The Buckingham Herald Tribblog

The Arlington Public Schools Board will meet in June to revote on decisions it made once already in February, after a judge ruled that the public hearings for that vote were not properly advertised.

Arlington Circuit Court Judge Joanne Alper handed down a decision May 28 stating that the votes taken on Feb. 14 were made illegally as the public hearings of Feb. 13 and 14 had not been properly advertised. The plaintiffs in the case will “wait and see” whether to pursue more legal avenues regarding how the boundary decisions were made after the June 12 meeting, one of the plaintiffs said.

It moves some programs, and changes boundaries affecting only 53 elementary students, a number deemed too small for some of the parents who spoke at the meeting. Largely from Tuckahoe Elementary, these parents said that the proposal which brings Tuckahoe to 103 percent of capacity did not do enough to stem the overcrowding there.

Board member Libby Garvey agreed, although she voted for the measure.

“With this motion, we’re clearly not meeting our charge, but we’ve decided to punt and buy time,” she said. She made one friendly amendment to the proposal by moving the first date that APS staff would report back to the board from May to June 2008.

Ms. Garvey said she was shocked that all the brouhaha over the course of the last couple of months came down to “two planning units and 53 students.”

Planning units are portions of neighborhoods. Generally, when boundaries have been changed, a full planning unit is shifted from one school to another.

K.W. Barrett Elementary School is going to feel some changes under the plan that passed. For instance, Barcroft Elementary parents who do not wish to participate in Barcroft’s year-round schedule will send their children to Randolph Elementary School instead of Barrett in the future.

However, this change neither applies to current Barcroft students who go to Barrett, nor to any of their siblings. They will continue to go to Barrett and to receive transportation there.

In earlier drafts of proposals, various changes would allow students already enrolled to continue at schools. Last night, APS staff defined “enrolled” as students who were in the school in June 2008, not students who “have applied, or have completed their registration forms.”

One MIPA (Multi-Intervention Program for students with Autism) classroom will be moved from Barrett to Abingdon Elementary School in the southern tip of Arlington.

A Feb. 11 proposal, written by APS Superintendent Robert Smith, would have moved planning unit 1410 from McKinley Elementary School to Ashlawn, and 1706 from Nottingham Elementary to Jamestown Elementary in 2009. That change was not part of the motion that passed last evening.

Still, there was no sense that the work to fix overcrowding was complete. Part of the motion establishes two meeting dates, in June and December 2008, when staff will have to come back to the school board to report on progress. As well, the motion calls for the schools to modify the charge of its Advisory Council to include “providing an annual review and recommendations concerning school capacities and projected enrollments.”

“This proposal just guarantees that we’re back here having this same divisive fight in a year…because you’re not going to do enough on this,” said Tuckahoe mother Michelle Kisloff, who said she was frustrated with the outcome, but appreciated the hard work of the board. “But I thank you all for your time. See you all next year, same time, same place."

The HeraldTrib's List of Links and Stories

Labels: aps, eccc

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 10:42 AM 0 comments

Although the school issue has brought this concern to the forefront, it should be made clear that this has long been and remains a critical safety issue for walkers and bicyclists of ALL ages along this corridor through the Bluemont Park and Dominion Hills neighborhoods. This involves pedestrian and bike transport to all nearby destinations including Metro trains and buses, workplaces, parks, shops / restaurants and of course schools. Safety should be everyone's number one concern, always, and transportation on Wilson Boulevard is simply unsafe for those who choose to enjoy the most fundamental of means: leaving the car at home and getting some fresh air and exercise on the way to wherever we're going. It's the car-free diet we're all hearing about, right?

The area I'd like to focus on is our own planning unit, 1410, nearby PU1403, and others in the Four Mile Run valley in Bluemont Park and Dominion Hills. 1410 is the one that once enjoyed Stonewall Jackson (what is now ATS) as its walkable, neighborhood school, eliminated years ago as a neighborhood choice even though it is only a few blocks away. There exists an obscure, roundabout back way to walk to ATS from our area; however, with the recent proposals, 1410 and others are forced into school walk zones for Ashlawn that are very unsafe, requiring walking down long stretches of extremely narrow sidewalks along Wilson Blvd. during rush hour, and crossing over its 4 busy lanes.

