ATS won't be moving. It's not in a walkable neighborhood and that's the new priority (rightly) b/c it reduces annual transportation costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is crying about five kindergartens. BOO HOO. Other schools have had seven.

It's about time the choice schools share in this overcrowding pain. Either utilize the choice schools as fully as all the neighborhood schools, or disband them altogether. The entitlement is astonishing.

So, not an ATS parent but I wonder what happens when we catch up at the neighborhood schools. After Reed is built, there won't be any schools in NW Arlington over capacity, supposedly they will even have to close one neighborhood school and move an option program into its building. Does ATS get to scale back at that point? Or is it forced to keep growing when neighborhood schools are no longer in such dire straights? I don't really think parents at ATS would be freaking out so much if it were clear that this was a temporary situation that would mirror whatever is happening across the system. If increased enrollment is permanent, at ATS or Campbell, or at any neighborhood school, then I think they need to be renovating to enlarge the schools and the common spaces.

Also, what of HB? Why are we talking about that? I know they can't have trailers because of their location in Rosslyn, but how else can they do their share? Are they having that discussion yet?

Don’t get me started on HB. Should be gone!!!!!!!!! Talk about entitlement. I think both need to go. We can’t afford them anymore.

Given all the restrictions on the piece of land in Roslyn that the county owns and can build a school on, what school would you like to see there? Anything but a choice school that your kid didn't lottery into? That seems like the main issue. If it were any other school moving there (not by choice, btw) what would your thoughts be on how full you could stuff it or whether or not it should even exist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't understand why the ATS parents are wasting their time fighting growth instead of working as a team to move to a 700+ seat building. I don't think any SB has the political cover in a Dem primary to have a vote the looks like Choice over neighborhood decision. Maybe they could deal with a switch of location. So why all the energy on a decision for next year that is done deal when you could be working to get into a building that is significantly larger. There are a number of these 725 seat buildings around!

There aren't that many built for 725. I guess they could take over Reed though.

That’s been taken off the table because it will be a school with an entirely walkable zone. McKinley is big too but also highly walkable.

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't understand why the ATS parents are wasting their time fighting growth instead of working as a team to move to a 700+ seat building. I don't think any SB has the political cover in a Dem primary to have a vote the looks like Choice over neighborhood decision. Maybe they could deal with a switch of location. So why all the energy on a decision for next year that is done deal when you could be working to get into a building that is significantly larger. There are a number of these 725 seat buildings around!

There aren't that many built for 725. I guess they could take over Reed though.

Cry me a river ATS....everyone has trailers, and until Arlington builds several new schools, they will continue. Seems like you're doing a great job educating students and should educate more of Arlington's children. Congrats!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30 - I get your point, and I sympathize. But this is not unique to Arlington. Neighborhood schools all over the country have to deal with this too. You also have kids leaving mid-year with no attempt to fill the spaces. When a family leaves ATS, the next family on the wait list for that grade (or grades) is contacted and the slot is filled. It's more common in the lower grades, but I've heard of even 5th graders switching schools to attend ATS. So it's rare that classes dip below 24 students per class for very long.

I'm not saying you have no right to complain. Of course you do. Overcrowding sucks, and I hope the SB gets better at handling it in the future, and not closing or repurposing schoools when we have what turns out to be a temporary dip in enrollment.

Nobody is talking about closing schools except for one or two trolls on DCUM. Stop with this talking point, you make ATS parents look deeply ignorant and destroy their credibility.

NP here, but I think the PP is taking the long view. In the past, the SB has closed schools. And it's now all but impossible (politically) to get those facilities back now that we need more land for new schools. PP is just urging the SB to engage in serious long term planning for seats and land use, rather than living year to year in enrollment crises (too many seats! too few seats! and back again!). Yes, it's hard. But other jurisdictions seem to be better at it than APS.

