Virginia provides that all pre-k, kindergarten, first grade and self-contained SpEd classes are supposed to be on an exit floor for fire safety reasons;

BS call on this. How many local preschools in the area are on the second floor? Even ones built in recent years. Stop spreading fake news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue what’s going to happen to ASFS. I see no viable boundary solution for it.

Yeah, this is generating a lot of uncertainty for the entire key and taylro zones.

Switching ASFS and Key seems like the easiest path for the board right now because then they don't really have to rezone anyone. They switch the faculty some specialty stuff (yes, expensive PITA, but then it's done) and tell the students to just report to the same program, different location. Status quo means redistricting a lot of students, so it isn't really status quo and moving Key somewhere else entirely means finding another building and AND a lot of redistricting. Mess.

They can't just switch and do nothing else because they changed the transfer policy. The immersion program at Key will now be lottery with no neighborhood preference. They will have to adjust boundaries too. So this isn't a quick fix.

They could do a pretty minor fix to the key boundary to push some more kids to taylor to address current overcrowding. If you look at the actual transfer numbers, sending the portion of ASFS that is not zoned to key back to their home school opens up over a hundred seats (maybe closer to 200). That and pushing some parts that are already surrounded by taylor (for example the units north of lee highway, not to single anyone out) frees up a lot of room. Jamestown could absorb some of taylor to compensate.

The ASFS PTA really overblew the effect of the transfer policy when telling parents about it this year. It doesn't have an effect until next year, and while there does need to be an adjustment of boundaries, keep the school where it is doesn't serve any of its current students. Only three planning units from the current key zone live within a mile of the school.

The Jamestown borders already reach down very close to Taylor. Moving any more of them would cut into the Taylor walk zone. That's not going to happen.

I think some of Taylor's "one mile walk zone" is not really walkable per the maps. It's possible that some PUs could be moved to Jamestown if they aren't in Taylor's "effective walk zone."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw they added a survey option asking for feedback on option school locations.

And the walk zone maps have been updated with a green line showing the half-mile mark.

Are you talking about this survey? https://survey.k12insight.com/survey.aspx?k=SsSRTVsYWQsPsPsP&lang=0&data= It's only asking for additional factors to consider, not for opinions on locations themselves.

Also, where are you seeing a green line for the half-mile mark?

I clicked on some of the walk zone maps at random--for some, the half mile line is purple (Ashlawn). For others, it's green (Carlin Springs). Not sure why they didn't keep the same color throughout.

Anonymous wrote:I just saw they added a survey option asking for feedback on option school locations.

And the walk zone maps have been updated with a green line showing the half-mile mark.

Are you talking about this survey? https://survey.k12insight.com/survey.aspx?k=SsSRTVsYWQsPsPsP&lang=0&data= It's only asking for additional factors to consider, not for opinions on locations themselves.

Also, where are you seeing a green line for the half-mile mark?

Anonymous wrote:I just saw they added a survey option asking for feedback on option school locations.

And the walk zone maps have been updated with a green line showing the half-mile mark.

They also added the number of kids per planning unit, for those who are really hoping to drive themselves crazy: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/K-5-Student-County-by-Planning-Unit-SY2017-18.pdf

I just saw they added a survey option asking for feedback on option school locations.

And the walk zone maps have been updated with a green line showing the half-mile mark.

I just saw they added a survey option asking for feedback on option school locations.

And the walk zone maps have been updated with a green line showing the half-mile mark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue what’s going to happen to ASFS. I see no viable boundary solution for it.

Yeah, this is generating a lot of uncertainty for the entire key and taylro zones.

Switching ASFS and Key seems like the easiest path for the board right now because then they don't really have to rezone anyone. They switch the faculty some specialty stuff (yes, expensive PITA, but then it's done) and tell the students to just report to the same program, different location. Status quo means redistricting a lot of students, so it isn't really status quo and moving Key somewhere else entirely means finding another building and AND a lot of redistricting. Mess.

They can't just switch and do nothing else because they changed the transfer policy. The immersion program at Key will now be lottery with no neighborhood preference. They will have to adjust boundaries too. So this isn't a quick fix.

They could do a pretty minor fix to the key boundary to push some more kids to taylor to address current overcrowding. If you look at the actual transfer numbers, sending the portion of ASFS that is not zoned to key back to their home school opens up over a hundred seats (maybe closer to 200). That and pushing some parts that are already surrounded by taylor (for example the units north of lee highway, not to single anyone out) frees up a lot of room. Jamestown could absorb some of taylor to compensate.