If you've ever walked down Wilson in these areas, you know that you would NEVER let your kids walk along there alone - it's unsafe even for adults - with the speeders, heavy truck traffic and pollution on this major, arterial route. The sidewalks are on average 2 to 3 feet wide (about 2 feet to pass at the telephone poles), with absolutely no safety barrier between a distracted child and the road. The speeding traffic is literally less than 24 inches away, and so one wrong move from either driver or walker could result in a tragedy.

We once attempted to take our baby daughter in her carriage down the sidewalk, and it couldn't even pass between some telephone poles and the property owners' walls/yards. The problem is compounded on waste removal days, when the sidewalks are completely blocked all day in numerous places by the bins. For all these reasons safe biking on this stretch has also proven an impossibility: biking up and down the hills with traffic on Wilson is a death wish, and the sidewalks are too narrow to offer an alternative....

We adults rarely even walk on these sidewalks, since it is plainly dangerous and just so unpleasant - but Wilson Blvd. is the only route east and west in the area, without going very far out of the way, since we have the I-66 corridor within two blocks to the north and no parallel neighborhood streets in the vicinity to the north or south of Wilson. As a result, we often feel we are trapped in our own neighborhood--with really only a few "escape routes" for walkers/bikers--creating a limited feeling of connection to the surrounding Bluemont community.

In a similar sense we in 1410 also feel trapped by our increasingly limited options to attend neighborhood schools. Aside from Ashlawn and its lack of a realistic walk zone, we are all but locked out of ATS by the lottery; we are not in a priority group for Barrett enrollment, our next closest school after that; and there is talk of a possible future limit on transfers to this and other nearby schools due to high capacity.

In conclusion:

Is this really what we all want? My family thinks Arlington can do better, and we need ACTION from our Arlington County government. As someone who has joined Board Members on community walks and bike rides, I know that we share similar goals and spirit - so I'm confident that we can make progress here together.

Thank you for consideration of these critical matters - we look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

John Marston

Labels: aps, Barrett, eccc

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 9:43 AM 0 comments

They might not have agreed on what constitutes an overcrowded school, or how long “short term” use of a trailer is, but one thing the Arlington Public School Board and Superintendent Robert Smith agreed upon last night was that the superintendent’s proposal to ease overcrowding at a few north Arlington elementary schools will not be implemented as written.

Neither will the recommendations of the Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee, a group formed by the school board last February. One decision they could agree on was that no decision would be made regarding overcrowding at the Jan. 31 school board meeting, but they would have a plan by the Thursday Feb. 14 meeting.

At the end of a three-hour working group session, watched by about 70 people from the public, the board could not even agree on which proposal to work from and amend. The superintendent’s proposal largely relies on shifting the schools’ boundaries to solve overcrowding at Tuckahoe Elementary School and others, while the ECCC recommendation largely relies encouraging parents to send their children to “cluster schools” where there is space to absorb them.

“It doesn’t matter to me which one we work off of, so long we address what we discussed here tonight,” board member Frank Wilson said. He had been vocal all night in wanting to make sure the board stays focused on easing Tuckahoe’s problem of overcrowding. “I want to see this translated into a deliverable.”

The discussion moderated by Chairman Ed Fendley was not intended to bring consensus but just to get a sense of how highly school board members prioritized a variety of issues. The board often asked for input from APS staff, and ECCC Co-Chairs Anne Steen and Daphne Miller. Since it was a working group, audience members were not allowed to address the board.

Mr. Fendley said the conversation would be among board members, adding later that he did not expect to get “universal acclimation” on any issue at the meeting.

Board Member Libby Garvey, whose husband died of a heart attack Saturday, was not present at the meeting.

Much of the meeting was spent trying to define terms.

How long is “long term” when planning to ease overcrowding?

“Your operational definition of ‘neighborhood’ would be?” asked Superintendent Smith. Is a “neighborhood” for the school the same as “neighborhood” as defined by a civic association, board members wondered.

Mr. Wilson said it could be boundaries such as Columbia Pike or I-395, but it can be defined “in many different ways,” he said.

The meeting, as intended, ran long on discussion, but short on specifics.

New school board member Abby Raphael wanted to define what problem they were trying to solve.

“There have already been a couple comments about Tuckahoe, and that’s clearly a school that’s…projected to be the most overcrowded, but…there are a number of other schools that are projected to be overcrowded as early as this fall,” Ms. Raphael said. “So it would be helpful to know what problem it is we’re trying to solve.”