Anonymous wrote:11:30 - I get your point, and I sympathize. But this is not unique to Arlington. Neighborhood schools all over the country have to deal with this too. You also have kids leaving mid-year with no attempt to fill the spaces. When a family leaves ATS, the next family on the wait list for that grade (or grades) is contacted and the slot is filled. It's more common in the lower grades, but I've heard of even 5th graders switching schools to attend ATS. So it's rare that classes dip below 24 students per class for very long.

I'm not saying you have no right to complain. Of course you do. Overcrowding sucks, and I hope the SB gets better at handling it in the future, and not closing or repurposing schoools when we have what turns out to be a temporary dip in enrollment.

Nobody is talking about closing schools except for one or two trolls on DCUM. Stop with this talking point, you make ATS parents look deeply ignorant and destroy their credibility.

I guess I just don't understand why the ATS parents are wasting their time fighting growth instead of working as a team to move to a 700+ seat building. I don't think any SB has the political cover in a Dem primary to have a vote the looks like Choice over neighborhood decision. Maybe they could deal with a switch of location. So why all the energy on a decision for next year that is done deal when you could be working to get into a building that is significantly larger. There are a number of these 725 seat buildings around!

11:30 - I get your point, and I sympathize. But this is not unique to Arlington. Neighborhood schools all over the country have to deal with this too. You also have kids leaving mid-year with no attempt to fill the spaces. When a family leaves ATS, the next family on the wait list for that grade (or grades) is contacted and the slot is filled. It's more common in the lower grades, but I've heard of even 5th graders switching schools to attend ATS. So it's rare that classes dip below 24 students per class for very long.

I'm not saying you have no right to complain. Of course you do. Overcrowding sucks, and I hope the SB gets better at handling it in the future, and not closing or repurposing schoools when we have what turns out to be a temporary dip in enrollment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is only adding ONE kindergarten class next year - 24 kids. They are not adding a class at all grades. That would allow a bit of overflow from the rest of the county until the following year when Fleet opens and all elementary school are redistricted.

ATS is a luxury. There is no guarantee in any of our schools that you get protected from trailers! If you don’t like it, go back to your home school.

Again, not an ATS parent, but I think the issue is: have they made it clear that this is for one year, with a promise to reassess next year and adjust appropriately? I know the idea would be a lot less upsetting to the option school parents if it were clear that they will be getting "bubble" classes only as long as the neighborhood schools are also overcrowded. That's fair and equitable. I think they're freaking out because there is at least one board member who's made statements to the effect that anyone who wants to be admitted to a lottery school should be (ATS could not, even with trailers, admit everybody who applies, that would be crazy and then the neighborhood schools would be left under-enrolled). At the same time, there are definitely people who are trying to use this to punish or undermine the option programs. This is a crazy way to go about that. If you don't want option schools, fight for that. Don't fight to make the kids enrolled there have a bad experience. Nobody should be fighting for this. It was terrible when that happened to McKinley, and Claremont and Key. It's terrible that we haven't acted faster for Henry and Oakridge (although, they have resisted the idea of boundary changes that could alleviate crowding instantly because, given the choice, they'd rather have their kids at their "good" but crowded school than at school with space and low test scores).

NP here. I am an ATS parent, and the PP (who is not) is exactly right. ATS parents are concerned because the SB is signalling that the fifth class per grade at ATS would be permanent. This would add six new classes to the school (over the course of six years) and would leave the school well over capacity, even with trailers. I think most parents would be perfectly amenable to adding a fifth K class to make a bubble year, if there was a commitment to reevaluate the grade sizes in the coming years as new schools come on line. The SB doesn't want to make this commitment because at least one of its members believes option schools should accept all who apply, and a vastly expanded ATS is a step in that direction.

