Anonymous wrote:I think it’s ok to bus kids past their nearest school if (and only if):
1. You can guarantee reliable transportation, especially for the areas in the county that are being planned as car less
2. You allow and provide transportation to closer elementary schools for extended day
3. You provide a transparent means of transferring to your closest school that accounts for hardships and family circumstances
My kids bus has been reliably late for the six years we have been in elementary school. We report it, they claim to work on trying to fix it, it doesn’t get resolved and by October/November everyone either walks or bikes/drives anyways. Most of the parents in my neighborhood don’t have cars, I’m not sure what we would do if we couldn’t walk when the bus doesn’t show up. It doesn’t really matter if my entire neighborhood is going to an unwalkable school— though I guess we could share an Uber when the bus doesn’t show up.
Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in looking at the maps, my first question is about the zones. They seem contrived and certainly aren't even. Why are there only 2 schools in Zone 4? Why is Taylor Zone 2 and McK zone 1? If those switched, how would it impact the deficits. It feels like manipulated data.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in looking at the maps, my first question is about the zones. They seem contrived and certainly aren't even. Why are there only 2 schools in Zone 4? Why is Taylor Zone 2 and McK zone 1? If those switched, how would it impact the deficits. It feels like manipulated data.
Of course it’s contrived. This is a map that illustrates the issues that boundary process will involve. It’s an exaggeration for effect, not an actual proposal. It’s labeled as such. Can people not read, or do they just not bother?
Anonymous wrote: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.
That answers the question how?
Because you can't afford those neighborhoods means the diversity of choice schools in those neighborhoods is greater than the residential diversity?
Anonymous wrote:Honestly, in looking at the maps, my first question is about the zones. They seem contrived and certainly aren't even. Why are there only 2 schools in Zone 4? Why is Taylor Zone 2 and McK zone 1? If those switched, how would it impact the deficits. It feels like manipulated data.
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.
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.
I didn't even read this entire post but: I live by ATS and my kids go to McK. It's a 20 min drive in the PM during after-care time. Feel free to use your google maps all that you want but I suggest you make the !@#$%^& drive. Also, McK after-care is an s-show.
Anonymous wrote:Car-less and family don’t really go hand in hand around here. We don’t have the infrastructure. This isn’t NYC
Anonymous wrote:Car-less and family don’t really go hand in hand around here. We don’t have the infrastructure. This isn’t NYC
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it’s ok to bus kids past their nearest school if (and only if):
1. You can guarantee reliable transportation, especially for the areas in the county that are being planned as car less
2. You allow and provide transportation to closer elementary schools for extended day
3. You provide a transparent means of transferring to your closest school that accounts for hardships and family circumstances
My kids bus has been reliably late for the six years we have been in elementary school. We report it, they claim to work on trying to fix it, it doesn’t get resolved and by October/November everyone either walks or bikes/drives anyways. Most of the parents in my neighborhood don’t have cars, I’m not sure what we would do if we couldn’t walk when the bus doesn’t show up. It doesn’t really matter if my entire neighborhood is going to an unwalkable school— though I guess we could share an Uber when the bus doesn’t show up.
Relax and face reality. You’ll be just fine at your new school. As awesome as it’d be to have no cars, no where in Arlington is “being planned as car less”.
Anonymous wrote:I think it’s ok to bus kids past their nearest school if (and only if):
1. You can guarantee reliable transportation, especially for the areas in the county that are being planned as car less
2. You allow and provide transportation to closer elementary schools for extended day
3. You provide a transparent means of transferring to your closest school that accounts for hardships and family circumstances
My kids bus has been reliably late for the six years we have been in elementary school. We report it, they claim to work on trying to fix it, it doesn’t get resolved and by October/November everyone either walks or bikes/drives anyways. Most of the parents in my neighborhood don’t have cars, I’m not sure what we would do if we couldn’t walk when the bus doesn’t show up. It doesn’t really matter if my entire neighborhood is going to an unwalkable school— though I guess we could share an Uber when the bus doesn’t show up.
Anonymous wrote:I think it’s ok to bus kids past their nearest school if (and only if):
1. You can guarantee reliable transportation, especially for the areas in the county that are being planned as car less
2. You allow and provide transportation to closer elementary schools for extended day
3. You provide a transparent means of transferring to your closest school that accounts for hardships and family circumstances
My kids bus has been reliably late for the six years we have been in elementary school. We report it, they claim to work on trying to fix it, it doesn’t get resolved and by October/November everyone either walks or bikes/drives anyways. Most of the parents in my neighborhood don’t have cars, I’m not sure what we would do if we couldn’t walk when the bus doesn’t show up. It doesn’t really matter if my entire neighborhood is going to an unwalkable school— though I guess we could share an Uber when the bus doesn’t show up.