Mr. Fendley responded that “that’s on our list” of issues to be discussed. Number 9 was “How to determine when crowding becomes a problem.”

When they got to that topic, School Board Vice-Chair Sally Baird said that she thought schools entered “Red Zones” of overcrowding when the use of trailers (or “relocatable classrooms”) might be of use for a couple years before finding a more permanent solution.

Mr. Fendley said, “I feel deferential to school communities in this.” He added that he wanted to respect the school community’s feelings on whether they considered themselves “overcrowded.”

But that begged the question of whether something should be done anyway—would parents whose children had grown into a school that became overcrowded not feel the crowding as badly as new parents coming in?

On the issue of “walk zones,” whether children should attend a school they can safely and easily walk to, Ms. Baird said, “I feel we’re moving away from preserving walk zones…Whatever we do, we [should] preserve walk zones.”

“Walk zones are not going to be the solution to everything,” Mr. Wilson replied. “That’s extremely important to neighborhoods for me” but it is not everything.

But even there the question of definition became, “What is a walk zone?”

Mr. Fendley said crossing an arterial road, such as Wilson Boulevard, Glebe Road or Arlington Boulevard is not a walk zone, he said.

Mr. Fendley told those in attendance that there is no policy on grandfathering but that it was a common practice among previous boards.

“In all kinds of different ways,” Superintendent Smith, added quickly. His proposal allowed grandfathering for rising fourth and fifth graders and their younger siblings who already attend the school. Students not already enrolled in a school would go to wherever the new boundary would send them.

Ms. Raphael brought up the idea of different grandfathering schemes for different schools. Would grandfathering regarding the students from Barcroft Elementary, a school with a year-round schedule, who attend K.W. Barrett Elementary be the same as that of students at F. Scott Key School and Clarmont Elementary, the county’s Spanish immersion schools. Would the grandfathering in those schools be the same as that of students affected by a simple boundary change, she wondered.

“I haven’t worked out where I am on all this, but I think we need to be thinking about [it],” she said.

“What’s wrong with keeping the family together?” Mr. Wilson asked.

Regarding where and how pre-K students are educated, Ms. Baird asked if there was an advantage to having students taught in the schools; she wondered if having a central location was as good for that population.

Although the benefits of pre-K education have long been shown through research the superintendent said, “The question of whether there’s value added in pre-K is a well-answered question. The question of whether you have it in one location or another, I think that’s probably less clear, although I’d be glad to be persuaded that there’s some research on that that I’m not aware of.”

The room discussed for quite some time the need for continuity for the students, but wondered if that is more important than other questions of maintaining walk zones, or using trailers.

The school board has a working group session next week discussing the Foreign Language in Elementary Schools program, a pilot program in some schools. The superintendent, Ms. Raphael, and Ms. Baird spoke to the notion that the program does not need its own space in a classroom, but can taught in the students’ regular class. The rooms freed by moving FLES out of its own room might ease some of the crowding.

At the end of the evening, Mr. Wilson said, “It think we have had a very healthy and good discussion,” but he added that he did not want it to be regurgitated next week. He wanted to get down to decisions, and wanted to know what the next steps were.

The board needs to get to the “nitty-gritty” Ms. Raphael said. “I think we need to get to another level of detail”

Mr. Fendley reminded the board that next week they have another work session and before that time, he encouraged the board to reflect on the discussion, and to share their views with each other.

Labels: aps, eccc, schools

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 11:15 AM 0 comments

What's been screaming out to me, the elephant in the room, is the pure demographics/population problem here - and the inanity of even considering boundary changes to solve the problem (can we say short-sighted?).

Did you see the recent AP article talking about how the US is one of the only developed nations that still has an increasing population (immigration mostly)? [Against the Trend, U.S. Births Way Up]

I mean, the capacity issue is not going away, can't just be "fixed" as everyone keeps saying. It's a moving target, and the School Board better very seriously consider PLANNING to increase capacity by use of existing facilities, especially ones that were originally built to school the baby boomers whose kids are now the cause of the overcrowding (duh! Reed, etc.). I mean, this plus immigration, it's already a tidal wave of new kids.

That's already obvious, then you add Tejada's push for accessory dwelling units, and it just opens the flood gates on population increase in the county. My guess is that policy won't get too far, however, and in no small part due to the school crowding.