I'm not opposed to expanding ATS per se. I don't subscribe the the notion (as some of the parents do) that the program can't function well if it gets too large. So I would have no objection to renovating ATS to significantly expand its capacity. ATS was supposed to be renovated several years ago, when the County and School Boards allocated capital funds to renovate Ashlawn, McKinley, and ATS. They ran out of money during the McKinley renovation, and never got to ATS. Now the ATS renovation/addition seems to be off the table. That's a shame, because its a great candidate for an addition - a small building on a large lot.

There seems to be a misconception that ATS is somehow protected from capacity issues and is not doing its fair share. But that's not true. ATS is already the fourth most overcapacity elementary school in the county. And the parents haven't been complaining about it because, while less than ideal (obviously), its been manageable. My 2nd grade child is in a trailer this year, and it's perfectly fine. But permanently adding six new classes and eight new trailers - with no prospect of an addition - will have the school doing more than its fair share. That is, if the APS numbers projections are correct.

I can't say that I really understand the ATS/other option school as a luxury argument. The option schools provide seats just like neighborhood schools, and they are not artificially protected from the capacity crunch. But in any event, the SB isn't likely to do away with option schools generally, or ATS specifically. ATS is the poster child for APS - diverse and high performing. The SB likes to pretend that most of the county's elementary schools are like this, when in reality many of them are diverse, or high performing, but not both. Schools like ATS mask this uncomfortable reality for the SB. (Now that I write that, maybe that's not a good thing...)

The school board has not said the five-class thing would be permanent. At the last board meeting, when asked this exact question by the a board member, the staff said that the question of whether to add a fifth class to any given kindergarten year would be made on a case-by-case basis based on overall enrollment numbers.

I do think you have to acknowledge that ATS (and other choice programs) have some unique features that protect it from the full force of overcrowding that other schools see. For instance, because APS can control ATS enrollment, your classes may be at 24 every year, but you're assured that you won't be over 24 if there are some last-minute registrations or students who move in mid-year. My kid's second grade class last year had 27-28 kids because classes were initially set at 25-26 students per class over the summer (which is at/just under the APS max for second grade, three more students enrolled at that point would have forced them to create another class), then there were a couple of last-minute enrollments at the end of summer that pushed the classes to 26-27 (it was too late for the to hire a new teacher to create another class), and then between new students moving in and some other changes, our class ended up with 28 for several months (we had the biggest classroom of all of the second grades, so we could better accommodate the extra students) before a child moved and we went back down to 27 for the rest of year. I would rather have been in a trailer with a guarantee of no more than 24 kids per class than dealing with that kind of crowding where everyone was tripping over each other (literally) and the teachers complaining to the administration that they didn't have enough time to teach because classroom management for so many kids took too much time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is only adding ONE kindergarten class next year - 24 kids. They are not adding a class at all grades. That would allow a bit of overflow from the rest of the county until the following year when Fleet opens and all elementary school are redistricted.

ATS is a luxury. There is no guarantee in any of our schools that you get protected from trailers! If you don’t like it, go back to your home school.

Again, not an ATS parent, but I think the issue is: have they made it clear that this is for one year, with a promise to reassess next year and adjust appropriately? I know the idea would be a lot less upsetting to the option school parents if it were clear that they will be getting "bubble" classes only as long as the neighborhood schools are also overcrowded. That's fair and equitable. I think they're freaking out because there is at least one board member who's made statements to the effect that anyone who wants to be admitted to a lottery school should be (ATS could not, even with trailers, admit everybody who applies, that would be crazy and then the neighborhood schools would be left under-enrolled). At the same time, there are definitely people who are trying to use this to punish or undermine the option programs. This is a crazy way to go about that. If you don't want option schools, fight for that. Don't fight to make the kids enrolled there have a bad experience. Nobody should be fighting for this. It was terrible when that happened to McKinley, and Claremont and Key. It's terrible that we haven't acted faster for Henry and Oakridge (although, they have resisted the idea of boundary changes that could alleviate crowding instantly because, given the choice, they'd rather have their kids at their "good" but crowded school than at school with space and low test scores).

