Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Before anyone jumps on me for just trying to deflect from Tuckahoe, let me say that up to now I've been pretty vocal in this discussion and others about Tuckahoe being a viable option school. The preschool thing literally just occurred to me, but I think it's an important consideration if we're sincere about wanting to create/maintain opportunities for lower-income students in Arlington.

The county doesn't seem to have an issue with having preschools without bathrooms in the classroom. I don't think Madison has them...do the other preschool locations?

The standards are different for public and private preschool programs.

The preschools at community centers are public. Maybe APS has different standards...or maybe a classroom or two of first graders could sacrifice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to consider as we debate moving option schools is that all of the option schools also have VPI programs, and students currently in those VPI classes have the option of continuing at those schools when they enter kindergarten rather than transferring to their neighborhood school (except for Drew, because it's Montessori and VPI isn't). If you move one of those option schools to an elementary school that isn't currently outfitted for a preschool program, you'd either have to discontinue that school's preschool program or do a major renovation to accommodate a preschool program. Neither Tuckahoe nor Nottingham currently has a preschool program. I know Nottingham doesn't have enough classrooms with their own bathrooms to accommodate a preschool program in addition to kindergarten and first grade classes (all of which are supposed to have bathrooms in the classrooms), does Tuckahoe?

Moving ATS further north to a location that couldn't accommodate the VPI program would potentially kill its diversity numbers and make it a school for the white UMC of North Arlington only.

Before anyone jumps on me for just trying to deflect from Tuckahoe, let me say that up to now I've been pretty vocal in this discussion and others about Tuckahoe being a viable option school. The preschool thing literally just occurred to me, but I think it's an important consideration if we're sincere about wanting to create/maintain opportunities for lower-income students in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Before anyone jumps on me for just trying to deflect from Tuckahoe, let me say that up to now I've been pretty vocal in this discussion and others about Tuckahoe being a viable option school. The preschool thing literally just occurred to me, but I think it's an important consideration if we're sincere about wanting to create/maintain opportunities for lower-income students in Arlington.

The county doesn't seem to have an issue with having preschools without bathrooms in the classroom. I don't think Madison has them...do the other preschool locations?

The standards are different for public and private preschool programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Before anyone jumps on me for just trying to deflect from Tuckahoe, let me say that up to now I've been pretty vocal in this discussion and others about Tuckahoe being a viable option school. The preschool thing literally just occurred to me, but I think it's an important consideration if we're sincere about wanting to create/maintain opportunities for lower-income students in Arlington.

The county doesn't seem to have an issue with having preschools without bathrooms in the classroom. I don't think Madison has them...do the other preschool locations?

Before anyone jumps on me for just trying to deflect from Tuckahoe, let me say that up to now I've been pretty vocal in this discussion and others about Tuckahoe being a viable option school. The preschool thing literally just occurred to me, but I think it's an important consideration if we're sincere about wanting to create/maintain opportunities for lower-income students in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:One thing to consider as we debate moving option schools is that all of the option schools also have VPI programs, and students currently in those VPI classes have the option of continuing at those schools when they enter kindergarten rather than transferring to their neighborhood school (except for Drew, because it's Montessori and VPI isn't). If you move one of those option schools to an elementary school that isn't currently outfitted for a preschool program, you'd either have to discontinue that school's preschool program or do a major renovation to accommodate a preschool program. Neither Tuckahoe nor Nottingham currently has a preschool program. I know Nottingham doesn't have enough classrooms with their own bathrooms to accommodate a preschool program in addition to kindergarten and first grade classes (all of which are supposed to have bathrooms in the classrooms), does Tuckahoe?

Moving ATS further north to a location that couldn't accommodate the VPI program would potentially kill its diversity numbers and make it a school for the white UMC of North Arlington only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we really need to save money...should we just shutdown a school for a few years until we need capacity? This is something the SB should really consider.

We have the capacity in that part of Arlington. The cost of running buses is a joke compared to the cost of a school. Let's be honest with ourselves and idle Tuckahoe for a few years or make it an option school.

Can you think of a better way to use the money or run a bunch of schools at 50% to 75% capacity?

This is an absurd suggestion. Even after Fleet and Reed open, the system as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level and they can't close a school without making that even worse. If they don't move an option school into that area and there's an excess of seats as a result, it will mean busing more students to fill those seats and give relief elsewhere, not closing a school.

Who are we going to bus? This will turn into the middle school situation all over again. Anyone but me...the end result will be several empty schools unless we put a desirable option in that part of Arlington. Otherwise those schools will end up empty just like Williamsburg. What a waste of APS resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we really need to save money...should we just shutdown a school for a few years until we need capacity? This is something the SB should really consider.

We have the capacity in that part of Arlington. The cost of running buses is a joke compared to the cost of a school. Let's be honest with ourselves and idle Tuckahoe for a few years or make it an option school.

