come up with criteria and be disciplined about the whole thing- they are trying to make sure they are not accidently missing something.

From following this whole thing way too closely, I'm getting the impression that staff have two main objectives in school location:

1. Get an option school in the western corner of the county - apparently Nottingham is now the frontrunner.
2. Turn Key into a neighborhood school.

If they can't get these two things to happen, they will have to draw very strange and stringy neighborhood boundary lines. I think they would just switch them if they weren't concerned about getting native Spanish speakers to sign up to go to Nottingham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

DP, but there has to be a balance. Did the retirees during the baby boom refuse to pay higher taxes and set aside land for schools? Because we have more kids in APS now than during the baby boom, and all I hear from my Boomer neighbors are complaints about rising taxes/assessments, traffic, and lack of parking. Arlington is not really the place it once was, and it's not the best place to retire given the HCOL, increasing urbanism (which is an unsettling change for many long time Arlington residents). Unless they have family here, they should take their housing windfall and move to places better suited for retirees. Or stay, and do for our kids what the previous generations did for you: build the schools.

This x 10000

Some (thankfully not all!) of my older neighbors are just like that, complaining about change and about the high taxes, and saying "excuse me, if I don't want my home to rise any further in value" - well, cry me a river. You have made a windfall on your home you bought in 1960. You are not paying a mortgage and have made an unreal amount of money. Something that will never repeat for this current "young" parent generation. Stop complaining! Perhaps take out an equity loan. Or move! Gah!

+1. On my street there are quite a few older folks who bought their places for less than $150K. Theses shit shacks are now selling at about $950K (sold 18 months ago with very old kitchen/baths). One of these retirees moved to their beach house and has a 3rd house somewhere else. Our immediate neighbors are in their 80s and not only have more than 750K equity in this house but the old fed pension that guarantees them nearly full salary for life. They are so comfortable they are fully funding their grandkids private school tuition. How do I know this? They've all shared this with me voluntarily. When their kids went to APS, they were closing down schools b/c there weren't enough kids. Why should they just reap all the benefits of living in Arlington when we're paying all the high property taxes and mortgages and our kids are stuck in trailers?

Anonymous wrote:Hey Reed truthers know that you are still getting a lot of buses. Here are the new walkzone maps as of yesterday that are the actual walk zone maps being used by staff.

https://www.apsva.us/elementary-school-boundary-change/walk-zone-resources/

I don't know that "actual" walk zones matter, as they don't have to provide a bus for under .75 mile. There's zero chance all of those planning units in white are ending up at Reed. Some of those units are literally on McKinley property, others are closer to Discovery or Glebe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Campbell meets none of the four considerations for option site suitability. Step one was to ID suitable option sites, and the sites most suitable are ASFS, ATS, Carlin Springs, Claremont, and Nottingham (in addition to Henry). Others met maybe half the criteria or just one, but Campbell met none. Maybe in a later step the board will take on special considerations, or decide that moving Campbell isn’t worth it. What I can tell you is lots of people are attached to their neighborhood schools and don’t want them switched to option. Lots of people are attached to their kds’ option schools and don’t want them moved. But changes are coming regardless of how “beloved” (to use a Nottingham parent’s argument) the schools are.

Their original criteria to ID which schools were better as options/neighborhood is flawed, and not because the school is beloved or because people are attached to it. They are only using ONE criteria. One that rules out all the others from even being considered. If they were building all the schools new and starting from scratch, would it make some sense? Maybe, but I am still not understanding how this school can be a neighborhood school for over 650 kids. Where do the excess 200 kids get bused to? Or are they going to be in permanent trailers? This is all a ridiculous exercise if they can't even grow the EL program to over 600. Why move them out of a smaller school to a larger school if the demand for the program is closer to the current site's size?

Which criterium?

Lol. Number of potential walkers/buses. It's technically criteria because it touches on both efficiency and proximity, but those are really the same thing. Everything is based on that. They didn't even get the preferred size correct. In their previous documents they called for Campbell to increase to 600 or something, I assume based on perceived demand/wait list data, not 750, so that's an error. If they're actually targeting 750, this precludes Campbell. If they're not targeting 750 and just made an error, it does not.

The four considerations are walkers, potential for growth, geography, and buses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Campbell meets none of the four considerations for option site suitability. Step one was to ID suitable option sites, and the sites most suitable are ASFS, ATS, Carlin Springs, Claremont, and Nottingham (in addition to Henry). Others met maybe half the criteria or just one, but Campbell met none. Maybe in a later step the board will take on special considerations, or decide that moving Campbell isn’t worth it. What I can tell you is lots of people are attached to their neighborhood schools and don’t want them switched to option. Lots of people are attached to their kds’ option schools and don’t want them moved. But changes are coming regardless of how “beloved” (to use a Nottingham parent’s argument) the schools are.

Their original criteria to ID which schools were better as options/neighborhood is flawed, and not because the school is beloved or because people are attached to it. They are only using ONE criteria. One that rules out all the others from even being considered. If they were building all the schools new and starting from scratch, would it make some sense? Maybe, but I am still not understanding how this school can be a neighborhood school for over 650 kids. Where do the excess 200 kids get bused to? Or are they going to be in permanent trailers? This is all a ridiculous exercise if they can't even grow the EL program to over 600. Why move them out of a smaller school to a larger school if the demand for the program is closer to the current site's size?

Which criterium?