NP here. I am an ATS parent, and the PP (who is not) is exactly right. ATS parents are concerned because the SB is signalling that the fifth class per grade at ATS would be permanent. This would add six new classes to the school (over the course of six years) and would leave the school well over capacity, even with trailers. I think most parents would be perfectly amenable to adding a fifth K class to make a bubble year, if there was a commitment to reevaluate the grade sizes in the coming years as new schools come on line. The SB doesn't want to make this commitment because at least one of its members believes option schools should accept all who apply, and a vastly expanded ATS is a step in that direction.

I'm not opposed to expanding ATS per se. I don't subscribe the the notion (as some of the parents do) that the program can't function well if it gets too large. So I would have no objection to renovating ATS to significantly expand its capacity. ATS was supposed to be renovated several years ago, when the County and School Boards allocated capital funds to renovate Ashlawn, McKinley, and ATS. They ran out of money during the McKinley renovation, and never got to ATS. Now the ATS renovation/addition seems to be off the table. That's a shame, because its a great candidate for an addition - a small building on a large lot.

There seems to be a misconception that ATS is somehow protected from capacity issues and is not doing its fair share. But that's not true. ATS is already the fourth most overcapacity elementary school in the county. And the parents haven't been complaining about it because, while less than ideal (obviously), its been manageable. My 2nd grade child is in a trailer this year, and it's perfectly fine. But permanently adding six new classes and eight new trailers - with no prospect of an addition - will have the school doing more than its fair share. That is, if the APS numbers projections are correct.

I can't say that I really understand the ATS/other option school as a luxury argument. The option schools provide seats just like neighborhood schools, and they are not artificially protected from the capacity crunch. But in any event, the SB isn't likely to do away with option schools generally, or ATS specifically. ATS is the poster child for APS - diverse and high performing. The SB likes to pretend that most of the county's elementary schools are like this, when in reality many of them are diverse, or high performing, but not both. Schools like ATS mask this uncomfortable reality for the SB. (Now that I write that, maybe that's not a good thing...)

9:04 - yes, that's it. We'll accept the bubble class without argument if that's what it is, even though it is disruptive to the teaching staff, forcing someone to move up or down a grade as the bubble moves through.) But APS has suggested taking us to 5 classes per grade, which would be a huge increase over the 3 classes per grade we have now for some classes. At the same time, their own projections show that they'll have 200+ excess seats once Reed is online. So they'd add 200 kids to our school without adding seats while seats go idle elsewhere? That's why this seems punitive and petty, like someone has a grudge against ATS. (clearly from threads like this, many do.)

The folks saying "boohoo" seem not to grasp that some schools are physically larger than others. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp. Some school buildings are smaller, and some are larger. You can't pack the same number of kids into a building made for 500 that you can for 700, and that is exactly what APS is proposing. Just because our outdoor space is bigger doesn't mean we can adapt to 200 more kids without an actual renovation.

Nobody is saying ATS shouldn't share the burden. But just like every other school is concerned about overcrowding, so are we. Every school with an active and engaged parent community is fighting not to become more overcrowded. Why should we be any different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is crying about five kindergartens. BOO HOO. Other schools have had seven.

It's about time the choice schools share in this overcrowding pain. Either utilize the choice schools as fully as all the neighborhood schools, or disband them altogether. The entitlement is astonishing.

So, not an ATS parent but I wonder what happens when we catch up at the neighborhood schools. After Reed is built, there won't be any schools in NW Arlington over capacity, supposedly they will even have to close one neighborhood school and move an option program into its building. Does ATS get to scale back at that point? Or is it forced to keep growing when neighborhood schools are no longer in such dire straights? I don't really think parents at ATS would be freaking out so much if it were clear that this was a temporary situation that would mirror whatever is happening across the system. If increased enrollment is permanent, at ATS or Campbell, or at any neighborhood school, then I think they need to be renovating to enlarge the schools and the common spaces.