The ASFS PTA really overblew the effect of the transfer policy when telling parents about it this year. It doesn't have an effect until next year, and while there does need to be an adjustment of boundaries, keep the school where it is doesn't serve any of its current students. Only three planning units from the current key zone live within a mile of the school.

The Jamestown borders already reach down very close to Taylor. Moving any more of them would cut into the Taylor walk zone. That's not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.arlnow.com/2018/02/26/county-board-approves-contested-ballston-development/
Oh look, more affordable housing and family units clustered right in Ballston. All to enrich developers. What school will reap the benefits of this decision? Glebe? Hey, as long as it's walkable who cares about overcrowding. Good thing the superintendent is increasing class sizes.

Isn't there a ton of empty office space in Ballston. Why is this county so against vertical schools. I realize it isn't the best, but it seems like there are a few place in this county where we could place a vertical school (Ballston and Crystal City). I mean somehow the children of NYC survive. You could create playground on the roof or/and innovated indoor play spaces with lots of access to natural light.

Anyway, I am sure this idea has been mentioned before, I am just not sure why the county seems so resistant to it. I mean elementary schools don't even need all the field spaces HS have so it seems like it would work better with ES. And you can put a green space on an ES roof or make an atrium with green space? It just seems like everyone is married to this idea traditional ES designs when we could think outside the box and get some more space for new schools

Building a custom elementary school with field space on the roof would cost crazy amounts of money. Few of the office buildings are configured for schools, and most are too big for one school. So want your 3rd grade sharing an elevator with rando office workers?

Building vertical is VERY expensive and existing office building don’t work as schools.

I am not saying it isn't expensive, it just seems that if there is no space for no elementary schools I am not sure what else to do. It seems like a solution for when we have run out of space. Are we not at that point now? If we aren't at that point and there is vacant space in Arlington where we can build more schools please let me know.

There is tons of space. They're called community centers and they are completely unnecessary.

They seem well used when I visit them, but sure.

Haha, your sarcasm is hilarious. Only barcroft and arlington mill seems wells used; I go to several other community centers and they are a ghost town.

I think they mostly get used for county classes -- seniors m-f, kids on saturdays. Fairlington is like that.

They also do a lot of programming for toddlers/preschoolers during the week, and for Arlington Adult Education. Many of the facilities are also available for residents and community groups to rent for events.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue what’s going to happen to ASFS. I see no viable boundary solution for it.

Yeah, this is generating a lot of uncertainty for the entire key and taylro zones.

Switching ASFS and Key seems like the easiest path for the board right now because then they don't really have to rezone anyone. They switch the faculty some specialty stuff (yes, expensive PITA, but then it's done) and tell the students to just report to the same program, different location. Status quo means redistricting a lot of students, so it isn't really status quo and moving Key somewhere else entirely means finding another building and AND a lot of redistricting. Mess.

They can't just switch and do nothing else because they changed the transfer policy. The immersion program at Key will now be lottery with no neighborhood preference. They will have to adjust boundaries too. So this isn't a quick fix.

They could do a pretty minor fix to the key boundary to push some more kids to taylor to address current overcrowding. If you look at the actual transfer numbers, sending the portion of ASFS that is not zoned to key back to their home school opens up over a hundred seats (maybe closer to 200). That and pushing some parts that are already surrounded by taylor (for example the units north of lee highway, not to single anyone out) frees up a lot of room. Jamestown could absorb some of taylor to compensate.

The ASFS PTA really overblew the effect of the transfer policy when telling parents about it this year. It doesn't have an effect until next year, and while there does need to be an adjustment of boundaries, keep the school where it is doesn't serve any of its current students. Only three planning units from the current key zone live within a mile of the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.arlnow.com/2018/02/26/county-board-approves-contested-ballston-development/
Oh look, more affordable housing and family units clustered right in Ballston. All to enrich developers. What school will reap the benefits of this decision? Glebe? Hey, as long as it's walkable who cares about overcrowding. Good thing the superintendent is increasing class sizes.

Isn't there a ton of empty office space in Ballston. Why is this county so against vertical schools. I realize it isn't the best, but it seems like there are a few place in this county where we could place a vertical school (Ballston and Crystal City). I mean somehow the children of NYC survive. You could create playground on the roof or/and innovated indoor play spaces with lots of access to natural light.

