Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So since this is the S Arlington thread...

Is there a scenario where the placement of the option programs can be changed to help S Arlington demographic balancing? Specifically thinking of the Key immersion program that they want to move anyway.

Generally? No. At one or two schools, maybe, but at the expense of the others. The county board has simply created and made untouchable too much low income housing in concentrated places. You'd need a giant high rise of affluent families to balance it now.

Yhave to understand, the organizing principle of Arlington county govt is now an almost religious conviction about the sanctity and value and purity of affordable housing. There is literally nothing more important to the local democrats than this issue; not basic services, not public sector innovation, nothing. It's purely psychological; it makes them feel spiritually clean and gives them the warm and fuzzies. But that focus is on a collision course with the increasingly affluent south Arlington homeowner class which has until now been placated with option schools. If APS somehow is unable to satisfy them through the current boundary process, I think there will be some mild boiling over, a la the streetcar backlash.

Since nothing is really happening along Lee Highway - can we force a 3 for 1 policy? 3 AH units west of Glebe along Lee highway completed for every 1 new AH unit in South Arlington?

Anonymous wrote:So since this is the S Arlington thread...

Is there a scenario where the placement of the option programs can be changed to help S Arlington demographic balancing? Specifically thinking of the Key immersion program that they want to move anyway.

Generally? No. At one or two schools, maybe, but at the expense of the others. The county board has simply created and made untouchable too much low income housing in concentrated places. You'd need a giant high rise of affluent families to balance it now.

Yhave to understand, the organizing principle of Arlington county govt is now an almost religious conviction about the sanctity and value and purity of affordable housing. There is literally nothing more important to the local democrats than this issue; not basic services, not public sector innovation, nothing. It's purely psychological; it makes them feel spiritually clean and gives them the warm and fuzzies. But that focus is on a collision course with the increasingly affluent south Arlington homeowner class which has until now been placated with option schools. If APS somehow is unable to satisfy them through the current boundary process, I think there will be some mild boiling over, a la the streetcar backlash.

Anonymous wrote:So since this is the S Arlington thread...

Is there a scenario where the placement of the option programs can be changed to help S Arlington demographic balancing? Specifically thinking of the Key immersion program that they want to move anyway.

What you don’t want to have a discussion about renovating north Arlington elementary schools?
Can’t imagine.

Anyway.
Placing additional choice programs further away does 2 things to south Arlington

1) discourages low income families
2) makes it more likely there will be space for umc s arl kids to find a seat outside of their neighborhood.

So, bad for the diversity of all APS. I guess good if you are well off, living in south Arlington, and wanting to avoid your neighborhood school.
And that’s what families in my neighborhood had been doing for the last 30 years. Only very recently did I hear parents at the playground say they were going to tour Randolph.
Older neighbors with high school kids have almost uniformly said Wakefield is great, don’t be scared. Randolph is to be avoided. It is easily demonstrated when you drive out of the neighborhood in the morning. 16th street is full of elementary aged kids catching buses out of the area. The walkers are coming in from the apartments. The last 3 years I started to see a handful more walkers from nearby homes.

Anonymous wrote:So since this is the S Arlington thread...

Is there a scenario where the placement of the option programs can be changed to help S Arlington demographic balancing? Specifically thinking of the Key immersion program that they want to move anyway.

This is where moving immersion to the ATS site would help. Still in north Arlington to get those parents, but could more easily pull Spanish speakers or even low SES families from Barrett or Carlin Springs.

So since this is the S Arlington thread...

Is there a scenario where the placement of the option programs can be changed to help S Arlington demographic balancing? Specifically thinking of the Key immersion program that they want to move anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Board decides to dissolve Tuckahoe, they are not busing Tuckahoe walkers to McKinley. They will go to Nottingham. They might bus the few non Reed Tuckahoe kids from S of Lee hwy but not the N units. This is why the Board won’t move an option there. Fear. Of. Nottingham. They are all over this. Nottingham vs. McKinley. The sequel.