Can you think of a better way to use the money or run a bunch of schools at 50% to 75% capacity?

This is an absurd suggestion. Even after Fleet and Reed open, the system as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level and they can't close a school without making that even worse. If they don't move an option school into that area and there's an excess of seats as a result, it will mean busing more students to fill those seats and give relief elsewhere, not closing a school.

Who are we going to bus? This will turn into the middle school situation all over again. Anyone but me...the end result will be several empty schools unless we put a desirable option in that part of Arlington. Otherwise those schools will end up empty just like Williamsburg. What a waste of APS resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we really need to save money...should we just shutdown a school for a few years until we need capacity? This is something the SB should really consider.

We have the capacity in that part of Arlington. The cost of running buses is a joke compared to the cost of a school. Let's be honest with ourselves and idle Tuckahoe for a few years or make it an option school.

Can you think of a better way to use the money or run a bunch of schools at 50% to 75% capacity?

This is an absurd suggestion. Even after Fleet and Reed open, the system as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level and they can't close a school without making that even worse. If they don't move an option school into that area and there's an excess of seats as a result, it will mean busing more students to fill those seats and give relief elsewhere, not closing a school.

Anonymous wrote:If we really need to save money...should we just shutdown a school for a few years until we need capacity? This is something the SB should really consider.

We have the capacity in that part of Arlington. The cost of running buses is a joke compared to the cost of a school. Let's be honest with ourselves and idle Tuckahoe for a few years or make it an option school.

Can you think of a better way to use the money or run a bunch of schools at 50% to 75% capacity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a PTA advocating for the best interests of its school, but there are a couple of issues here:

1) They shouldn't pretend they aren't advocating for a resolution that would come at the expense of others. Keeping Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school means not relocating an option program from another community that also may need more neighborhood seats, and maintaining an arrangement of neighborhood vs. option schools that requires greater busing means taking school funds that could have gone to other needs and applying it to transportation instead. There still may be good arguments for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school, but those arguments need to address why that's a better solution for the system as a whole rather than taking a "screw everyone else, I want mine" approach.

2) The PTA needs to make sure that the position for which they're advocating actually represents the interests of the full Tuckahoe community rather than just a small subset. There are a lot of Tuckahoe families who currently are bused to Tuckahoe but that could be walkers to other schools, and many of those families would prefer to walk to their actual neighborhood schools rather than be bused further away. By advocating for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school that necessarily would include those families, the PTA is ignoring their needs and interests. This issue is why, for instance, the Nottingham PTA has stopped taking positions on boundary issues (it provides information/updates, but does not advocate or encourage parents to advocate for a particular position). It knows that different families will have conflicting preferences and since it can't properly represent everyone's preferences, it's not going to represent any of them.

None of the option schools want to move to Tuckahoe, and the cost to bus countywide to Tuckahoe would surely not be any less than to their more centralized current locations. The ONLY reason Tuckahoe makes any sense as an option is that there might be too many neighborhood seats in the NW quadrant after Reed opens. Moving an option program to Tuckahoe could address that issue, but it creates other issues. It certainly won't be less expensive to bus kids to that location from all across the county. And it could harm existing programs.

None of the option schools want to move to Tuckahoe, and the cost to bus countywide to Tuckahoe would surely not be any less than to their more centralized current locations. The ONLY reason Tuckahoe makes any sense as an option is that there might be too many neighborhood seats in the NW quadrant after Reed opens. Moving an option program to Tuckahoe could address that issue, but it creates other issues. It certainly won't be less expensive to bus kids to that location from all across the county. And it could harm existing programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are advocating not to eliminate their school. is there a theory under which that is wrong? how is it different than a school advocating to address its overcrowding?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a PTA advocating for the best interests of its school, but there are a couple of issues here:

1) They shouldn't pretend they aren't advocating for a resolution that would come at the expense of others. Keeping Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school means not relocating an option program from another community that also may need more neighborhood seats, and maintaining an arrangement of neighborhood vs. option schools that requires greater busing means taking school funds that could have gone to other needs and applying it to transportation instead. There still may be good arguments for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school, but those arguments need to address why that's a better solution for the system as a whole rather than taking a "screw everyone else, I want mine" approach.

2) The PTA needs to make sure that the position for which they're advocating actually represents the interests of the full Tuckahoe community rather than just a small subset. There are a lot of Tuckahoe families who currently are bused to Tuckahoe but that could be walkers to other schools, and many of those families would prefer to walk to their actual neighborhood schools rather than be bused further away. By advocating for keeping Tuckahoe a neighborhood school that necessarily would include those families, the PTA is ignoring their needs and interests. This issue is why, for instance, the Nottingham PTA has stopped taking positions on boundary issues (it provides information/updates, but does not advocate or encourage parents to advocate for a particular position). It knows that different families will have conflicting preferences and since it can't properly represent everyone's preferences, it's not going to represent any of them.