Also, what of HB? Why are we talking about that? I know they can't have trailers because of their location in Rosslyn, but how else can they do their share? Are they having that discussion yet?

The bolded part is exactly right. A lot of ATS parents are worried, because in two years, according to APS, all overcrowding in the elementary schools will be over, and APS doesn’t even know, if they can fill all the seats, perhaps closing down an entire school?! But ATS shall sit there with 16 (!) trailers, if they make a decision right now to add 6 classes to ATS and take it over to 700 students? It will stay that way for 6 years.

So while all trailers are gone from all the other schools (fingers crossed!), you want ATS to sit there with 16 trailers?
Really? Right now, the record of any elementary is 10 trailers! You can hate ATS as much as you want, but that is just purely malicious.
And has nothing to do anymore with sharing the burden.

The other choice programs loose kids through moves, etc. and those seats do NOT refill. Their upper grades are always at least an entire class smaller. ATS is different in that all its classes are filled to capacity all the way through, and 5K classes now are 5th grade classes years later. The common areas can’t hold that many kids for their mandatory assemblies and theater and orchestra and all that’s part of the program.

No one is talking about closing down a school. They are talking about relocating an option program so that the neighborhood seats are in a different location. The seats will all be full, there will just potentially be a neighborhood school in the east (Key?) and option program in the west (at Tuckahoe?) instead of how it is now.

Not only is no one talking about closing down a school, but no one is talking about 16 trailers at APS (they have 4 now, and Facilities Optimization says they can only accommodate a maximum of 12 on the site). Further, there is no expectation that the trailers will be gone from all of the other elementary schools after Reed opens because, given the projected school-age population growth, APS as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level at that point. Some schools may no longer have trailers, but others will.

But will they have 12? Supposedly, there is another ES in the pipeline after Reed, so as long as they don't totally mess up this boundary re-do, there should be a reduction in trailers at the most crowded schools in the near term, and another school opening as the school age population keeps coming and other schools begin facing new capacity problems.

I'm not saying the ATS parents are being totally reasonable, but I also don't think it's fair to force them to keep growing and adding trailers as other nearby schools are contracting. It sounds like that's what some posters on here are advocating: make them suffer.

Should they grow? Sure. Should it include trailers? Yes, if need be. But unless the program is getting a larger permanent space, either through a move or an addition, a field covered by trailers shouldn't be permanent. Same for ALL schools, whether they are neighborhood or option schools.

The programs that aren't going to be moved/get additions and are at or over capacity now, what of them? Do they have to grow to meet all demand, or is there some sort of reasonable cap? Presumably, you can help neighborhood schools facing a capacity crisis with open transfers or equitable boundary readjustments, which hasn't always happened. But there isn't a mechanism for option schools other than capping enrollment. I think it would be helpful if staff made clear the option program enrollments will continue to have some sort of reasonable cap, tied to the size of the permanent structure that houses each program. Otherwise, we're giving the option schools the McKinley treatment. And I think that should be avoided at both neighborhood and option schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is crying about five kindergartens. BOO HOO. Other schools have had seven.

It's about time the choice schools share in this overcrowding pain. Either utilize the choice schools as fully as all the neighborhood schools, or disband them altogether. The entitlement is astonishing.

So, not an ATS parent but I wonder what happens when we catch up at the neighborhood schools. After Reed is built, there won't be any schools in NW Arlington over capacity, supposedly they will even have to close one neighborhood school and move an option program into its building. Does ATS get to scale back at that point? Or is it forced to keep growing when neighborhood schools are no longer in such dire straights? I don't really think parents at ATS would be freaking out so much if it were clear that this was a temporary situation that would mirror whatever is happening across the system. If increased enrollment is permanent, at ATS or Campbell, or at any neighborhood school, then I think they need to be renovating to enlarge the schools and the common spaces.

