Anonymous wrote:ASFS will include a walk zone (even if it is a small one), and just bus some of the Rosslyn kids to Longbranch or the Clarendon folks to Taylor or Glebe. Makes no sense for APS to keep bussing kids (including the ones from Lyon Village) to ASFS, and then bus all the kids around ASFS out of the neighborhood. No need to do two bus trips when the Rosslyn, etc. kids can just stay on a bus for the same amount of time/maybe a couple minutes longer. Much cheaper and more efficient from a transportation standpoint.

Sorry but this makes no sense and this poster has no idea of the geography.
To get kids from Clarendon/Courthouse to glebe, you have to create an island or move a lot of kids from Ashlawn to glebe. To get them to taylor, you again have to create an island. You could move them to long branch, but as people above pointed out, long branch is a much smaller school and aps analysis even said that a school at the asfs site would help alleviate crowding at long branch. That and the Clarendon asfs kids are the only ones who consistently walk right now!
To create the walk zone, you are moving kids out of taylor— which is UNDER capacity next year! So you are moving kids from a school with no trailers to one with six. That makes no sense.
So they might make a walk zone but I don’t see them moving anyone to long branch, though they might try to move people to Taylor. I can see them doing as little as possible in order to leave them free for a more permanent solution.

Anonymous wrote:Who believes they can flip Reed so quickly?

As a tax payer, I'm pissed they are going to undo what they just did. As a McK parent, I'm glad that, if Reed opens on time, McK will be less chaotic. That aside, I just think this time line is unrealistic.

McK was behind...6-9 months. Discovery was finished like at midnight the day before school opened...

Discovery didn't finish on schedule, I believe the gym didn't finish for at least a few months after it opened, and I don't think the cafeteria was fully operational from day one either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming they revisit the issue in 20/21, should we expect it to take another year to decide and a few additional years to fully implement the move of option programs, or should we expect them to fast-track it at that point and both decide and implement in 20/21?

Assuming Reed still opens in 21 they have no choice but to address boundaries across the NW sector at that time. Otherwise, Reed would be empty.

I guess I was operating under the assumption that they may adjust boundaries before they get around to shuffling the option programs, hence the announcement that they’re currently moving forward only with boundary changes.

I don't think the boundary process for this fall is likely to change very much from the original plan. I think they will redraw the entire county for both Fleet and Reed now, but will implement those boundary changes in two shifts, one for 19/20 and the other for for 21/22. And as laid out in the current schedule, they will probably take another look at the second planned boundary shift in 2020 to see if any tweaks need to be made based on updated data for 21/22.

If the whole thing proves to be truly untenable, then we probably see them reopen the location review before Reed opens and it's possible some planning units move twice in the span of a few years, even though that's something they try to avoid as a matter of policy. If they can make it work, they probably won't bring it up again until 2023 when they're due for another boundary consideration.

Who believes they can flip Reed so quickly?

As a tax payer, I'm pissed they are going to undo what they just did. As a McK parent, I'm glad that, if Reed opens on time, McK will be less chaotic. That aside, I just think this time line is unrealistic.

McK was behind...6-9 months. Discovery was finished like at midnight the day before school opened...

Anonymous wrote:Assuming they revisit the issue in 20/21, should we expect it to take another year to decide and a few additional years to fully implement the move of option programs, or should we expect them to fast-track it at that point and both decide and implement in 20/21?

If they want to have everything moved for the 2021-22 school year when Reed opens, they need to do the final vote not just on locations but also on boundaries no later than November 2020 before options/transfers for 2021-22 opens after in Jan/Feb 2021. That effectively means they need to have what they believe to be the final recommendation ready by September 2020. To be ready for that, they probably need to start the public process no later than March 2020 (since not much happens over the summer), but to do it on that time frame the staff will need to have every data point and consideration ready when the process officially launches to avoid a repeat of this one. Of course, they could start sooner if they feel ready and inclined to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming they revisit the issue in 20/21, should we expect it to take another year to decide and a few additional years to fully implement the move of option programs, or should we expect them to fast-track it at that point and both decide and implement in 20/21?

Assuming Reed still opens in 21 they have no choice but to address boundaries across the NW sector at that time. Otherwise, Reed would be empty.

I guess I was operating under the assumption that they may adjust boundaries before they get around to shuffling the option programs, hence the announcement that they’re currently moving forward only with boundary changes.

Anonymous wrote:Assuming they revisit the issue in 20/21, should we expect it to take another year to decide and a few additional years to fully implement the move of option programs, or should we expect them to fast-track it at that point and both decide and implement in 20/21?

Assuming Reed still opens in 21 they have no choice but to address boundaries across the NW sector at that time. Otherwise, Reed would be empty.

Assuming they revisit the issue in 20/21, should we expect it to take another year to decide and a few additional years to fully implement the move of option programs, or should we expect them to fast-track it at that point and both decide and implement in 20/21?

I think we'll end up reopening the conversation about Reed boundaries and option school moves in the 2020/21 timeframe and will probably end up with the same proposals we have today. The "advantage" to pushing it off is that all the planned development will have happened by then (we'll know real enrollment numbers) and we'll also know where the future development is going that we aren't even talking about today. If you look at the County zoning map, you can already make a pretty good guess what those numbers are going to look like in 2020/21, but most APS parents are too lazy or not smart enough to read the writing on the wall. Everyone just focuses on their specific school (or the tear down across the street) and not the bigger County picture which includes more major multi-family development buildings. So APS just has to wait for all the planned development to play out and then deal with it in 2020/21.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t the kids in Rosslyn go to Longbranch? That’s a straight shot up 50 and closer?

