ATS's test scores are generally higher than the average APS school. They are not significantly higher than some other N. Arlington schools, but they manage to be equal or higher with a more diverse population. It's not particularly impressive to have a 97% pass rate or whatever if your school is 97% white kids whose parents live in homes with a median price of $900K. It's a little more impressive when you're getting that same pass rate with 50% white kids, 20+% ESOL and FARMS and a bunch of kids from families who are very solidly middle class vs. quite wealthy.

I think if you moved the program way into South Arlington, you'd lose some of the UMC white families who live in North Arlington and attract even more UMC white families who live in South Arlington. Some Discovery/Nottingham/Tuckahoe/ Jamestown parents would decide that their kid would get a perfectly good education at their home school, some families very close to the current ATS would decide that Ashlawn or Barrett was better than driving halfway across the county, and a bunch of parents who bought $900k houses in Alcova Heights and Douglas Park would get really excited to have a better shot at ATS.

The non-white component of ATS would probably expand - some Drew/HB/Randolph/Carlin Springs families would be more likely to apply because a S. Arl location would be even more convenient than the current location.

Anonymous wrote:Give that ATS's test scores do not differ from other N Arl schools, there is nothing unique about the program. A program where only 4% of applicants are admitted is not a choice, it is luck and mostly ARL parents escaping overcrowding.

ATS is a neighborhood school; let's treat it like that and zone it appropriately.

If we a really are talking about something unique and we really care, then moving it south would be the right option. We all know it, just can't admit it in public, or here.

If the ATS program were just a regular neighborhood school, there would not be a clamor to go there, especially from families that live in neighborhoods with already strong elementary schools. So, stop trying to call it a neighborhood school. It is not.

Now, if the county wants to turn the building into a neighborhood school, that is completely different. Don't even try to suck up that school and its program solely for the benefit of a single wealthy neighborhood like ASFS did.

IMO, ATS should not be treated like the golden child that cannot be touched (neither can HB, but so far it continues to be worshipped). Moving it anywhere could have an impact on who attends, however at this point in time APS parents appear to value proximity of neighborhood schools above and beyond other things. As a result, it should be easy to realize that means that choice schools are on the table for movement if it is in the best interest of the overall school system.

Moving it further south may impact some NArl families' decision to attend, moving it further north may impact SArl families, but at the end of the day where are neighborhood seats needed and then where is there capacity for a special, lottery, luck program.

Give that ATS's test scores do not differ from other N Arl schools, there is nothing unique about the program. A program where only 4% of applicants are admitted is not a choice, it is luck and mostly ARL parents escaping overcrowding.

ATS is a neighborhood school; let's treat it like that and zone it appropriately.

If we a really are talking about something unique and we really care, then moving it south would be the right option. We all know it, just can't admit it in public, or here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTA has been discussing this at our last couple of meetings. One proposal on the table is to add a bunch more trailers and increase the school to 5 classes/grade, which would be a significant shift from the current enrollment. (3 classes some grades, 4 in others.) I suggested that we should just counter with 4 classes per grade and hopefully hold off the 5 class idea - the school doesn't really have the infrastructure to go from a 534-kid school to the 750-kid school that has been proposed, without an addition. (official capacity is 465.)

There is some talk of moving ATS, but we're fighting to keep it in a central location because we think that moving the school to a location far North would really discourage the South Arlington parents whose kids really benefit from the program.

I love the program and I'm glad we're there, but I admit, I'd be less likely to send my daughter there if it were located in Oakridge or Randolph or something. (using these as examples.) At some point, it becomes too much of a hike in rush hour traffic. My daughter takes the morning bus, but I work, so the afternoon bus isn't an option.

A few years ago, there was a proposal on the table for an addition at ATS which would allow them to increase class sizes. It also increased the size of the multipurpose room and possibly the gym. I wonder why now they aren't pulling that proposal back out? I think it was around 2014 - back when they also thought about putting an elementary school on the Kenmore property. Two of the suggestions from some consultants who were given limited data and strict parameters that didn't make much sense.

