Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's a big difference between placing an option program like ATS at McKinley, for example, and placing it at Nottingham. Part of the complaint from immersion middle school parents is how distant Gunston MS is at the southern border. Those are the parents who would love to see MS immersion at Williamsburg.


McKinley and Nottingham are 2 miles apart and a 7 minute drive. McKinley and Tuckahoe are 1.8 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are 0.9 miles apart and a 4 minute drive.

ATS and McKinley are 1.9 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. ATS and Nottingham are 2.9 miles apart and a 9 minute drive. ATS and Tuckahoe are 2.9 miles apart and a 10 minute drive.

This is all from GoogleMaps. I am not making it up. I'm not sure what a "big difference" we're talking about here. At most, the location differences mean 1 mile and 4 minutes. If you are coming from say, the Buckingham neighborhood, it is a 14 min drive to Nottingham and an 11 minute drive to McKinley. Moving ATS to McKinley instead of Nottingham makes no difference from a convenience perspective.

If ATS (or another choice program) is relocated to the NW, there really isn't a significant difference from a driving perspective between the McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Nottingham sites. They need to look at building size. If the NW is only going to be overcapacity by +133 seats, then that suggests that if they relocate an option school, then it should go to the smallest of the three buildings. Otherwise, the NW is back to a deficit of neighborhood seats immediately.

This is the problem. People continue to look at capacity and enrollment and growth and deficits in sections. the capacity isn't there no matter where you put the programs. You can move kids - and yes kids can go to a neighborhood school that isn't the closest one to their house. Capacity is an issue no matter where the programs are located. But people only want to solve their own "quadrant" without considering what the impacts are elsewhere.

But there isn’t any growth predicted for the NW quadrant. That’s the issue. Other than SFH turnover, there will be no new developments in the next 10-20 years. Meanwhile, across S Arlington and in NE Arlington around the R-B corridor, they know there will be a lot of development, much of it multifamily and with 2 + bedrooms, and that generate kids, even more kids than SFHs if it’s CAF. All the AH in the county is going in these areas, the ones that NW zoning prevents and will continue to prevent. Accessible dwelling units aren’t going to produce any extra kids, and SFH turnover is a lot slower at generating kids. So, basically, whether by option or by boundary, they need to shift kids N and W. And it’s not a temporary problem that trailers can fix, because it’s a feature of the housing plan. Until they build more schools in the E and S, there isn’t another choice.

Precisely why people need to stop looking at just their own school or their own quadrant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many location constraints in Arlington that the days of ideal placement of option schools is over. Obviously immersion needs to be where Spanish speakers are in high concentration in order to obtain close to a 50:50 mix, but beyond that the option schools need to go to areas that can bear to give up neighborhood seats, and those locations probably won’t be in the center of the county.

I just disagree with people that it's only ok to bus kids who choose to be bused. Kids go where their school district needs them to go. One child isn't any more important or entitled to go to the closest school than any other.

Anonymous wrote:22:01 - Thanks for being so obtuse. A handful of old people wanted to fight the trees, but most of the neighborhood
wanted the project to move forward. A handful of old people didn’t want anything built, but most of the neighborhood wanted the school built. So you lot have retired people in your neighborhood that try to raise a stink over things? If so, you must live in the only neighborhood of its kind.

People fought the Heights. People fought Fleet. People fought Discovery. People fought the McKinley addition.

Anonymous wrote:

There's a big difference between placing an option program like ATS at McKinley, for example, and placing it at Nottingham. Part of the complaint from immersion middle school parents is how distant Gunston MS is at the southern border. Those are the parents who would love to see MS immersion at Williamsburg.


McKinley and Nottingham are 2 miles apart and a 7 minute drive. McKinley and Tuckahoe are 1.8 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are 0.9 miles apart and a 4 minute drive.

ATS and McKinley are 1.9 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. ATS and Nottingham are 2.9 miles apart and a 9 minute drive. ATS and Tuckahoe are 2.9 miles apart and a 10 minute drive.

This is all from GoogleMaps. I am not making it up. I'm not sure what a "big difference" we're talking about here. At most, the location differences mean 1 mile and 4 minutes. If you are coming from say, the Buckingham neighborhood, it is a 14 min drive to Nottingham and an 11 minute drive to McKinley. Moving ATS to McKinley instead of Nottingham makes no difference from a convenience perspective.

If ATS (or another choice program) is relocated to the NW, there really isn't a significant difference from a driving perspective between the McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Nottingham sites. They need to look at building size. If the NW is only going to be overcapacity by +133 seats, then that suggests that if they relocate an option school, then it should go to the smallest of the three buildings. Otherwise, the NW is back to a deficit of neighborhood seats immediately.

This is the problem. People continue to look at capacity and enrollment and growth and deficits in sections. the capacity isn't there no matter where you put the programs. You can move kids - and yes kids can go to a neighborhood school that isn't the closest one to their house. Capacity is an issue no matter where the programs are located. But people only want to solve their own "quadrant" without considering what the impacts are elsewhere.

But there isn’t any growth predicted for the NW quadrant. That’s the issue. Other than SFH turnover, there will be no new developments in the next 10-20 years. Meanwhile, across S Arlington and in NE Arlington around the R-B corridor, they know there will be a lot of development, much of it multifamily and with 2 + bedrooms, and that generate kids, even more kids than SFHs if it’s CAF. All the AH in the county is going in these areas, the ones that NW zoning prevents and will continue to prevent. Accessible dwelling units aren’t going to produce any extra kids, and SFH turnover is a lot slower at generating kids. So, basically, whether by option or by boundary, they need to shift kids N and W. And it’s not a temporary problem that trailers can fix, because it’s a feature of the housing plan. Until they build more schools in the E and S, there isn’t another choice.

