Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower discussion at this work session was specifically noted in the context of “option schools” so I suppose this was immersion programs. I don’t follow any logic that this helps balance demographics. It does however create mega-elementary schools (1,000+ seats) and I don’t know any parent who wants that. Yuk! However, this is all smoke an mirrors because APS has no land/space to actually do this so no one really needs to worry. If they did have space our projections clearly show they need to be building entirely new schools not these piecemeal band-aid approaches.

The school sites themselves don't have to be "mega-schools," they would only be that if you lumped the upper and lower sites together, which isn't how it works for things like cafeteria usage and specials rooms. I think they probably were thinking of the immersion program when they tossed it out, because it would do away with the geographic divide between Key and Claremont and all the logistical hassles that creates if the sites remain further apart, it makes for a lot of efficiencies if the sites are near each other. But it also has a lot of potential to address demographic issues, which they acknowledged last night that there are a lot barriers to remedying otherwise. As someone else mentioned, if they did that with Drew and Abingdon, the schools are sufficiently close together that it wouldn't create huge transit hassles, both communities would get to stay together, and you'd have much more balanced demographics at both schools. Someone else above mentioned hassles of having kids at two different schools during elementary years due to age differences, but with upper and lower schools, the schools could easily coordinate to reduce scheduling conflicts (e.g., put back to schools nights on different nights). Beyond that, it's no different than when those families would eventually have kids split between elementary and middle or middle and high schools.

I think this may be one of the most viable ideas APS has come up with yet to address demographic imbalance in the county.

Anonymous wrote:The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

It's not. They could stagger bell schedules and have the same busses go to both schools. For extended day, have a bus taking kids from upper school to lower school. Have two busses (and early and late) shuttle between the two schools for dismissal and before school so that you have people walking to school if they are in the walk zone for either school, or just dropping off kids at one school. Its only annoying if you need to pick up in the middle of the day (not the norm) or exactly after school to make an activity or something. Parties/halloween might be annoying, but that shouldn't be a main motivation, especially since the benefits of balancing demographics really outweigh the inconvenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay- I watched the work session. Here are my takeaways.

1. Leaving the North West schools 1/2 empty and filling them with preschool is not on the table b/c they will only put VPI classes near VPI population and apparently can't even fill the 2/3 spots at Jamestown for Montessori.
2. If they don't make Key a neighborhood school, but keep it immersion- all schools will be affected and school communities will look substantially different as they attempt to draw boundaries to accommodate the need for seats in Rosslyn and the availability of seats in the North West.
3. The IPP is a tool for the Staff- but it is not going to be adopted by the Board.
4. The principals are most concerned about demographics.
5. They are considering pairing some schools upper and lower to better balance demographics- e.g. pair Abindgon and Drew.
6. Abingdon is going to be grossly overcrowded.

Disagree with 3 and 4

3. All but Reid seemed on board with IPP so I think they’d adopt if it went to a vote (Reid would loose 4:1)
4. Several other concerns of principals were noted (again, Reid felt most strong about demographics but that was not what was relayed about principals’ concerns).

DP, but I think you misunderstood the debate on 3. Goldstein wanted it adopted as a formal board policy/resolution, which would mean committing to implement it. The other four specifically opposed this because while they support the IPP, they think it I said better used as a staff planning document to guide decisions that can be reviewed and revised on a regular schedule as needs, resources, data, etc., change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is to start from scratch and make boundaries based on where schools will be in 2021 and where the kids will be living then. Being held hostage by current boundaries and "least disruptive" is why were have some schools so crowded while others have space and why we have weird boundaries that make for crazy numbers of buses.

Yes. But this is hard and you don't get re-elected doing this, even if it's the best thing for the county as a whole. I say this as someone who went through some whip lash last year because of the elementary boundaries. It's much much better if they just DECIDE and stop all the community input. Parents will whine and cry, kids will be upset, and then everyone will move on because this is life!

Make the effective date happen in a few years, allow some grandfathering for 4th/5th graders and siblings, and just get. it. done.

Grandfathering drives up transportation costs significantly. We will likely change schools in 2021, when my youngest will be going into 4th, and I completely oppose grandfathering.

Anonymous wrote:Okay- I watched the work session. Here are my takeaways.

