There were 35 kids in my K class in the late 1970s. There are 20 in my DS's K class in Arlington. We love our school. This complaining is mystifying to me and one big yawn. To be sure, were moving in two years.

Anonymous wrote:Do the Montessori/VPI preschool kids utilize the same resources as a K-5 kid-- in other words, are they given the same access to the cafeteria, art room, gifted services, playground, gym, extended day etc.? Just trying to figure out why APS breaks them out separately on their spreadsheet and how that relates to resource allocation.

yes and no. I have had kids both in the VPI classrooms and in the special ed classrooms at different schools. I would imagine that different schools may do things differently.
Extended day varies from school to school- some have extended day for 3 year olds, some for 4 year olds.
In all of the preschool classrooms I have been in, kids eat in their rooms but the food comes from the cafeteria-- someone brings it to them. I don't know if this is due to space in the cafeteria or b/c they don't want to deal with 3 and 4 year olds in the cafeteria line.
They do specials like art and gym. Not so much gifted services.
They go out to the playground- but some schools have a smaller playground for the preschool, particularly for the special education classes.

I think the real difference is that they are less tied to the neighborhood and they are more flexible. The montessori class that used to be at Key was moved to Jamestown I believe. The McKinley montessori is still considered McKinley- but at least as of a couple of years ago was actually at the Reed School.

Do the Montessori/VPI preschool kids utilize the same resources as a K-5 kid-- in other words, are they given the same access to the cafeteria, art room, gifted services, playground, gym, extended day etc.? Just trying to figure out why APS breaks them out separately on their spreadsheet and how that relates to resource allocation.

Anonymous wrote:You can pull the capacity numbers from this spreadsheet:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/legacy_assets/www/8e7324ccaf-Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf

If you look at Pre-K-5 enrollment, Nottingham was the most under-enrolled school in the entire county this year (41 students under-enrolled). Discovery is in second place, under-enrolled by 35 kids. However, if you look only at K-5 enrollment, Discovery was actually under-enrolled by 69 kids this year-- but there are 22 Montessori preschool kids at Discovery this year that bring the numbers up. (I'm assuming they use the building, but I can't confirm.)

McKinley is over-enrolled by 45 kids this year, and that is based on the assumption that construction is fully completed (which it is not). Glebe is over-enrolled by 68 kids this year, and Tuckahoe is over-enrolled by 37 kids this year. However, the Glebe and Tuckahoe rising 5th graders were not required to move this year-- which is why McKinley's 5th grade numbers are so low. Once the current McK 5th graders move to Swanson and are replaced by an incoming K class of 120-125, McK's enrollment will be at 770. Unlike Oakridge, there are no immediate plans to build a new ES in the NW. So our question is why do Nottingham and Discovery get to continue to sit under-enrolled, while nearby McK (which touches the Nottingham boundary) is forced over-capacity by nearly 100 students? Our new addition-- which won't even be completed until January-- will only bring the school capacity up to 684. And McK will only have 1 field post-construction, so if we have to continue to have trailers to accomodate the extra 80-100 kids, it means that we will not have **any** field space. (I am assuming Oakridge at least has a field for its 800 kids?)

By the way, these few preschool aged not-in-boundary enrollment kids at Discovery, Jamestown, ... are the kids that make Discovery and Jamestown 3% FARMS vs. ZERO %FARMS. This is what planning and boundary changes look like at APS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

The affordable housing policy has the secondary effect of pushing people out of poor performing schools and into north Arlington schools. So, it is to blame.

Pushing people out of poor performing schools? That's what we call it now?

Enrollment growth in north Arlington schools started eight years ago--the county was underwriting some APAH projects, mostly converting existing apartments to committed affordable units, but they weren't building new buildings at the time. Housing in south Arlington was market rate affordable, not "housing policy" affordable. You can't sit here and say it was government decisions "pushing" people into north Arlington schools. People were making those decisions based on their own....preferences.

Yes ,you dimwit, people prefer not send their kids to failing schools. So they crowd north. The middle class in south Arlington have been sending their children to choice schools for years. Now those choice schools are full, and can't hold them. So, they move north.

Just don't act like people crowding into 22205 and 22207 ten years ago....which is when all the people with kids in elementary school now moved there....is because of government policy. That was upper middle class people buying into neighborhoods where their kids wouldn't have to go to schools with a lot of low-income kids. AKA, "failing schools." And north Arlington uses choice more than south Arlington--according to the transfer report, there are more kids at ATS from north Arlington than south Arlington, W-L gets as many kids from Yorktown as it does from Wakefield, and H-B wait lists are longer from north Arlington schools than south Arlington schools.

Anonymous wrote:Once the current McK 5th graders move to Swanson and are replaced by an incoming K class of 120-125, McK's enrollment will be at 770. Unlike Oakridge, there are no immediate plans to build a new ES in the NW. So our question is why do Nottingham and Discovery get to continue to sit under-enrolled, while nearby McK (which touches the Nottingham boundary) is forced over-capacity by nearly 100 students? Our new addition-- which won't even be completed until January-- will only bring the school capacity up to 684. And McK will only have 1 field post-construction, so if we have to continue to have trailers to accomodate the extra 80-100 kids, it means that we will not have **any** field space. (I am assuming Oakridge at least has a field for its 800 kids?)

They get to sit underenrolled b/c APS staff gives them preferential treatment.