There's a big difference between placing an option program like ATS at McKinley, for example, and placing it at Nottingham. Part of the complaint from immersion middle school parents is how distant Gunston MS is at the southern border. Those are the parents who would love to see MS immersion at Williamsburg.


McKinley and Nottingham are 2 miles apart and a 7 minute drive. McKinley and Tuckahoe are 1.8 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are 0.9 miles apart and a 4 minute drive.

ATS and McKinley are 1.9 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. ATS and Nottingham are 2.9 miles apart and a 9 minute drive. ATS and Tuckahoe are 2.9 miles apart and a 10 minute drive.

This is all from GoogleMaps. I am not making it up. I'm not sure what a "big difference" we're talking about here. At most, the location differences mean 1 mile and 4 minutes. If you are coming from say, the Buckingham neighborhood, it is a 14 min drive to Nottingham and an 11 minute drive to McKinley. Moving ATS to McKinley instead of Nottingham makes no difference from a convenience perspective.

If ATS (or another choice program) is relocated to the NW, there really isn't a significant difference from a driving perspective between the McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Nottingham sites. They need to look at building size. If the NW is only going to be overcapacity by +133 seats, then that suggests that if they relocate an option school, then it should go to the smallest of the three buildings. Otherwise, the NW is back to a deficit of neighborhood seats immediately.

This is the problem. People continue to look at capacity and enrollment and growth and deficits in sections. the capacity isn't there no matter where you put the programs. You can move kids - and yes kids can go to a neighborhood school that isn't the closest one to their house. Capacity is an issue no matter where the programs are located. But people only want to solve their own "quadrant" without considering what the impacts are elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everyone on AEM needs to calm down. There are Westover people making solemn vows to fight for Reed as neighborhood as if it’s their birth right. And other non-Westover people dissecting details of discussions from 8 years ago. Breathe. We’re all going to be alright.

The biggest flipper outer routinely overreacts to a variety of issues, many unrelated to Reed.

But as God is my witness Westover will not take it on the chin again!

Oh the poor VICTIMS in Westover. Of course you are aggrieved. Not to have your very own neighborhood elementary school (after petitioning against one). Having to endure a (4 minute) drive to other (highly rated) elementary schools instead. Making do with your huge field, your very own library and a walkable middle school instead.

We all feel for you.

Do you realize most people who live in Westover and have kids weren't here in 2011 when APS decided to build at Discovery? That area has had a massive amount of turnover (old people leaving, new families coming in), which has contributed to the massive overcrowding at McKinley. Also, while some where arguing against an elementary school, some were arguing to have it put IN Westover. Those people were your collective "Westover" that you all like to refer to. There isn't one Westover voice. You pick the one person you find annoying (and every neighborhood has them) and then stereotype or act out a vendetta against them. Grow up.

And, because it needs to be said a 5000th time, the school proposal APS put out in 2011 was one of the types of designs that never made it past the first round when an actual committee of APS, community members and county board staff got involved for new Reed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is completely inequitable to move ATS to far NW Arlington. It needs to be central. There’s only one. If you move it to the wealthiest enclaves then those will be the only families who can make the trek across the county. You will lose all/most lower income families. I sure hope APS is not that clueless.

Good. Move it and make it look like the inadequate enclave within a segregated school system that it is. And, make it an even more inconvenient escape valve for UMC South Arlington parents. Option schools are a complete sop to those latter parents designed only to quiet down what would otherwise be loud and widespread outrage over the egregious economic segregation in Arlington schools.

What you say is not entirely off base but at the same time, it’s also true that the option schools are the most diverse and integrated schools in the system. It cuts both ways. Getting rid of them would not help the cause of racial and economic integration in APS. Quite the opposite.

Are they really more diverse and integrated than the neighborhoods in which they sit, though?

Pretty much. I’m UMC and can not afford to buy a home in the neighborhoods surrounding Henry, Key, ATS, or Claremont.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between placing an option program like ATS at McKinley, for example, and placing it at Nottingham. Part of the complaint from immersion middle school parents is how distant Gunston MS is at the southern border. Those are the parents who would love to see MS immersion at Williamsburg.

McKinley and Nottingham are 2 miles apart and a 7 minute drive. McKinley and Tuckahoe are 1.8 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are 0.9 miles apart and a 4 minute drive.

ATS and McKinley are 1.9 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. ATS and Nottingham are 2.9 miles apart and a 9 minute drive. ATS and Tuckahoe are 2.9 miles apart and a 10 minute drive.

This is all from GoogleMaps. I am not making it up. I'm not sure what a "big difference" we're talking about here. At most, the location differences mean 1 mile and 4 minutes. If you are coming from say, the Buckingham neighborhood, it is a 14 min drive to Nottingham and an 11 minute drive to McKinley. Moving ATS to McKinley instead of Nottingham makes no difference from a convenience perspective.

If ATS (or another choice program) is relocated to the NW, there really isn't a significant difference from a driving perspective between the McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Nottingham sites. They need to look at building size. If the NW is only going to be overcapacity by +133 seats, then that suggests that if they relocate an option school, then it should go to the smallest of the three buildings. Otherwise, the NW is back to a deficit of neighborhood seats immediately.

This is the problem. People continue to look at capacity and enrollment and growth and deficits in sections. the capacity isn't there no matter where you put the programs. You can move kids - and yes kids can go to a neighborhood school that isn't the closest one to their house. Capacity is an issue no matter where the programs are located. But people only want to solve their own "quadrant" without considering what the impacts are elsewhere.