Also, what of HB? Why are we talking about that? I know they can't have trailers because of their location in Rosslyn, but how else can they do their share? Are they having that discussion yet?

The bolded part is exactly right. A lot of ATS parents are worried, because in two years, according to APS, all overcrowding in the elementary schools will be over, and APS doesn’t even know, if they can fill all the seats, perhaps closing down an entire school?! But ATS shall sit there with 16 (!) trailers, if they make a decision right now to add 6 classes to ATS and take it over to 700 students? It will stay that way for 6 years.

So while all trailers are gone from all the other schools (fingers crossed!), you want ATS to sit there with 16 trailers?
Really? Right now, the record of any elementary is 10 trailers! You can hate ATS as much as you want, but that is just purely malicious.
And has nothing to do anymore with sharing the burden.

The other choice programs loose kids through moves, etc. and those seats do NOT refill. Their upper grades are always at least an entire class smaller. ATS is different in that all its classes are filled to capacity all the way through, and 5K classes now are 5th grade classes years later. The common areas can’t hold that many kids for their mandatory assemblies and theater and orchestra and all that’s part of the program.

No one is talking about closing down a school. They are talking about relocating an option program so that the neighborhood seats are in a different location. The seats will all be full, there will just potentially be a neighborhood school in the east (Key?) and option program in the west (at Tuckahoe?) instead of how it is now.

Not only is no one talking about closing down a school, but no one is talking about 16 trailers at APS (they have 4 now, and Facilities Optimization says they can only accommodate a maximum of 12 on the site). Further, there is no expectation that the trailers will be gone from all of the other elementary schools after Reed opens because, given the projected school-age population growth, APS as a whole will still be over capacity at the elementary level at that point. Some schools may no longer have trailers, but others will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is crying about five kindergartens. BOO HOO. Other schools have had seven.

It's about time the choice schools share in this overcrowding pain. Either utilize the choice schools as fully as all the neighborhood schools, or disband them altogether. The entitlement is astonishing.

So, not an ATS parent but I wonder what happens when we catch up at the neighborhood schools. After Reed is built, there won't be any schools in NW Arlington over capacity, supposedly they will even have to close one neighborhood school and move an option program into its building. Does ATS get to scale back at that point? Or is it forced to keep growing when neighborhood schools are no longer in such dire straights? I don't really think parents at ATS would be freaking out so much if it were clear that this was a temporary situation that would mirror whatever is happening across the system. If increased enrollment is permanent, at ATS or Campbell, or at any neighborhood school, then I think they need to be renovating to enlarge the schools and the common spaces.

Also, what of HB? Why are we talking about that? I know they can't have trailers because of their location in Rosslyn, but how else can they do their share? Are they having that discussion yet?

The bolded part is exactly right. A lot of ATS parents are worried, because in two years, according to APS, all overcrowding in the elementary schools will be over, and APS doesn’t even know, if they can fill all the seats, perhaps closing down an entire school?! But ATS shall sit there with 16 (!) trailers, if they make a decision right now to add 6 classes to ATS and take it over to 700 students? It will stay that way for 6 years.

So while all trailers are gone from all the other schools (fingers crossed!), you want ATS to sit there with 16 trailers?
Really? Right now, the record of any elementary is 10 trailers! You can hate ATS as much as you want, but that is just purely malicious.
And has nothing to do anymore with sharing the burden.

The other choice programs loose kids through moves, etc. and those seats do NOT refill. Their upper grades are always at least an entire class smaller. ATS is different in that all its classes are filled to capacity all the way through, and 5K classes now are 5th grade classes years later. The common areas can’t hold that many kids for their mandatory assemblies and theater and orchestra and all that’s part of the program.

No one is talking about closing down a school. They are talking about relocating an option program so that the neighborhood seats are in a different location. The seats will all be full, there will just potentially be a neighborhood school in the east (Key?) and option program in the west (at Tuckahoe?) instead of how it is now.