Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

We all pay the same taxes, we all need the over enrollment and you don't care about FARMS but pretend to. Thanks for playing the fun hypocrisy game.

Choice is not sustainable and also ATS is not different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

Welcome to much of the rest of Arlington's reality. You are not going to win the rest of us over by your statements that I bolded. You sound absolutely clueless!

Yup - keep talking your way into a corner. Talk about sheltered!

No shit right? Is all of our taxes plus, it's just a school with tucked in shirts and a principal who fakes test scores by holding back kids rather than testing them for specific learning disorders in reading. Wow. It's amazing that such violation of IDEA law is allowed in APS.

The problem with Ats’ over capacity, is that aps needs to add an addition so that there is enough common space to have 725 kids like all aps elementary schools are supposed to be. For most aps schools, the land parcel is too small to add, ats is not. That space can can plenty of outdoor space and additions to make the school much bigger. That would help a lot.

Anonymous wrote:As an option school, it should be the most overcrowded. No one is forcing students to go there. It is a decision parents make when they apply.

Not to mention that many more parents want their children to go there than the school accepts. I’m sure plenty of parents whose children are at very crowded neighborhood schools would be fine with sending their children to a very crowded ATS.

Anonymous wrote:As an option school, it should be the most overcrowded. No one is forcing students to go there. It is a decision parents make when they apply.

Why should ATS - or any other option school - be the most overcrowded? I would think that the most overcrowding would result from unexpectedly large enrollments in a given year. Option schools can control their enrollments, so it doesn't make sense that they would ever end up as the most overcrowded. That wouldn't be an efficient way to operate. Granted, this assumes that APS is balancing enrollments across all elementary schools, and we all agree APS is not doing a good job with that.

Option schools should certainly not be under-enrolled, and they should certainly do their share to take on extra students as needed (as should all schools). But why should they bear that burden disproportionately? Which is what you would be asking ATS to do if you went to five classes per grade. I know that some other elementary schools have five or more classes per grade, but they are in larger buildings.

You seem to be under the impression that ATS is underutilized. And as currently built, it's simply not. It happens to be in a small building. I do agree that a larger school could be built on the land, and/or that the school is a good candidate for an addition, but that's not what we are discussing here. (And, as an ATS parent, I would have absolutely no objection to putting an addition onto the school to accommodate significantly more kids.) The school is already over capacity. It already has the largest class sizes of any elementary school in the county, bar none. So ATS is already feeling the capacity crunch just like most other elementary schools in the county. I'm not sure why you think it is protected from this demographic problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

Welcome to much of the rest of Arlington's reality. You are not going to win the rest of us over by your statements that I bolded. You sound absolutely clueless!

Yup - keep talking your way into a corner. Talk about sheltered!

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

Welcome to much of the rest of Arlington's reality. You are not going to win the rest of us over by your statements that I bolded. You sound absolutely clueless!

As an option school, it should be the most overcrowded. No one is forcing students to go there. It is a decision parents make when they apply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

That sucks but ATS can't be sitting pretty on the largest lot of land and not expect to take some overflow. There is a lot of land for trailers.

Losing your only paved outdoor space? Did you see what they did to Swanson? They didn't have any paved outdoor space before they took over the parking lot with 8 trailers.

NP here (also an ATS parent). ATS does sit on one of the larger lots of land for elementary schools in APS. But it's quite a small building. I believe that it's the fourth smallest elementary school building in APS. There is plenty of room for more trailers for classrooms (although we would have to give up playground and field space), but the common areas of the school can't accommodate too many more students. Lunch already starts very early. Adding a fifth class per grade would leave ATS at 137% capacity, making it one of the most overcrowded schools in the county. It's possible that APS could decide to do this anyway (I acknowledge that there aren't a lot of pain-free options for adding elementary seats) but it's hardly a perfect solution. The ATS PTA is already mobilizing on this, arguing that a permanent increase to four classes per grade is feasible, but going to five would be a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

That sucks but ATS can't be sitting pretty on the largest lot of land and not expect to take some overflow. There is a lot of land for trailers.

Losing your only paved outdoor space? Did you see what they did to Swanson? They didn't have any paved outdoor space before they took over the parking lot with 8 trailers.

From what I understand vhc uses the ATS field as a landing pad for helicopters. Trailers or expansion onto the field space wouldn’t necessarily just be up to Aps. Not that it couldn’t eventually happen, but it’s not a simple matter.