Kids in Rosslyn will go to ASFS or neighborhood Key. Does something bother you about this?

Hi, neighborhood Key doesn't exist. Try again.

It will in 2020 or 2021. Sorry that bothers you.

If I had to guess, I’d push that date out to 2026, which is also a more realistic Reed opening date.

It's great to say stuff like this on an anonymous forum but no one has said anything about Reed opening in 2026. No one has said anything other than it continuing to open in 2021.

Sent too soon. In fact the school talk release just included a paragraph that says:

The Superintendent added that APS may need to revisit the option of adjusting some elementary neighborhood and option school locations in the future when APS begins the community process to adjust boundaries and create a new attendance zone for the new elementary school at Reed that will open in September 2021.

DP. In CIP work session #2, where they talked about the possibility of postponing Reed (and other projects) in favor of more amenities for the fourth high school, it was discussed generally that those postponed projects likely wouldn't be able to come online until 2026 or later. I assume this is where pp got that date.

As to Reed opening in 2021, while I think it's unlikely they will decide to postpone Reed, that Murphy referenced a 2021 opening in his presentation doesn't make it gospel. Murphy doesn't get to make that decision, that lies with the school board, and right now, even if they are seriously looking at postponing Reed, they are not going to forecast it any more than necessary and get people all freaked out in case it doesn't turn into a viable proposal. But don't assume they're not considering something just because they don't specifically tell you they're considering it, didn't we just learn this in spades in the elementary planning initiative?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how does this play out in terms of effective dates:

* 2018-2019 - boundaries as is
* 2019-2021 - boundaries as announced this coming November
* 2021 - ???: What about Reed impact on boundary? Will they announce the with Reed boundaries this fall like they did with the middle school addition?

Then if/when option/neighborhood discussion comes back that would likely impact boundaries too. So what sort of assurance do we have for any periods of boundary stability?

I think if they want to move option programs (and they do), the changes this fall end up being contained to eastern side of S Arlington (Fleet, Drew, Oakridge, Hoffman-Boston). In NE quadrant they do the bare minimum to draw a walk zone around ASFS and try to leave old Key zone mostly intact. Trailers may be necessary. That would leave all of the relevant areas still in play for big moves and switches in 2021 without invoking the double move clause.

I think they are still going to try to do switches, just make the decisions later. All just guesses, of course.

I sure hope so, because after all of this, if they do nothing, they are going to lose the confidence of anyone with any sense. I know programs don't want to move, and neighborhoods don't want to shift. But we have to do this at some point. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will become.

Anonymous wrote:So how does this play out in terms of effective dates:

* 2018-2019 - boundaries as is
* 2019-2021 - boundaries as announced this coming November
* 2021 - ???: What about Reed impact on boundary? Will they announce the with Reed boundaries this fall like they did with the middle school addition?

Then if/when option/neighborhood discussion comes back that would likely impact boundaries too. So what sort of assurance do we have for any periods of boundary stability?

I think if they want to move option programs (and they do), the changes this fall end up being contained to eastern side of S Arlington (Fleet, Drew, Oakridge, Hoffman-Boston). In NE quadrant they do the bare minimum to draw a walk zone around ASFS and try to leave old Key zone mostly intact. Trailers may be necessary. That would leave all of the relevant areas still in play for big moves and switches in 2021 without invoking the double move clause.

I think they are still going to try to do switches, just make the decisions later. All just guesses, of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASFS will include a walk zone (even if it is a small one), and just bus some of the Rosslyn kids to Longbranch or the Clarendon folks to Taylor or Glebe. Makes no sense for APS to keep bussing kids (including the ones from Lyon Village) to ASFS, and then bus all the kids around ASFS out of the neighborhood. No need to do two bus trips when the Rosslyn, etc. kids can just stay on a bus for the same amount of time/maybe a couple minutes longer. Much cheaper and more efficient from a transportation standpoint.

It makes no sense but APS hasn't shown much track record in doing what makes sense.

Also, Rosslyn ASFS parents will learn from Cherrydale folks and print T-shirt’s and storm SB meetings.

And these are parents advocating for keeping their kids with their friends and teachers, not just trying to take someone else’s school from them. Look at Rocky Run parents who lobbied with tears to keep their friends together and changed middle schools from TJ to Strt. Parents are passionate about this, and there are way more kids in Rosslyn than walk zone ASFS.

So trailers in entire parking lot, gated ASFS parking at Buck property? Just need to build path.

So how does this play out in terms of effective dates:

* 2018-2019 - boundaries as is
* 2019-2021 - boundaries as announced this coming November
* 2021 - ???: What about Reed impact on boundary? Will they announce the with Reed boundaries this fall like they did with the middle school addition?

Then if/when option/neighborhood discussion comes back that would likely impact boundaries too. So what sort of assurance do we have for any periods of boundary stability?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ASFS will include a walk zone (even if it is a small one), and just bus some of the Rosslyn kids to Longbranch or the Clarendon folks to Taylor or Glebe. Makes no sense for APS to keep bussing kids (including the ones from Lyon Village) to ASFS, and then bus all the kids around ASFS out of the neighborhood. No need to do two bus trips when the Rosslyn, etc. kids can just stay on a bus for the same amount of time/maybe a couple minutes longer. Much cheaper and more efficient from a transportation standpoint.

It makes no sense but APS hasn't shown much track record in doing what makes sense.

This x10000 - Both the SB and APS staff don't have a good track record of doing what makes sense.