I suspect it's at least in part a funding issue. They're building/substantially renovating two elementary schools, building a new middle school, and expanding/renovating multiple buildings to create more high school seats. Even after those projects, we need a fourth high school more than we need to expand ATS.

I'm an ATS parent, and my understanding is that ATS was slated for a renovation/addition several years ago. Funds were allocated for renovations/additions at three schools - Ashlawn, McKinley, and ATS - in that order. All of the money went to Ashlawn and McKinley (the higher priority projects), and there was nothing left by the time it was the turn of ATS. I don't think anyone expects any new funds to be made available for an addition to, or renovation of, ATS. If money were no object, ATS surely would be a good candidate for an addition because it is a small building on a large parcel of land. But money is tight, and there are lots of higher priority capital projects proposed or underway right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if parents truly want the choice program, they will drive to it or kids take a longer bus ride. Choice is a choice. ATS is so desirable that people will still clamor to get in no matter where it is located.

Except for working parents who need to use mass transit to get their child from extended day.

According to the APS Go Transit survey, nearly all the kids at ATS are riding the bus home or being driven home in a car. See page 7: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Arlington_Traditional_v2.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTA has been discussing this at our last couple of meetings. One proposal on the table is to add a bunch more trailers and increase the school to 5 classes/grade, which would be a significant shift from the current enrollment. (3 classes some grades, 4 in others.) I suggested that we should just counter with 4 classes per grade and hopefully hold off the 5 class idea - the school doesn't really have the infrastructure to go from a 534-kid school to the 750-kid school that has been proposed, without an addition. (official capacity is 465.)

There is some talk of moving ATS, but we're fighting to keep it in a central location because we think that moving the school to a location far North would really discourage the South Arlington parents whose kids really benefit from the program.

I love the program and I'm glad we're there, but I admit, I'd be less likely to send my daughter there if it were located in Oakridge or Randolph or something. (using these as examples.) At some point, it becomes too much of a hike in rush hour traffic. My daughter takes the morning bus, but I work, so the afternoon bus isn't an option.

A few years ago, there was a proposal on the table for an addition at ATS which would allow them to increase class sizes. It also increased the size of the multipurpose room and possibly the gym. I wonder why now they aren't pulling that proposal back out? I think it was around 2014 - back when they also thought about putting an elementary school on the Kenmore property. Two of the suggestions from some consultants who were given limited data and strict parameters that didn't make much sense.

I suspect it's at least in part a funding issue. They're building/substantially renovating two elementary schools, building a new middle school, and expanding/renovating multiple buildings to create more high school seats. Even after those projects, we need a fourth high school more than we need to expand ATS.

Anonymous wrote:The PTA has been discussing this at our last couple of meetings. One proposal on the table is to add a bunch more trailers and increase the school to 5 classes/grade, which would be a significant shift from the current enrollment. (3 classes some grades, 4 in others.) I suggested that we should just counter with 4 classes per grade and hopefully hold off the 5 class idea - the school doesn't really have the infrastructure to go from a 534-kid school to the 750-kid school that has been proposed, without an addition. (official capacity is 465.)

There is some talk of moving ATS, but we're fighting to keep it in a central location because we think that moving the school to a location far North would really discourage the South Arlington parents whose kids really benefit from the program.

I love the program and I'm glad we're there, but I admit, I'd be less likely to send my daughter there if it were located in Oakridge or Randolph or something. (using these as examples.) At some point, it becomes too much of a hike in rush hour traffic. My daughter takes the morning bus, but I work, so the afternoon bus isn't an option.

A few years ago, there was a proposal on the table for an addition at ATS which would allow them to increase class sizes. It also increased the size of the multipurpose room and possibly the gym. I wonder why now they aren't pulling that proposal back out? I think it was around 2014 - back when they also thought about putting an elementary school on the Kenmore property. Two of the suggestions from some consultants who were given limited data and strict parameters that didn't make much sense.

Anonymous wrote:if parents truly want the choice program, they will drive to it or kids take a longer bus ride. Choice is a choice. ATS is so desirable that people will still clamor to get in no matter where it is located.

