Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would be absurd. Many of those houses were once zoned for Tuckahoe and rezoned for McK. Now that there will actually be a school in walking distance you think they'd go back to Tuckahoe? I would fight like hell against that.

Then I suggest that you support Tuckahoe becoming an option school. I'm assuming that APS will continue to require continguous boundaries. If so- and the need for seats is in the NE, they have to find a way to draw the boundary so as to pick up some of the Key and Glebe units to the Northwest. Tuckahoe is up against the edge of the county- if its planning units move to Reed, there is no where else for it to draw planning units from. The units east of Reed are probably safe for at least enough to make a boundary corridor east. But under the all neighborhood scenario I don't see any way units 16040 16050 and 16060 and 16130 could go to Reed- and they are all within the 1/2 mile walk shed. I live in one of those units, and think the neighborhood is really misguided to be fighting against Tuckahoe going choice, while fully expecting that we are headed to walkable Reed.

In the past, APS has only opened up a limited number of planning units for boundary changes and that has resulted in crazy boundaries. If you look at the McK map, for example, you'll see how it juts around all over the place. With Reed coming online, APS is *FINALLY* choosing to do the right thing and look at boundaries as a whole. As a result, there will be cascading changes, but the kids will be OK. The kids who moved from Glebe and Tuckahoe to McK are just fine and the kids who moved into Discovery are just fine. Since APS is looking for be more efficient with transportation, don't expect long, winding boundaries that don't make any sense. There is a poster who keeps talking about the changes and I think they are right on. Jamestown and Glebe will help Taylor when Reed opens. McKinley will help Ashlawn who will pull more students from the orange line. Maybe ATS will move since it's the closest to Ballston, but I wouldn't bet money on that!

Then I suggest that you support Tuckahoe becoming an option school. I'm assuming that APS will continue to require continguous boundaries. If so- and the need for seats is in the NE, they have to find a way to draw the boundary so as to pick up some of the Key and Glebe units to the Northwest. Tuckahoe is up against the edge of the county- if its planning units move to Reed, there is no where else for it to draw planning units from. The units east of Reed are probably safe for at least enough to make a boundary corridor east. But under the all neighborhood scenario I don't see any way units 16040 16050 and 16060 and 16130 could go to Reed- and they are all within the 1/2 mile walk shed. I live in one of those units, and think the neighborhood is really misguided to be fighting against Tuckahoe going choice, while fully expecting that we are headed to walkable Reed.
-------------------
Um. Because I think they don't want to actively fight to take away their friends' and neighbors' neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:Reed won’t make pull from Ballston. Glebe and Ashlawn will and the McK will pull from Ashlawn.

Ashlawn has one of the funkiest boundaries in the county- it actually extends to the east of ASFS. When Reed opens and ASFS and Key are sorted it won’t make sense for any of the PUs east of Glebe to remain at ashlawn. And it certainly won’t make sense for Reed to pull from Ballston. There’s going to be lots of boundary shifting.

APS staff and board started warning the community a year ago that the new elementary boundaries could look very strange in some places. Reed has potentially 600 walkers, but if you keep some of those as bussing to Tuckahoe, then yes it would have to pull from the east, which would allow Glebe and Jamestown to pull from the east, which would allow the NE quadrant to get relief too, regardless of whether Key and ASFS are both neighborhood or not. The borders could end up with some long, skinny arms along the orange line corridor.

Reed won’t make pull from Ballston. Glebe and Ashlawn will and the McK will pull from Ashlawn.

Anonymous wrote:When considering Tuckahoe as countywide option, is everyone aware that it would require navigating the EFC metro intersection during rush hour and that Tuckahoe literally shares a street with Bishop O'Connell high school (1000 students, I think). Do not plan to drive your kid there.

um- that's definitely not any worse than navigating the courthouse metro intersection, or dropping off along Key blvd to get to Key.
Plus- I don't really understand the angst over buses at Tuckahoe- Tuckahoe is already mostly busriders, what difference does it make if those busriders are coming from a different place?

Anonymous wrote:When considering Tuckahoe as countywide option, is everyone aware that it would require navigating the EFC metro intersection during rush hour and that Tuckahoe literally shares a street with Bishop O'Connell high school (1000 students, I think). Do not plan to drive your kid there.

