Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

They are not going to put four of the five choice programs in the western half of the county, it would make it impossible to manage capacity. Using choice programs to manage capacity only works if the programs are dispersed throughout the county

Not PP, but Carlin Springs isn't a program.

PP proposed putting option programs at Claremont, Carlin Springs, Nottingham and ATS. Those sites are all in the western part of the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

They are not going to put four of the five choice programs in the western half of the county, it would make it impossible to manage capacity. Using choice programs to manage capacity only works if the programs are dispersed throughout the county

PP here. Not defending it, but if you look at the map, they would basically be creating a North/South immersion option (ATS & Carlin Springs) in locations where there is a concentration of Spanish speakers. (ASFS is also a good place for immersion based on native Spanish speakers, but they have a serious seat shortage in the R-B area if you look at the projections-- I just don't see how they can give up that building for neighborhood seats given all the multi-family construction and expected population increase in that area.) Putting a choice program at Nottingham is no more out of the way for South Arlington families than a choice program at Claremont is for North Arlington families. If you want to create more balance, then you either give out a set number of seats at those programs to each neighborhood attendance zone (e.g, HBW process) or alternatively you give out choice seats weighted more heavily to the neighborhood schools that are most overcrowded.

As a county, I still don't think we've come to a consensus on the "goal" of maintaining the traditional and expeditionary learning programs though-- and that goal should drive how we structure the admissions process. In other words, are we trying to target those programs to students with specific needs? Relieve overcrowding? Force more N-S diversity? Unclear.

Nottingham/Tuckahoe/Discovery, basically anything in that quadrant is a nonstarter for economically disadvantaged families without a car. If you live in the part of NA that is zoned to Claremont, you can afford a car and likely have the luxury of a job with paid leave and/or a flexible schedule. Option schools should be accessible for all, not just the wealthy.

To your other points, they are not splitting immersion to N/S rather than E/W. If ATS is a good spot for an option school, they are not going to waste effort and money to move one option school out and another in. That is just ridiculous. As for the goal of the other programs, the admissions process is the same for all countywide programs: open access and parental choice. I don't think that should be changed, nor is there any indication the board is considering any changes. These are schools where you apply when you child is 4 or 5 years old. Except in extreme circumstances, it is unlikely that anything other than parental knowledge of their own child's personality and family preference could be considered. You want kids submitting a preschool portfolio with their application or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

They are not going to put four of the five choice programs in the western half of the county, it would make it impossible to manage capacity. Using choice programs to manage capacity only works if the programs are dispersed throughout the county

Not PP, but Carlin Springs isn't a program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

They are not going to put four of the five choice programs in the western half of the county, it would make it impossible to manage capacity. Using choice programs to manage capacity only works if the programs are dispersed throughout the county

PP here. Not defending it, but if you look at the map, they would basically be creating a North/South immersion option (ATS & Carlin Springs) in locations where there is a concentration of Spanish speakers. (ASFS is also a good place for immersion based on native Spanish speakers, but they have a serious seat shortage in the R-B area if you look at the projections-- I just don't see how they can give up that building for neighborhood seats given all the multi-family construction and expected population increase in that area.) Putting a choice program at Nottingham is no more out of the way for South Arlington families than a choice program at Claremont is for North Arlington families. If you want to create more balance, then you either give out a set number of seats at those programs to each neighborhood attendance zone (e.g, HBW process) or alternatively you give out choice seats weighted more heavily to the neighborhood schools that are most overcrowded.

As a county, I still don't think we've come to a consensus on the "goal" of maintaining the traditional and expeditionary learning programs though-- and that goal should drive how we structure the admissions process. In other words, are we trying to target those programs to students with specific needs? Relieve overcrowding? Force more N-S diversity? Unclear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

They are not going to put four of the five choice programs in the western half of the county, it would make it impossible to manage capacity. Using choice programs to manage capacity only works if the programs are dispersed throughout the county

Anonymous wrote:^^ Edited above to say, I'm not arguing that is the best plan... it is just my best guess about what APS is thinking (as someone who has been involved in this mess for a while)

I think you may be right about Campbell/Claremont/Carlin Springs, but I'm not sure about the rest of it. Having ATS and Nottingham as option schools boxes in Tuckahoe/Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn. Those schools would then be in pretty good shape capacity-wise after Reed opens (and if transfers from ATS start to disproportionately come from those schools due to proximity, it could be even better), but it wouldn't be feasible from a transportation standpoint to then reach past the option schools to pull in additional planning units and relieve overcrowding in the entire territory north/west of there. That means a lot of Nottingham moves to Discovery, Discovery has to move to Jamestown and Glebe, Jamestown pushes to Taylor and both Taylor and Glebe push students back into ASFS/Key. Further, since you have to keep some kind of geographic division between the immersion programs for planning purposes, the further west you move the Key immersion program, the less appeal it will have for families from the part of the county it needs to draw from, which risks making it underenrolled.