This is what needs to get out to everyone at McKinley and it's not going to happen with the don't-rock-the-boat PTA. Parents need to write letters and go to office hours. I wrote to APS staff about the projections and impacy when they were deciding to move the Tuckahoe families to away to McK instead of Nottingham. The response I received: Too bad. In 5 years, McK will be underenrolled. I'm not joking. Let's shove half of 22205 into one school b/c, in a few years, it will have extra seats b/c your kids will have moved on. I love our teachers, but I hate the planning folks.

You can pull the capacity numbers from this spreadsheet:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/legacy_assets/www/8e7324ccaf-Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf

If you look at Pre-K-5 enrollment, Nottingham was the most under-enrolled school in the entire county this year (41 students under-enrolled). Discovery is in second place, under-enrolled by 35 kids. However, if you look only at K-5 enrollment, Discovery was actually under-enrolled by 69 kids this year-- but there are 22 Montessori preschool kids at Discovery this year that bring the numbers up. (I'm assuming they use the building, but I can't confirm.)

McKinley is over-enrolled by 45 kids this year, and that is based on the assumption that construction is fully completed (which it is not). Glebe is over-enrolled by 68 kids this year, and Tuckahoe is over-enrolled by 37 kids this year. However, the Glebe and Tuckahoe rising 5th graders were not required to move this year-- which is why McKinley's 5th grade numbers are so low. Once the current McK 5th graders move to Swanson and are replaced by an incoming K class of 120-125, McK's enrollment will be at 770. Unlike Oakridge, there are no immediate plans to build a new ES in the NW. So our question is why do Nottingham and Discovery get to continue to sit under-enrolled, while nearby McK (which touches the Nottingham boundary) is forced over-capacity by nearly 100 students? Our new addition-- which won't even be completed until January-- will only bring the school capacity up to 684. And McK will only have 1 field post-construction, so if we have to continue to have trailers to accomodate the extra 80-100 kids, it means that we will not have **any** field space. (I am assuming Oakridge at least has a field for its 800 kids?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

The affordable housing policy has the secondary effect of pushing people out of poor performing schools and into north Arlington schools. So, it is to blame.

Pushing people out of poor performing schools? That's what we call it now?

Enrollment growth in north Arlington schools started eight years ago--the county was underwriting some APAH projects, mostly converting existing apartments to committed affordable units, but they weren't building new buildings at the time. Housing in south Arlington was market rate affordable, not "housing policy" affordable. You can't sit here and say it was government decisions "pushing" people into north Arlington schools. People were making those decisions based on their own....preferences.

Yes ,you dimwit, people prefer not send their kids to failing schools. So they crowd north. The middle class in south Arlington have been sending their children to choice schools for years. Now those choice schools are full, and can't hold them. So, they move north.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

The affordable housing policy has the secondary effect of pushing people out of poor performing schools and into north Arlington schools. So, it is to blame.

Pushing people out of poor performing schools? That's what we call it now?

Enrollment growth in north Arlington schools started eight years ago--the county was underwriting some APAH projects, mostly converting existing apartments to committed affordable units, but they weren't building new buildings at the time. Housing in south Arlington was market rate affordable, not "housing policy" affordable. You can't sit here and say it was government decisions "pushing" people into north Arlington schools. People were making those decisions based on their own....preferences.

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that word "pushing" either. It is a choice. But I think everyone needs to recognize that people who have choices will exercise those choices, and furthering disparity between schools, whether we're talking about ES, MS, or HS, only makes it more likely that middle class families will no longer choose to enroll in certain schools. I wish it weren't the case, but I think it probably is, even here, in the most liberal area in the nation. It's not the choice I'm making, but every year another family I know decamps north.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

As a resident of 22207 (but a Glebe family, so no dog in the McKinley issue), please allow me to apologize for the self-centered brats who reside here. I assure you not all of us are like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

The affordable housing policy has the secondary effect of pushing people out of poor performing schools and into north Arlington schools. So, it is to blame.

Pushing people out of poor performing schools? That's what we call it now?

Enrollment growth in north Arlington schools started eight years ago--the county was underwriting some APAH projects, mostly converting existing apartments to committed affordable units, but they weren't building new buildings at the time. Housing in south Arlington was market rate affordable, not "housing policy" affordable. You can't sit here and say it was government decisions "pushing" people into north Arlington schools. People were making those decisions based on their own....preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone take into account building size/capacity?

Our school numbers are lower--but we also are in one of the smallest buildings.

+1

The schools are not all the same size. These numbers don't mean much until you can put them next to the capacity numbers of the individual schools. I wish APS would have added a column for that. I know the capacity data is somewhere on the website, but it takes me forever to find anything.

They aren't showing capacity b/c it makes it obvious which schools are actually UNDER capacity.

Anonymous wrote:Talk to me when you have over 800!
- Oakridge parent

You are getting relief and your are under 800 this year. APS created this problem at McKinley. It would be like adding an addition to Oakridge for 50 more kids and then transferring in 100 more.


To the poster asking about capacity, that's only part of the equation. When you've got 120-150 kids per grade, it impacts their ability to participate in programs at school (like clubs and the play), makes the lunch room crazier (longer lines, more noise) and causes more difficulty on the playground. Nottingham has 2 playgrounds, for example, and never has more than 92 kids out there at the same time. If you look at a school like McK or Oakridge, you've got over 140 kids running around at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

The affordable housing policy has the secondary effect of pushing people out of poor performing schools and into north Arlington schools. So, it is to blame.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone take into account building size/capacity?

Our school numbers are lower--but we also are in one of the smallest buildings.

+1

The schools are not all the same size. These numbers don't mean much until you can put them next to the capacity numbers of the individual schools. I wish APS would have added a column for that. I know the capacity data is somewhere on the website, but it takes me forever to find anything.