Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:57
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Talk, meet, talk, complain, meet, backtrack, talk, move ahead, complain....
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:51
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why not immersion to ATS and ATS/IB to Reed? I don’t really want to give them a new building, but that program could certainly fill it.
That’s a decent idea
This really makes the most sense, so of course the school board won't choose it
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:49
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
When will Key Immersion most likely need to vacate—by the 2021-2022 school year?
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:48
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Why not immersion to ATS and ATS/IB to Reed? I don’t really want to give them a new building, but that program could certainly fill it.
That’s a decent idea
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:46
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Which buildings are you thinking of that are currently for sale and don't have existing tenants?
Why do they have to buy the buildings? That would add to the time and capital cost. They would just need to lease full floors and ensure isolated access to the school floors (dedicated elevators). I'm not saying it's easy but it allows flexibility that traditional campuses don't allow. How long was Reed coming? Alternatively, why not comingle say a school and a library on different floors?
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:43
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Why not immersion to ATS and ATS/IB to Reed? I don’t really want to give them a new building, but that program could certainly fill it.
They can’t even entice enough Spanish speaking kids to half fill Key any more. If APS keeps 2 immersion schools they should both be located near Spanish speakers in order to populate the programs.
The school board has signaled more than once that ATS will probably make way for an IB program. Why not keep it at the current ATS building, which won’t make a good neighborhood school?
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:41
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
There’s no such thing as inexpensive office space in Arlington. FFX could only do this for Bailey’s because the building was in foreclosure.
There's lower height office buildings that are not brand new (Class C) and could become school space in less than a year vs building a new school (even assuming you had the land). This cost, even if extra, might be worth the flexibility that "traditional" campus schools do not allow.
Which buildings are you thinking of that are currently for sale and don't have existing tenants?
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:39
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
There’s no such thing as inexpensive office space in Arlington. FFX could only do this for Bailey’s because the building was in foreclosure.
+1. And even then, they had to make it an upper school because it wouldn't have been code compliant for K-1 students without major renovations.
There is a building on north side of Fairfax Dr that is having the lower floors become a Bright Horizon daycare. I don't see why APS couldn't do it for an elementary school. Separately, the building option could be for a split school (3-5 in building and K-2 in traditional school)
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:36
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
There’s no such thing as inexpensive office space in Arlington. FFX could only do this for Bailey’s because the building was in foreclosure.
There's lower height office buildings that are not brand new (Class C) and could become school space in less than a year vs building a new school (even assuming you had the land). This cost, even if extra, might be worth the flexibility that "traditional" campus schools do not allow.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:35
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
There’s no such thing as inexpensive office space in Arlington. FFX could only do this for Bailey’s because the building was in foreclosure.
+1. And even then, they had to make it an upper school because it wouldn't have been code compliant for K-1 students without major renovations.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:33
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Why not immersion to ATS and ATS/IB to Reed? I don’t really want to give them a new building, but that program could certainly fill it.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:27
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
There’s no such thing as inexpensive office space in Arlington. FFX could only do this for Bailey’s because the building was in foreclosure.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:24
Subject: Re:8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Instead of trailers, why not build in some empty and not fancy office space? Then it's flexible if they don't need the space in 5 years or not in that location.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:22
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote:Immersion should go to Carlin Springs. ATS should either be eliminated or go to Nottingham. Ashlawn's boundary should come over and take some of the current Carlin Springs PUs, maybe even some of Barcroft's CAFs. ATS as a neighborhood school can help balance Barrett and relieve McKinley.
ATS is a bad location for a neighborhood school, both because it’s not walkable given the roads, and because it’s too close to existing neighborhood seats (with Ashlawn and Reed and McKinley they don’t need another neighborhood school right here). Ashlawn’s tail will get scooped into ASFS or Key.
Anonymous
08/28/2019 13:18
Subject: 8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries
Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
I don't know, I think Priddy's failed attempt to caucus Goldstein might make other SB members a little more comfortable making big changes. Goldstein will get re-elected this fall before location decisions are made, so he can take some risks in the next couple of years. Talento and Van Doren are up for re-election this year, but I don't know that I see option school moves driving enough groundswell to force them out, and they'll have been re-elected (or not) because the actual boundary process, so that at that point they can take some risks too. Only O'Grady is up the year after that, so she might want to lay low on some of the more controversial decisions, but the board could agree to give her a pass on some things in the interest of re-election, knowing the other four can pass whatever they want without here (or even three, if Talento is concerned about her own re-election the year after that).
This is entirely what's wrong with politics-- voting for school boundaries based on re-electability? I know it happens, but damn.