Lol. Number of potential walkers/buses. It's technically criteria because it touches on both efficiency and proximity, but those are really the same thing. Everything is based on that. They didn't even get the preferred size correct. In their previous documents they called for Campbell to increase to 600 or something, I assume based on perceived demand/wait list data, not 750, so that's an error. If they're actually targeting 750, this precludes Campbell. If they're not targeting 750 and just made an error, it does not.

The AFSAP report did not include making all option schools 750. Where did that number come from? And how do you make people go to an option school? That's almost double the number of students currently at Campbell. Does anyone really think there are 300 families just waiting for their chance to go to Campbell who could not get in before? I've heard great things about the school but I'd be surprised if there more than 100.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

They must apply. They are getting a spot, but they must still apply.

Then why didn't they?

My guess is that they are excited about the new neighborhood STEM Drew with a principal with a great track record. A lot of those kids in the Montessori program came from the Drew neighborhood, opting into Montessori, because it was perceived as better, now they are opting to stay. They don't want to bus to a construction site? Drew is a beautiful school inside, with wonderful gardens and a meadow in its center like a courtyard. It is definitely the nicer building compared to the Henry building.

Because they're not committed to the instructional model, or they live in north Arlington and are zoned for a high performing neighborhood school, or any number of reasons. But there is no large contingent of Nauck families in primary Montessori that are bailing on the instructional model to roll the dice on Drew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Campbell meets none of the four considerations for option site suitability. Step one was to ID suitable option sites, and the sites most suitable are ASFS, ATS, Carlin Springs, Claremont, and Nottingham (in addition to Henry). Others met maybe half the criteria or just one, but Campbell met none. Maybe in a later step the board will take on special considerations, or decide that moving Campbell isn’t worth it. What I can tell you is lots of people are attached to their neighborhood schools and don’t want them switched to option. Lots of people are attached to their kds’ option schools and don’t want them moved. But changes are coming regardless of how “beloved” (to use a Nottingham parent’s argument) the schools are.

Their original criteria to ID which schools were better as options/neighborhood is flawed, and not because the school is beloved or because people are attached to it. They are only using ONE criteria. One that rules out all the others from even being considered. If they were building all the schools new and starting from scratch, would it make some sense? Maybe, but I am still not understanding how this school can be a neighborhood school for over 650 kids. Where do the excess 200 kids get bused to? Or are they going to be in permanent trailers? This is all a ridiculous exercise if they can't even grow the EL program to over 600. Why move them out of a smaller school to a larger school if the demand for the program is closer to the current site's size?

Which criterium?

Lol. Number of potential walkers/buses. It's technically criteria because it touches on both efficiency and proximity, but those are really the same thing. Everything is based on that. They didn't even get the preferred size correct. In their previous documents they called for Campbell to increase to 600 or something, I assume based on perceived demand/wait list data, not 750, so that's an error. If they're actually targeting 750, this precludes Campbell. If they're not targeting 750 and just made an error, it does not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Campbell meets none of the four considerations for option site suitability. Step one was to ID suitable option sites, and the sites most suitable are ASFS, ATS, Carlin Springs, Claremont, and Nottingham (in addition to Henry). Others met maybe half the criteria or just one, but Campbell met none. Maybe in a later step the board will take on special considerations, or decide that moving Campbell isn’t worth it. What I can tell you is lots of people are attached to their neighborhood schools and don’t want them switched to option. Lots of people are attached to their kds’ option schools and don’t want them moved. But changes are coming regardless of how “beloved” (to use a Nottingham parent’s argument) the schools are.

Their original criteria to ID which schools were better as options/neighborhood is flawed, and not because the school is beloved or because people are attached to it. They are only using ONE criteria. One that rules out all the others from even being considered. If they were building all the schools new and starting from scratch, would it make some sense? Maybe, but I am still not understanding how this school can be a neighborhood school for over 650 kids. Where do the excess 200 kids get bused to? Or are they going to be in permanent trailers? This is all a ridiculous exercise if they can't even grow the EL program to over 600. Why move them out of a smaller school to a larger school if the demand for the program is closer to the current site's size?

Which criterium?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they move ATS..there are hardly any potential walkers if it was a neighborhood school

If you look at the map, I think they are setting themselves to say they don't have walkers so they can stay Option. ATS would pick up a ton of potential walkers with some crossing guards to nearby streets. One of the comments was that their child lives across the street from ATS but is bused 2 miles away. The population around ATS are a lot of bus kids that go to Ashlawn. ATS also sits almost right next to Ballston which has huge population potential. Don't let ATS parents say they're isolated when they really don't need to be.

One bus stop to McKinley is .4 miles from ATS. McK is about 2 miles from that same bus stop. Is this logical? Would cutting this bus stop save $? I think APS has more money then it knows what to do with so wastes it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they move ATS..there are hardly any potential walkers if it was a neighborhood school

If you look at the map, I think they are setting themselves to say they don't have walkers so they can stay Option. ATS would pick up a ton of potential walkers with some crossing guards to nearby streets. One of the comments was that their child lives across the street from ATS but is bused 2 miles away. The population around ATS are a lot of bus kids that go to Ashlawn. ATS also sits almost right next to Ballston which has huge population potential. Don't let ATS parents say they're isolated when they really don't need to be.

Um, just because that building stays as and option site doesn’t mean ATS stays there. They could move another option program there and move ATS elsewhere.

You are correct, I misspoke. I meant more that the ATS building should be a Neighborhood school and is unnecessarily showing not many walkers when it should show more walkers. That should be corrected. Regardless, I think APS should rename the ATS school so it does NOT have the program in the name. It makes discussions more difficult and unnecessarily attaches the program to the building.