Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

If you think your planning unit could feasibly be walkable to Fleet, respond to that questionnaire and note that, including any safety considerations that would affect walkability. Also, you're not limited to addressing only your own planning unit. If there's another unit in the neighborhood you know well that you believe could be walkable (to Fleet or otherwise), note that as well.

The point of the surveys isn't to poll a neighborhood or school about what they would prefer, it's to get information from people who really know the planning units about what's actually walkable and what isn't rather than relying upon assumptions about what should be walkable based on a map. Any area you know well enough to make that judgment with regard to any school is fair game for a questionnaire response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

If you think your planning unit could feasibly be walkable to Fleet, respond to that questionnaire and note that, including any safety considerations that would affect walkability. Also, you're not limited to addressing only your own planning unit. If there's another unit in the neighborhood you know well that you believe could be walkable (to Fleet or otherwise), note that as well.

The point of the surveys isn't to poll a neighborhood or school about what they would prefer, it's to get information from people who really know the planning units about what's actually walkable and what isn't rather than relying upon assumptions about what should be walkable based on a map. Any area you know well enough to make that judgment with regard to any school is fair game for a questionnaire response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. My planning unit only shows up as being an option for Fleet. We're zoned for Barcroft, but can't add it as a walk option. Same for Henry and any other school. The only place we can say we think we can be added is Fleet? This is the part of Alcova Heights north of 9th St S... it's 3 planning units that includes some apartments and condos, but also many houses and FSI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

That does nothing to increase seats in the eastern part of the county, unfortunately. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a new choice school. All of the communication has been to maintain the current number and just decide where to put them. Choice schools simply can't be the priority when there are not enough seats for kids to begin with. Any changes would only impact current K and 1st graders, incoming students would go in knowing the score.

But the shortage in the eastern part is going to be caused, in part, because Key lost its neighborhood guarantee, right? That has yet to materialize, since the change hasn't happened yet. Are kids in the current Key zone not going to get into Immersion and instead go to the neighborhood school? It's unclear. Are there are enough students in this area to warrant two neighborhood schools within a mile of each other? I'm not sure. I seem to remember there not being all that many within the hypothetical ASFS effective walk zone. I think boundary changes around the new schools that are already in the works will provide cascading relief for the east. Fleet will provide relief for Long Branch. Glebe will get relief from Reed. Jamestown is under capacity and could take some of Taylor PU's to balance enrollment between those two adjacent schools.

I think there may not be an appetite among staff for a new option school, but if I were a neighborhood about to lose my zoned school that's in walking distance from my house, I think I would rather become a stakeholder in a new school on that same site rather than be bused out to a different school so that other kids could be bused in. But that's just me and maybe it's not a perspective shared by current Tuckahoe families. Maybe they don't care one way or the other, or maybe they are sure that none of this is going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone from APS actually ever said anything about turning Tuckahoe into an option school? If so, can you point me to it? From what I've seen, the only people talking about it are on here and I think some Tuckahoe parents are getting riled up for no good reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

That does nothing to increase seats in the eastern part of the county, unfortunately. There doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for a new choice school. All of the communication has been to maintain the current number and just decide where to put them. Choice schools simply can't be the priority when there are not enough seats for kids to begin with. Any changes would only impact current K and 1st graders, incoming students would go in knowing the score.

Anonymous wrote:
And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

I love this idea. An ATS2 or a second Montessori, perhaps?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the APS walk zone map-- this shows the kids who actually live in the 1 mile walk zone for each building, not where kids are actually zoned today. The elementary walk zone project is trying to determine the maximum number of kids who can realistically walk to each building.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WZ_Buffer_StuCount_PP.jpg

ATS is actually in a pretty "unwalkable" location unless they add a crossing guard to Wilson and/or George Mason. However, APS really needs more neighborhood seats around the ASF/Key locations. There is no way that you could put the immersion program in the Tuckahoe and Nottingham buildings and attract a sufficient # of native Spanish speakers. But you could move the Key program to the ATS building and then move the ATS program to the Tuckahoe or Nottingham building.

Bottom line is that once Reed opens, they will have too many seats in those overlapping Tuckahoe-Nottingham-Discovery zones--- and they still haven't done anything to solve the neighborhood seat shortages in the Taylor-ASF-Key area. That's the main problem this effort needs to solve.

Why they didn't do this analysis before they built Discovery is beyond my comprehension...

And that's why I think they should make Tuckahoe a NEW option rather than shuffling two existing programs. That's ridiculous: expensive, disruptive, detrimental to the diversity of ATS, that was pretty hard won to begin with since that idiotic lawsuit. Swap Key and ASFS and make a new option at Tuckahoe that grandfathers current Tuckahoe students and then pulls new students in by choice. Make this the least disruptive process for current students. FFS, with all the recent and future boundary changes, they should try to preserve some stability for the current students.