Bishop O'Connell starts its day at 7:45 and ends at 2:55. Keep Tuckahoe on its 9:00 to 3:41 schedule with extended day running 7:00-6:00, and there's plenty of opportunity for parents and buses to get to and from Tuckahoe without conflicting with the Bishop O'Connell traffic. Much as Tuckahoe manages now.

When considering Tuckahoe as countywide option, is everyone aware that it would require navigating the EFC metro intersection during rush hour and that Tuckahoe literally shares a street with Bishop O'Connell high school (1000 students, I think). Do not plan to drive your kid there.

Anonymous wrote:

That would be absurd. Many of those houses were once zoned for Tuckahoe and rezoned for McK. Now that there will actually be a school in walking distance you think they'd go back to Tuckahoe? I would fight like hell against that.

Then I suggest that you support Tuckahoe becoming an option school. I'm assuming that APS will continue to require continguous boundaries. If so- and the need for seats is in the NE, they have to find a way to draw the boundary so as to pick up some of the Key and Glebe units to the Northwest. Tuckahoe is up against the edge of the county- if its planning units move to Reed, there is no where else for it to draw planning units from. The units east of Reed are probably safe for at least enough to make a boundary corridor east. But under the all neighborhood scenario I don't see any way units 16040 16050 and 16060 and 16130 could go to Reed- and they are all within the 1/2 mile walk shed. I live in one of those units, and think the neighborhood is really misguided to be fighting against Tuckahoe going choice, while fully expecting that we are headed to walkable Reed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drop the "choice" - allow transfers. SIMPLE!!!!!!

Jamestown should be allowing transfers already

why do you think that the hundreds of students who currently live in the Key neighborhood would rather 'transfer' to another neighborhood school that is a long distance from their house, rather than have a walkable neighborhood school?
If the greatest need for seats is in the North East- Key/ASFS area, then doesn't it make sense to make both of those neighborhood schools?

There are valid points to not moving the choice schools- but allowing 'transfers' is not an easy solution.

Also- if they keep all the north west schools (Tuckahoe/Reed/Nottingham/Discovery) as neighborhood- there are going to be some awfully funny looking boundaries having to be drawn. All those planning units that are walkable to Reed and think they are going to Reed will actually be at Tuckahoe, because Reed will have to be taking the Ballston/VA square planning units, etc-

That would be absurd. Many of those houses were once zoned for Tuckahoe and rezoned for McK. Now that there will actually be a school in walking distance you think they'd go back to Tuckahoe? I would fight like hell against that.

Anonymous wrote:All those planning units noted above are also walkable to Tuckahoe. Plus more that are not walkable to Nottingham. And the remaining Nottingham units are walkable to Discovery. Just saying. All 3 are very walkable schools. What scenario leaves the fewest bus riders?

Even if you pull everything that has been identified by APS as possibly walkable to Tuckahoe or Discovery (perhaps only with safety modifications, which cost money) into those schools, you're still left with unit 17033, which has 71-93 current elementary school students in, as walkable only to Nottingham. That puts it in line with how many students are walkable only to Tuckahoe, if not ahead (depending on where the unit falls within that range). So your absolute best argument here only puts Tuckahoe on par with Nottingham as a possible choice school location, it doesn't make Nottingham a more compelling choice for an option school than Nottingham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drop the "choice" - allow transfers. SIMPLE!!!!!!

Jamestown should be allowing transfers already

why do you think that the hundreds of students who currently live in the Key neighborhood would rather 'transfer' to another neighborhood school that is a long distance from their house, rather than have a walkable neighborhood school?
If the greatest need for seats is in the North East- Key/ASFS area, then doesn't it make sense to make both of those neighborhood schools?

There are valid points to not moving the choice schools- but allowing 'transfers' is not an easy solution.

Also- if they keep all the north west schools (Tuckahoe/Reed/Nottingham/Discovery) as neighborhood- there are going to be some awfully funny looking boundaries having to be drawn. All those planning units that are walkable to Reed and think they are going to Reed will actually be at Tuckahoe, because Reed will have to be taking the Ballston/VA square planning units, etc-

ASFS & Key switch - ASFS is a neighborhood school. Doesn't that resolve the Key situation? To your point above, why would anyone want to schlep their kids to Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery for a choice school? Poor kids would be on busses at the crack of dawn.

