Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

I don't think this is going to happen. It could be a very walkable school. If only 300 nearby kids didn't transfer out to avoid the different calendar! They should start there and see what happens.

They don't all transfer out because of the frickin' calendar! Give it a rest!

Ok - then back to moving ATS there. Hundreds of kids transferred out - calendar or dicey school. Moving ATS there solves two problems - open seats where they are needed and move a high performing school south.

Not going to happen. If they move ATS, that creates neighborhood seats in N Arlington so they need to take neighborhood seats out of N Arlington.

And unless someone can discover new land near Ballston or convince the County Board to let APS build a school on the Central Libray land, they need more neighborhood seats right where ATS is located.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

I don't think this is going to happen. It could be a very walkable school. If only 300 nearby kids didn't transfer out to avoid the different calendar! They should start there and see what happens.

They don't all transfer out because of the frickin' calendar! Give it a rest!

Ok - then back to moving ATS there. Hundreds of kids transferred out - calendar or dicey school. Moving ATS there solves two problems - open seats where they are needed and move a high performing school south.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

I don't think this is going to happen. It could be a very walkable school. If only 300 nearby kids didn't transfer out to avoid the different calendar! They should start there and see what happens.

They don't all transfer out because of the frickin' calendar! Give it a rest!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

I don't think this is going to happen. It could be a very walkable school. If only 300 nearby kids didn't transfer out to avoid the different calendar! They should start there and see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

I don't think this is going to happen. It could be a very walkable school. If only 300 nearby kids didn't transfer out to avoid the different calendar! They should start there and see what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Why would they take capacity out of south Arlington and add more to north Arlington? That makes no sense. Even with Fleet opening, south Arlington will need another elementary school in less than ten years.

Anonymous wrote:ATS --> Barcroft; Barcroft --> Randolph/Patrck Henry/Fleet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools with the most relocatables right now:

TEN:
Patrick Henry
Barcroft

EIGHT:
Oakridge

Is that figure right about Barcroft? That has to be old data. They aren't even at capacity this year. How are they using ten trailers there? Are they sitting empty waiting to be distributed to the next overcrowded school?

If we're serious about solving overall capacity, we have to stop fighting boundary changes like they're going to ruin our lives.

I was surprised about Barcroft, too! But this is new and straight from APS. The optimization report.

That's very odd. As of last month, they only had 390 k-5 students. And only 46 Pre-K students. How could they be using 10 trailers? The school has actual capacity for 460 students without trailers.

Anonymous wrote:Watch out, APS! ATS has a large contingent of parents going to school board members during open hours with a carefully crafted message. This vocal minority might win out and not get any more students, whilst the rest of the elementary schools get saddled with more and more kids.

ATS should get more trailers on campus to take on the extra kids, period. If not, the school should move to the south.

Anonymous wrote:Watch out, APS! ATS has a large contingent of parents going to school board members during open hours with a carefully crafted message. This vocal minority might win out and not get any more students, whilst the rest of the elementary schools get saddled with more and more kids.

ATS should get more trailers on campus to take on the extra kids, period. If not, the school should move to the south.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wrong.
Not only has there been talk on this very board about closing Tuckahoe as a neighborhood school and distributing all those kids elsewhere, but on top of that the facilities optimization study by APS study shows maps and charts, adding up to 14 trailers to the ATS site, *in addition to their existing 4 trailers*. Are you surprised ATS parents (and Tuckahoe parents) have been worried??