Anyway, I am sure this idea has been mentioned before, I am just not sure why the county seems so resistant to it. I mean elementary schools don't even need all the field spaces HS have so it seems like it would work better with ES. And you can put a green space on an ES roof or make an atrium with green space? It just seems like everyone is married to this idea traditional ES designs when we could think outside the box and get some more space for new schools

Building a custom elementary school with field space on the roof would cost crazy amounts of money. Few of the office buildings are configured for schools, and most are too big for one school. So want your 3rd grade sharing an elevator with rando office workers?

Building vertical is VERY expensive and existing office building don’t work as schools.

I am not saying it isn't expensive, it just seems that if there is no space for no elementary schools I am not sure what else to do. It seems like a solution for when we have run out of space. Are we not at that point now? If we aren't at that point and there is vacant space in Arlington where we can build more schools please let me know.

There is tons of space. They're called community centers and they are completely unnecessary.

They seem well used when I visit them, but sure.

Haha, your sarcasm is hilarious. Only barcroft and arlington mill seems wells used; I go to several other community centers and they are a ghost town.

I think they mostly get used for county classes -- seniors m-f, kids on saturdays. Fairlington is like that.

Anonymous wrote:The thing about those old school sites, is that a lot of them were tiny tiny schools, with significantly larger class sizes and less administration. Look, for example, at the Lee Community Center. That used to be a school. From looking at the building, I'm guessing it had 7 classrooms of kids- one at each grade (6th grade was elementary.) There were no special education coordinators, speech pathologists, school psychologists, etc. I don't know what there were for specials either.
So while I think some of the community centers could be turned back into schools I don't think it is as easy as saying, just kick out the seniors and reclaim them as schools.

Yeah, that's true. They were smaller and more importantly, seniors would never surrender them. But the land is there and the county owns it. That's the hard part. Building a newer taller building is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing about those old school sites, is that a lot of them were tiny tiny schools, with significantly larger class sizes and less administration. Look, for example, at the Lee Community Center. That used to be a school. From looking at the building, I'm guessing it had 7 classrooms of kids- one at each grade (6th grade was elementary.) There were no special education coordinators, speech pathologists, school psychologists, etc. I don't know what there were for specials either.
So while I think some of the community centers could be turned back into schools I don't think it is as easy as saying, just kick out the seniors and reclaim them as schools.

Well, they could definitely make them choice schools, and many of those lots would not be much smaller than the Wilson site, which at one point was planned for a 1300 student middle school.

Alternatively, making existing elementary schools multi level, but maintaining the large green space would not be terrible; not great, and there is no money for it anyway.

There's a limit on their ability to make elementary schools multi-level for safety reasons. Virginia provides that all pre-k, kindergarten, first grade and self-contained SpEd classes are supposed to be on an exit floor for fire safety reasons; these classrooms also have larger minimum square footage requirements and must have bathrooms and coat closets in the rooms, so they take up a lot more space than other classrooms. On a flat parcel, by the time you place those on the first floor along with things like the cafeteria, gym, etc., you're typically going to end up with a larger enough footprint that you can fit the rest of the classes on only one additional level (or with a footprint that can be expanded to fit it all on two floors for less money than it would take to add a third floor).

If you have a parcel with a sharper grade so you can get two levels with direct exits (i.e., a "main" level, and then a level that's below grade on one side but walk-out on the other), I believe you could theoretically do a smaller footprint by spreading those classrooms between the two floors and then go up another couple of levels, but then you run into fire code issues that drive up construction costs significantly (e.g., must use specialty fire-resistant building materials for schools more than two stories; stairwells need special fire-resistant enclosures if they connect more than two floors).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue what’s going to happen to ASFS. I see no viable boundary solution for it.

Yeah, this is generating a lot of uncertainty for the entire key and taylro zones.

Switching ASFS and Key seems like the easiest path for the board right now because then they don't really have to rezone anyone. They switch the faculty some specialty stuff (yes, expensive PITA, but then it's done) and tell the students to just report to the same program, different location. Status quo means redistricting a lot of students, so it isn't really status quo and moving Key somewhere else entirely means finding another building and AND a lot of redistricting. Mess.

They can't just switch and do nothing else because they changed the transfer policy. The immersion program at Key will now be lottery with no neighborhood preference. They will have to adjust boundaries too. So this isn't a quick fix.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue what’s going to happen to ASFS. I see no viable boundary solution for it.

Yeah, this is generating a lot of uncertainty for the entire key and taylro zones.

Disagree. I think it could easily become a neighborhood school for parts of Lyon Village, Virginia Square and Cherrydale. I am not advocating that and realize this would create issues for other neighborhoods but let's face it - any boundary change is going to do that.