Anonymous wrote:^^ Edited above to say, I'm not arguing that is the best plan... it is just my best guess about what APS is thinking (as someone who has been involved in this mess for a while)

So, do you know if Staff has talked about the S. Frederick Street development? I think there are going to be a lot of kids generated by those multi-bedroom affordable units. And knowing where there will be kids, not just where they are now, seems like a very important part of this puzzle.

^^ Edited above to say, I'm not arguing that is the best plan... it is just my best guess about what APS is thinking (as someone who has been involved in this mess for a while)

Anonymous wrote:APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

Chadwick isn't involved anymore. They moved projections over to Lisa Stengle's area, and supposedly they are working more closely with County housing staff now to have one consistent set of population projections that reflects where they expect housing growth based on construction projects in the pipeline. The spring projection spreadsheet doesn't usually come out until mid-April, so it isn't late yet. The updated fall projections came out on Dec. 12, 2017 and are available here: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FallProjections18-27_Official_Web.pdf

You can see from the spreadsheet above that they have big problems with the ASFS/Key area. I don't see how they can avoid making both of those buildings neighborhood schools with those population numbers. My guess is the Key immersion program moves to the ATS building and the ATS program moves to Nottingham-- but all that doesn't happen until Reed opens in 2021.

In the meantime, Campbell program moves to Claremont, Claremont program to Carlin Springs, and Carlin Springs program to Campbell-- and that can all happen much more quickly (when Fleet opens) because it doesn't require the new seats at Reed to make it work.

APS's enrollment forecast will be useless as long as Chadwick is involved with them. Ask McKinley.

This year's option applications are useless. We need to know what they will be in 2021 when Reed options. We also need those growth numbers. That's why this is a bad idea. Can't do anything until we have the new projection charts. Shouldn't those be out by now? When you can't predict what school enrollment is next year, it is a terrible idea to decide three years in advance to move schools around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS went to McKinley, all the McKinley kids not going to Reed could fit in the old ATS building. So you decrease the neighborhood seats in NW with the least disruption.

ATS magically has 800 kids per year? You don't pull one of the largest elementary schools out of the densest part of the county to protect schools with smaller footprints.

Additionally, you pull from McKinley the three planning units that would go to Reed, and the remainder fit just fine in the existing building with no need to move it. You gain nothing at that point by swapping ATS and McKinley.

Anonymous wrote:If ATS went to McKinley, all the McKinley kids not going to Reed could fit in the old ATS building. So you decrease the neighborhood seats in NW with the least disruption.

ATS magically has 800 kids per year? You don't pull one of the largest elementary schools out of the densest part of the county to protect schools with smaller footprints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do anticipate moving Expeditionary, I suspect Tuckahoe may not be as safe as everyone thinks. This was just an analysis, not a commitment to take all of those corner schools off the table. I think once they have the full application figures, they'll realize they can't move Expeditionary into a larger-capacity site because there will be too much risk of not being able to fill seats and wasting a site that easily accommodate relocatables that Expeditionary doesn't need, so it's not a good fit for Nottingham. Same reasoning applies to Carlin Springs and every other school identified as a top candidate in the first round of analysis.

Even though Tuckahoe is in that corner, the rationale for eliminating corner schools from the analysis doesn't really apply there because they do have a lot of options for Tuckahoe students between Nottingham, McKinley and Reed. Tuckahoe has a much better site for the current Expeditionary program, and then that quadrant (which has one of the higher population growth rates in the county) doesn't lose as many potential seats for neighborhood growth (which they'll need if they put an option school in the NW quadrant).

This is what I don't understand about the rationale, and I haven't had the chance to watch the video of the work session to see if it was explained better than in the written analysis. They seem to be operating under the presumption that smaller neighborhood schools will be fine because enough people will self select to the option schools. What if they don't? Then you have hugely massively overcrowded neighborhood schools with larger option schools sitting with vacant seats. IMO, option schools are a nice to have in Arlington, but the vast majority of parents don't even attempt the lotteries which says to me that the priority is neighborhood seats.

The SB knows this is a flaw with the staff's rationale, they're not prepared to sign onto the analysis until they see the application and yield numbers for all of the programs. Option applications are due Monday and families have to accept/decline their spaces by May 21, so there will be time to change the analysis if the numbers just don't support this approach before the June 21 vote.

Thursday's analysis is far from a done deal, we're a long way from a final SB decision.

If ATS went to McKinley, all the McKinley kids not going to Reed could fit in the old ATS building. So you decrease the neighborhood seats in NW with the least disruption.