No it doesn't. If you look at the projection charts- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections17-26_Final_Web.pdf
in 2021 when Reed opens Key is short 210 seats (that's based on its current boundary- not the idea that it is immersion) and ASFS is short 81 seats. Long Branch is short 84 seats. Glebe is short 80 seats, Taylor is short 30 seats. Add those numbers up and you get to 485. ASFS has a capacity of 553. It is almost entirely filled if you make both ASFS and Key neighborhood- just be the overflow from the boundaries surrounding it.

in 2021 mcKinley has a surplus of 14 seats, Tuckahoe is short 67, Nottingham is short 35. Discovery has a surplus of 43. That means in order to fill Reed- without changing the status of Tuckahoe- then the Reed Boundary is going to have to reach deep into the orange line corridor- busing the kids around ASFS and Key to Reed, and continue to bus the kids around Reed to Tuckahoe.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Key and ASFS swap locations. Key has a higher capacity and is located closer to the majority of students within the two miles or so. The Immersion program moves to ASFS, close enough for most current Key families and Spanish dominant families to continue attending without major inconvenience. Fleet opens and pulls a number of Long Branch students. Reed opens and pulls in some students from Glebe. Jamestown in under capacity, so move some Taylor units that are geographically close into the Jamestown zone. I think that about sums it up, and makes sense from an efficiency perspective. You don't need both ASFS and Key to be neighborhood schools, because with the planned new schools coming online, then you are going to have to many seats in the E, same as the problem they are having in the NW. Nobody has to get bused from the ASFS area to Reed. No. The planned new schools and cascading boundary shifts will take care of all of this while maxing out walkers to current neighborhood schools (it just means more car riders, but whatever, I'll let them have their fantasy because this is really about cost and not environmental sustainability).

I don't know what they will do with Tuckahoe, but I don't think it makes sense as an option that currently exists. It's not an ideal location for an option school period, but if they make it an option, it should be an option that doesn't exist and that would be attractive to the nearby families who'd be most likely to apply, so that it fills up. Or they could just open transfers and provide transportation.

Nottingham or Tuckahoe should NOT be choice..

Nottingham has way too many walkers and only 2 buses daily.

Tuckahoe is not convenient at all and would have buses all over the county during rush hour traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those planning units noted above are also walkable to Tuckahoe. Plus more that are not walkable to Nottingham. And the remaining Nottingham units are walkable to Discovery. Just saying. All 3 are very walkable schools. What scenario leaves the fewest bus riders?

Making Tuckahoe an option school leaves the fewest bus riders.
I just saw the next door post from the parents organizing to save Tuckahoe. I think their post makes it even more obvious that Tuckahoe should be choice if what we are prioritizing is maximizing walkers. They are trying to get several current Nottingham zoned units moved to Tuckahoe. The most bizarre to me is suggesting that unit 17021, which is literally the unit that Nottingham is in, should be zoned to Tuckahoe.

I think the writing is on the wall- either Nottingham or Tuckahoe are going to be choice, the schools are too close together. The least disruptive is to make it Tuckahoe given that most of the Tuckahoe boundary is walkable to Reed.

+1. Currently zoned to Nottingham, with Tuckahoe "walkable". Given the steep hills in this neighborhood and the traffic on 26th and Sycamore, it really isn't. I'd drive my youngster there every day if rezoned.

Anonymous wrote:These kids have had enough shifting - it's disruptive to their early and most important, education years.

Priorities should be to redistribute in the most cost-effective, and least disruptive manner:

1) Minimize change for elementary kids. IMO, Reed should give existing students the option to transfer or stay where they are.
2) Maximize walk zones and reduce bus costs
3) Choice schools need to prioritize location and convenience.

To #1, this would affect not only the kids given the choice to transfer or not, but also the other kids in overcrowded schools like McKinley. Providing relief is APS’s job, not the choice of families who pick and choose where their kids will go.