BS - Easy to remove Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school. 1/2 of Tuckahoe kids are below Lee highway they should go to Reed/McKinley anyways. Nottingham PUs below Lee should go to Reed/Glebe. Discovery can take Nottingham PUs above Williamsburg. If you need more space at Nottingham just send more PUs along Harrison street to Discovery and Jamestown/Taylor can absorb a few Discovery PUs if needed.

With all of this extra space in Northwest Arlington 2021 would be a great year to start rebuilding each of the Elementary schools in NW Arlington. Each ES could be leveled and rebuilt by spreading those kids around Tuckahoe, Glebe, Nottingham, Jamestown and Taylor.

Or the ones in South Arlington, lol

Anonymous wrote:If the Board decides to dissolve Tuckahoe, they are not busing Tuckahoe walkers to McKinley. They will go to Nottingham. They might bus the few non Reed Tuckahoe kids from S of Lee hwy but not the N units. This is why the Board won’t move an option there. Fear. Of. Nottingham. They are all over this. Nottingham vs. McKinley. The sequel.

BS - Easy to remove Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school. 1/2 of Tuckahoe kids are below Lee highway they should go to Reed/McKinley anyways. Nottingham PUs below Lee should go to Reed/Glebe. Discovery can take Nottingham PUs above Williamsburg. If you need more space at Nottingham just send more PUs along Harrison street to Discovery and Jamestown/Taylor can absorb a few Discovery PUs if needed.

With all of this extra space in Northwest Arlington 2021 would be a great year to start rebuilding each of the Elementary schools in NW Arlington. Each ES could be leveled and rebuilt by spreading those kids around Tuckahoe, Glebe, Nottingham, Jamestown and Taylor.

If the Board decides to dissolve Tuckahoe, they are not busing Tuckahoe walkers to McKinley. They will go to Nottingham. They might bus the few non Reed Tuckahoe kids from S of Lee hwy but not the N units. This is why the Board won’t move an option there. Fear. Of. Nottingham. They are all over this. Nottingham vs. McKinley. The sequel.

Anonymous wrote:Not much greater than 100. And lots of those Tuckahoe kids would not be bussed to McKinley. A good chunk of them will be Notthingham walkers. LIke close to 150. Because the number of walkers that the county put out in Jan didn't include the ones on the other side Sycamore.

Assuming you are the "McKinley can't take 300 kids" poster, you are forgetting that McKinley will be losing all the students above Washington (which is a ton!!) and a portion of kids on the other side of Washington who are still in the Westover area. Reed has 600 walkers and a lot of those are pulling away from McKInley. It absolutely will have room to absorb units left at Tuckahoe.

Not much greater than 100. And lots of those Tuckahoe kids would not be bussed to McKinley. A good chunk of them will be Notthingham walkers. LIke close to 150. Because the number of walkers that the county put out in Jan didn't include the ones on the other side Sycamore.

Anonymous wrote:There's only about 100 former Tuckahoe kids at McKinley. It is not going to have room for the 300+ Tuckahoe kids left after Reed opens. McKinley and Nottingham will have to absorb about 150 kids each to deal with Tuckahoe overflow if it closes.

No. The number of former Tuckahoe students is greater than 100. Also, MCK families lies will be moving to Reed in large numbers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to dissolve a school, why not dissolve ATS? If it's not really anything unique. Why dissolve any neighborhood school that has a ready community of walkers, particularly one in an area of growth in the county?

Because it makes no sense whatsoever to dissolve ATS, a highly successful school that is, in fact, unique, and sits in a location that will have more than enough seats - neighborhood seats are not needed in that location. Neighborhood seats are needed at Oakridge!!!! And if I see how the school board is thinking there may be too many seats around Reed with the opening of it, I truly have to wonder, why they did not slate a new elementary School for the Pentagon City area first. It was one of the recommendations of the working group... the only one they did not follow...