The proposed areas for the trailers won't interfere with the landing pad. There's plenty of room for trailers. All I'm saying is that ATS has room for overflow. How many classes per grade? 3 or 4? When other elementary schools have up to 6? I don't think people realize how protected the ATS population is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

That sucks but ATS can't be sitting pretty on the largest lot of land and not expect to take some overflow. There is a lot of land for trailers.

Losing your only paved outdoor space? Did you see what they did to Swanson? They didn't have any paved outdoor space before they took over the parking lot with 8 trailers.

From what I understand vhc uses the ATS field as a landing pad for helicopters. Trailers or expansion onto the field space wouldn’t necessarily just be up to Aps. Not that it couldn’t eventually happen, but it’s not a simple matter.

Anonymous wrote:11:27 - if they were really taking the size of the property into account, they would force a 4th comprehensive high school onto the Kenmore site. ATS has 7 acres, Kenmore has 32, yet ATS was actually being considered for a high school site because the NIMBYs around Kenmore were fighting the idea of a high school there. (They say it's because of traffic - which is a factor - but I also think they want their kids to keep being zoned for Washington-Lee, a better HS than a HS at Kenmore would likely be.)

Anyway, just because something is done at other schools doesn't make it ideal. McKinley tried to fight their trailers, but they also fought against having kids reboundaried to other schools. Swanson has a bunch, but I imagine some of them will go away when Stratford opens? Williamsburg's back side looks like a trailer park.

I truly can’t wait for Glen Carlyn to get rezoned to Wakefield. It’s coming.

11:27 - if they were really taking the size of the property into account, they would force a 4th comprehensive high school onto the Kenmore site. ATS has 7 acres, Kenmore has 32, yet ATS was actually being considered for a high school site because the NIMBYs around Kenmore were fighting the idea of a high school there. (They say it's because of traffic - which is a factor - but I also think they want their kids to keep being zoned for Washington-Lee, a better HS than a HS at Kenmore would likely be.)

Anyway, just because something is done at other schools doesn't make it ideal. McKinley tried to fight their trailers, but they also fought against having kids reboundaried to other schools. Swanson has a bunch, but I imagine some of them will go away when Stratford opens? Williamsburg's back side looks like a trailer park.

Anonymous wrote:21:58 - yes, APS has proposed (not mandated - yet) that ATS grow by a lot. We are currently at 534 kids on an official capacity of 465 - they are proposing to take us to 750 kids by sticking a bunch of trailers on our only outdoor paved space, plus a piece of playground currently heavily used by the county softball leagues.

The lunchroom is already full for all three shifts and kids eat lunch as early as 10:20 a.m. Adding 200 kids to an already fully-utilized lunch room will mean that some kids might literally be standing in line to buy lunch the entire lunch period. (which would most affect the FARMS kids who buy lunch every day.)

We are gradually moving to 4 classes per grade anyway, but with the county projected to have excess capacity of over 200 students in a few years, we are fighting the idea of serious overcrowding.

That sucks but ATS can't be sitting pretty on the largest lot of land and not expect to take some overflow. There is a lot of land for trailers.

Losing your only paved outdoor space? Did you see what they did to Swanson? They didn't have any paved outdoor space before they took over the parking lot with 8 trailers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let me draw your attention to the year-round calendar at Barcroft. Cut that first.

Summer learning loss is a real issue. The case against year-round calendar is more economic (loss of summer jobs, potentially higher costs for teacher/transport/building) and not a practical one. A good overview is here: https://www.learningliftoff.com/year-round-school/ I wouldn't say it's a luxury and it may be use of the school building more efficient as the article points out.

The cost of transportation for the transfers out is a cost. Either make it an option school and rezone the neighborhood to a different school(s) or end the calendar. Or if it's such a benefit and not any more costly, make every school in the system have the calendar.

The neighborhood can option out to Randolph.

No, they have to apply for a transfer and then drive their kids to the school every day. It's neither efficient nor environmentally friendly to send kids out of their own neighborhood to a different neighborhood school. You would have more walkers to Barcroft if not for the calendar, and if you make Randolph the default you have to create NEW bus routes to a school that is currently 100% walkers. Just scrap the calendar.

The schools are a mile apart. Hardly much travel time. Enjoy Randolph!

Nope, we'll apply to choice first like every other person because they can get a bus. So stupid when we could just walk.

Sending 1-2 buses through Barcroft to pick up kids is no big deal. Enjoy Randolph!

They want Randolph to be a bus-free school, as it is now. They have no intention of adding buses there. Instead they send buses from 5 options schools to pick up kids from Barcroft and take them hither tither and yon.