Except for working parents who need to use mass transit to get their child from extended day.

if parents truly want the choice program, they will drive to it or kids take a longer bus ride. Choice is a choice. ATS is so desirable that people will still clamor to get in no matter where it is located.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTA has been discussing this at our last couple of meetings. One proposal on the table is to add a bunch more trailers and increase the school to 5 classes/grade, which would be a significant shift from the current enrollment. (3 classes some grades, 4 in others.) I suggested that we should just counter with 4 classes per grade and hopefully hold off the 5 class idea - the school doesn't really have the infrastructure to go from a 534-kid school to the 750-kid school that has been proposed, without an addition. (official capacity is 465.)

There is some talk of moving ATS, but we're fighting to keep it in a central location because we think that moving the school to a location far North would really discourage the South Arlington parents whose kids really benefit from the program.

I love the program and I'm glad we're there, but I admit, I'd be less likely to send my daughter there if it were located in Oakridge or Randolph or something. (using these as examples.) At some point, it becomes too much of a hike in rush hour traffic. My daughter takes the morning bus, but I work, so the afternoon bus isn't an option.

What about moving the program further south to make it that much more accessible to South Arlington families?

The only school in S Arlington that has a small walk zone and is also close to other neighborhood schools is Hoffman Boston. Given that school and neighborhood's history, I think it is untouchable.

Carlin Springs also has very limited walkers and is located near other elementary schools. Yes, Campbell is an option program and not a neighborhood school, I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PTA has been discussing this at our last couple of meetings. One proposal on the table is to add a bunch more trailers and increase the school to 5 classes/grade, which would be a significant shift from the current enrollment. (3 classes some grades, 4 in others.) I suggested that we should just counter with 4 classes per grade and hopefully hold off the 5 class idea - the school doesn't really have the infrastructure to go from a 534-kid school to the 750-kid school that has been proposed, without an addition. (official capacity is 465.)

There is some talk of moving ATS, but we're fighting to keep it in a central location because we think that moving the school to a location far North would really discourage the South Arlington parents whose kids really benefit from the program.

I love the program and I'm glad we're there, but I admit, I'd be less likely to send my daughter there if it were located in Oakridge or Randolph or something. (using these as examples.) At some point, it becomes too much of a hike in rush hour traffic. My daughter takes the morning bus, but I work, so the afternoon bus isn't an option.

What about moving the program further south to make it that much more accessible to South Arlington families?

The only school in S Arlington that has a small walk zone and is also close to other neighborhood schools is Hoffman Boston. Given that school and neighborhood's history, I think it is untouchable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should I wait before I apply? How far would it move?

No, you should apply.

But you should write a letter to the school board saying that you would withdraw due to distance, if ATS is moved to x (Jamestown, Tuckahoe, Claremont...whatever it is for you), so that they are aware, that this is an important point for parents and applicants.

Why should they care? ATS has a big waitlist. Someone else would be happy to take the spot, regardless of where it is located.

+1. People should be applying to ATS because they like the program not because of the location. If you are applying merely for location, register at your neighborhood school and leave the ATS spots for those actually interested in the ATS program/philosophy.

Nothing in what pp said means location is the only factor, just that location is one factor. I think it's hard to argue with that for anyone. If putting your kid into extended day would mean adding an extra 45 minutes to your commute because the school is completely out of the way, that's going to give people pause because whatever academic benefit your kids might receive from the program is potentially outweighed by the cost to them from less family and recreation time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should I wait before I apply? How far would it move?

No, you should apply.

But you should write a letter to the school board saying that you would withdraw due to distance, if ATS is moved to x (Jamestown, Tuckahoe, Claremont...whatever it is for you), so that they are aware, that this is an important point for parents and applicants.

Why should they care? ATS has a big waitlist. Someone else would be happy to take the spot, regardless of where it is located.

+1. People should be applying to ATS because they like the program not because of the location. If you are applying merely for location, register at your neighborhood school and leave the ATS spots for those actually interested in the ATS program/philosophy.

+1 People like you are why there are so many questions around if ATS actually has a unique instructional program.