How is ATS unique other than having a population that is entirely there by choice and no dead weight? What is actually different about the curriculum and teaching methods?

Don’t have much time right now, but would love to answer in more detail.
ATS is unique and different. Curriculum has a bigger emphasis on arts; theater year round from K, assemblies every Friday with performances and plays, every child plays an instrument, does band and choir...

Doesn’t every kids at an aps school play an instrument? I thought it was required in 4th/5th grade.

It varies by school. At Long Branch is was encouraged but not required. My kids didn't want to do choir there but both played an instrument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we're going to dissolve a school, why not dissolve ATS? If it's not really anything unique. Why dissolve any neighborhood school that has a ready community of walkers, particularly one in an area of growth in the county?

Because it makes no sense whatsoever to dissolve ATS, a highly successful school that is, in fact, unique, and sits in a location that will have more than enough seats - neighborhood seats are not needed in that location. Neighborhood seats are needed at Oakridge!!!! And if I see how the school board is thinking there may be too many seats around Reed with the opening of it, I truly have to wonder, why they did not slate a new elementary School for the Pentagon City area first. It was one of the recommendations of the working group... the only one they did not follow...

How is ATS unique other than having a population that is entirely there by choice and no dead weight? What is actually different about the curriculum and teaching methods?

Don’t have much time right now, but would love to answer in more detail.
ATS is unique and different. Curriculum has a bigger emphasis on arts; theater year round from K, assemblies every Friday with performances and plays, every child plays an instrument, does band and choir...

Doesn’t every kids at an aps school play an instrument? I thought it was required in 4th/5th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are going to have a surplus of seats in NW then WHY ARE WE OPENING REED?? Why don't we revisit that instead of rearranging the entire county?

South Arlington is going to be rearranged because we have a new school.

DP, yes I know this. And I understand why Key needs and in-boundary school. So swap Key and ASFS and call it day. If they draw boundaries around Reed that would leave Tuckahoe way under capacity, then I think they owe it to that school community to be part of any decision to turn it into an option school (not a Tuckahoe parent, but I'm imagining how I'd feel in their shoes). They should give them an opportunity to weigh in on what type of option program they'd prefer, then ask the APS community if that's a program that's desirable. Then current Tuckahoe kids and concurrently enrolled younger siblings should get automatic entrance to the option program. Rather than displace an entire neighborhood of kids with a current program, help that community build a program from the ground up. Win win.

I think if they decided to make the Reed building a choice site when Reed opens, they would move the current Tuckahoe teachers and admin over to the new school along with most of the students, so the community would be moving 1.5 miles - pretty much the same distance as Key and ASFS. I don’t get the impression there is much appetite for creating a new choice program right now. Also, if Key and ASFS are both neighborhood schools they can push some of the units north from Ashlawn and Long Branch and then move some S Arlington units north as well to relieve crowding that way. I think they just want to look at all the options before they decide.

Key and asfs are slightly different from tuckahoe and reed. Since key/asfs share a boundary, most of the kids at asfs are very close if not walking distance to key. The community would largely be preserved. Since many things outside of school (sports leagues, Girl Scouts, etc) are shared between key and asfs, moving the school wouldn’t be as disruptive as if you were to dissolve the boundary. For example, my kids are at asfs, and our soccer team typically has one or two kids from key. We practice at key since the field at asfs sucks. My kids Girl Scout Troop has three kids from key. Moving tuckahoe is really disruptive— that community ceases to exist. Not so with moving asfs to key.
That and key and asfs are 0.9 miles walking. A little smaller than 1.5.

There's only about 100 former Tuckahoe kids at McKinley. It is not going to have room for the 300+ Tuckahoe kids left after Reed opens. McKinley and Nottingham will have to absorb about 150 kids each to deal with Tuckahoe overflow if it closes.