1. Leaving the North West schools 1/2 empty and filling them with preschool is not on the table b/c they will only put VPI classes near VPI population and apparently can't even fill the 2/3 spots at Jamestown for Montessori.
2. If they don't make Key a neighborhood school, but keep it immersion- all schools will be affected and school communities will look substantially different as they attempt to draw boundaries to accommodate the need for seats in Rosslyn and the availability of seats in the North West.
3. The IPP is a tool for the Staff- but it is not going to be adopted by the Board.
4. The principals are most concerned about demographics.
5. They are considering pairing some schools upper and lower to better balance demographics- e.g. pair Abindgon and Drew.
6. Abingdon is going to be grossly overcrowded.

Disagree with 3 and 4

3. All but Reid seemed on board with IPP so I think they’d adopt if it went to a vote (Reid would loose 4:1)
4. Several other concerns of principals were noted (again, Reid felt most strong about demographics but that was not what was relayed about principals’ concerns).

The upper and lower idea, while possibly good for demographics, is a logistical nightmare for parents of more than one kid in elementary school. It won’t happen.

The upper and lower discussion at this work session was specifically noted in the context of “option schools” so I suppose this was immersion programs. I don’t follow any logic that this helps balance demographics. It does however create mega-elementary schools (1,000+ seats) and I don’t know any parent who wants that. Yuk! However, this is all smoke an mirrors because APS has no land/space to actually do this so no one really needs to worry. If they did have space our projections clearly show they need to be building entirely new schools not these piecemeal band-aid approaches.

Okay- I watched the work session. Here are my takeaways.

1. Leaving the North West schools 1/2 empty and filling them with preschool is not on the table b/c they will only put VPI classes near VPI population and apparently can't even fill the 2/3 spots at Jamestown for Montessori.
2. If they don't make Key a neighborhood school, but keep it immersion- all schools will be affected and school communities will look substantially different as they attempt to draw boundaries to accommodate the need for seats in Rosslyn and the availability of seats in the North West.
3. The IPP is a tool for the Staff- but it is not going to be adopted by the Board.
4. The principals are most concerned about demographics.
5. They are considering pairing some schools upper and lower to better balance demographics- e.g. pair Abindgon and Drew.
6. Abingdon is going to be grossly overcrowded.

Anonymous wrote:The point is to start from scratch and make boundaries based on where schools will be in 2021 and where the kids will be living then. Being held hostage by current boundaries and "least disruptive" is why were have some schools so crowded while others have space and why we have weird boundaries that make for crazy numbers of buses.

Yes. But this is hard and you don't get re-elected doing this, even if it's the best thing for the county as a whole. I say this as someone who went through some whip lash last year because of the elementary boundaries. It's much much better if they just DECIDE and stop all the community input. Parents will whine and cry, kids will be upset, and then everyone will move on because this is life!

Make the effective date happen in a few years, allow some grandfathering for 4th/5th graders and siblings, and just get. it. done.

I have no dog in the ASFS/Key fight, but APS SB needs to rip off the band aid and start making some real decisions instead of punting all the time. My biggest concern is how wrong the APS admin have been repeatedly on the math (i.e., Yorktown HS numbers during smaller boundary realignment comes to mind). This is too important to get the numbers wrong, especially if they do all of the elementary school zones.

Also, if they move immersion to Reed or wherever, I'd be interested to know how many current immersion families (native English speaking ones) in the Rosslyn area will just send their kids to Key if it becomes a regular immersion or whatever neighborhood school they were originally zoned for.

Anonymous wrote:The point is to start from scratch and make boundaries based on where schools will be in 2021 and where the kids will be living then. Being held hostage by current boundaries and "least disruptive" is why were have some schools so crowded while others have space and why we have weird boundaries that make for crazy numbers of buses.

They SHOULD determine locations and start from scratch. But they don't have the wherewithal or the courage to do that. The SB is talking "big" to warn people that all boundaries are up for potential revisions; but when it comes down to it, they will cave and continue to avoid as much conflict as possible rather than think about what is best for the school system and what would allow the system to best serve the children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What school is the easy money for where they will move Spanish immersion? Carlin Springs? ATS? Barcroft?

I don’t k ow, but Goldstein was pretty clear he wants an option program in NW Arlington, but centrally located NW Arlington. $5 says he’s privately pushing (again) for it to be Nottingham.

An option program in NW makes little sense unless you want to make it inaccessible to South Arlington residents.

If there are too many seats in NW, the new school — Reed — should be an option school. Then you don’t have to disrupt everyone around it in re-drawing boundaries. It is certainly a better location for an option school than Nottingham.

I agree, but wash “they promised” reed wouldn’t be an option School. So much better not to move everyone around.

+1

APS and the School Board have promised many things over the last two years that never happened. Not sure why Reed-- which is the obvious, least disruptive location for an option school-- should be untouchable.

There was a formal board resolution that Reed would be neighborhood. They can’t just change course on a dime, they’d have to pass another formal board resolution with community participation, etc.

Where is the rule that community participation has to be part of a Board resolution? And what community? Who's to say that THE greater community would not support a new resolution?

DP, and I don’t think it’s true that there has to be a community process. But they would have to vote and have public comment.

I think the only reason they’re talking about an option program anywhere in the NW is that they will have built too many seats too close together. They can’t fill Reed without emptying another school and there just isn’t the density of housing, and there won’t be in the near future despite talk of development along Lee Hwy or at EFC (yeah right), that can support so many neighborhood seats. And once they spend all this money to build another school, they won’t have it to build one anywhere else for quite a few more years, but the kids keep coming. So, I’m not sure what other choice they have really, except very odd boundaries that would make a lot of kids bus riders. To me, an option school, at the least walkable site, would be better planning. Putting the program into Reed would be least disruptive to current boundaries, but it would also be using up a very large number of permanent neighborhood seats that are highly walkable. I don’t think options schools should be getting the newest, largest buildings in areas where there could be a lot of walkers. I don’t think that should be the only consideration, like maybe they don’t have to move option schools for that reason alone, but if they’re starting from scratch, they need to make a sound decision. Also, it should not be Spanish immersion given the demographics.

One could also argue that they can't fill McKinley or Tuckahoe or Nottingham after Reed opens if they make the boundaries sensible to density and to reduce bus traffic. Those pushing for Reed as option just don't want to move their current location. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't want to see another shiny new building go to an option school while others around it still sit in trailers.

I think it's time to return to additions at existing schools. Everyone should be benefiting. The argument has been that it isn't as cost-efficient as building a whole new school. But I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of full costs for a new building plus new boundaries plus new and revised bus routes, etc. And even so, our old buildings should be maintained and provide a comparable pleasant learning facility as the new builds.

I second the recommendation to move Key immersion to ATS and eliminate ATS as a program. Those kids will do just as well wherever they go, with the exception of the VPI students who will then merely be sent back to their 65% and up FRL and high ELL % schools. But I want to see the projections - once there are two new neighborhood schools in the north, I suspect the north schools will all be nice and comfy while all the south schools become increasingly crowded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not ready to have to start caring about APS garbage again. Can it please go back to summer?

Then why are you posting/reading here?

I'm just waiting for all the crazy ASF/Key to start fighting about boundaries now that the swap was called off-- isn't this the time where everyone starts complaining about the longest bus ride ever and the Cherrosslyn war (or whatever it was called)? As a neighborhood school, ASF is going to have to have a walk zone and let the actual neighborhood kids attend.

No one had any issue at asfs with there being two neighborhood schools— key, asfs, Taylor, and long branch all staying neighborhood. The conflict came when people thought that only key or asfs could be neighborhood. Most of asfs lives around key, so from that groups perspective, key should be the neighborhood school site. Rosslyn is about as far from key as the neighborhood around asfs is from Taylor. You can see why they thought that was the most equitable solution. The cherry dale/va square parents really didn’t want another school in their neighborhood that they can’t attend. If there’s two neighborhood schools, then everyone in that neighborhood is happy.
I think the upper/lower is for key/asfs personally, it’s something people in the area have been pushing because it helps balance demographics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not ready to have to start caring about APS garbage again. Can it please go back to summer?

Then why are you posting/reading here?

I'm just waiting for all the crazy ASF/Key to start fighting about boundaries now that the swap was called off-- isn't this the time where everyone starts complaining about the longest bus ride ever and the Cherrosslyn war (or whatever it was called)? As a neighborhood school, ASF is going to have to have a walk zone and let the actual neighborhood kids attend.

No more waiting, right? You just stirred the pot.

The point is to start from scratch and make boundaries based on where schools will be in 2021 and where the kids will be living then. Being held hostage by current boundaries and "least disruptive" is why were have some schools so crowded while others have space and why we have weird boundaries that make for crazy numbers of buses.