These are the things I wish people were saying.

Talk later...
John Marston

For a list of regularly updated information about the schools and crowding, click here. --ST

Labels: aps, eccc, schools

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 10:18 AM 0 comments

The mood started light for Arlington Public Schools Superintendent Robert Smith last night. He knew most of the 200-some people in the room wanted to complain about his proposal to change the boundaries of 18 elementary schools when he said, “Greetings,” brightly into the podium’s microphone.

The audience murmured back a half-hearted answer.

He feigned surprise at the lackluster reception, and the group laughed, allowing the mood to lighten for the first order of business, to honor 19 Arlington teachers who received national certification honors and a standing ovation from the crowd.

After that, he didn’t laugh much, or more precisely, he didn’t laugh at all.

And who could blame him? With 38 speakers on the agenda, and only two vaguely praising the work of Dr. Smith and his staff, he did not have much to smile about.

Although school board members at the end of the night said they thought the discourse of the evening was civil, parent after parent had stood at the microphone to tell the superintendent off.

None of the attacks was particularly personal, but people did not pull punches, using phrases such as, “substandard product,” “travesty of a plan,” “the nuclear option,” “not what’s best for the children of Arlington,” and “Dr. Smith’s proposal deserves a failing grade.”

One speaker said he expected better from Arlington’s best paid staffer. Another man cried.

“I’ve seen enough to come to some conclusions,” said School Board Chair Ed Fendley at the end of the evening. “One is the superintendent’s proposal is a terrible proposal.”

Dr. Smith's proposal would move about 600 students in 18 Arlington elementary schools. K.W. Barrett Elementary School's population size would remain about the same as it would lose about 40 students and gain 40. The gain would come as two of Ashlawn Elementary's "planning units" (sections of neighborhoods) would join Barrett, and some of the loss would come from losing the students who come to Barrett from within the Barcroft Elementary School boundary.

Before the meeting K.W. Barrett Elementary School PTA President Melanie Wilhelm said, “Our main concern is that we keep those Barcroft [Elementary School] families who have chosen us.” Three speakers from Barrett reflected that in their remarks to the board.

Under the superintendent’s proposal, only rising fourth and fifth graders (students who are third and fourth graders this year) and their siblings who are in the school currently would be “grandfathered” into a school. This could mean that parents who have rising fourth graders and a child in his or her last year of preschool this year might be sending their kids to separate schools this fall. Many people said the county should honor the decisions parents have already made.

Fifteen families at Barrett who live within Barcroft’s boundary would not be able to attend Barrett next year under Dr. Smith’s proposal.

“If he’s about choice,” Ms. Wilhelm said, pointing at Dr. Smith’s chair, “he’s got to respect that choice.”

A position paper circulated by the PTA stressed three main areas of concern. They asked that the school board respect historic school boundaries and walk zones as much as possible; encourage school choice as a way to alleviate crowding and increase diversity without disruption; and honor the choices that families have already made.

Speakers had three minutes to address the school board last night. In the video below, I chose two 30-second sections as a representation of what each person said. It is not intended to be a complete rendering of their statements. Peter Constantine is reading from the Barrett PTA position paper.--ST

The School Board is expected to make a decision on the recommendations at either the Jan. 31 or Feb. 14 meeting.

Citizens may also comment by email to boundary@arlington.k12.va.us,. Copies of all emails will be shared with all School Board members.

The School Board is expected to make a decision on the recommendations at either the Jan. 31 or Feb. 14 meeting.

Citizens may also comment by email to boundary@arlington.k12.va.us,. Copies of all emails will be shared with all School Board members.

I feel for Connie [Connie Sherman, quoted in yesterday's story]. She just went through the process of choosing a school and if this passes she would have to go through it all over again. I don't know why it's considered OK to grandfather in fourth and fifth graders but not the younger kids. Once you're there, you're invested. Moreso with the younger ones in that they have just made one big change in their lives so why should they have to make another one so soon? If grandfathering applied to all current students and their siblings then boundary changes might not be so emotionally charged.

If Arlington Public Schools offers us a system of choice, then they need to support our choices.

Enid Dunbar.

Labels: aps, eccc, schools

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 8:55 PM 0 comments

Many Barcroft Elementary School students and three other classes, over 40 students in all, will leave K.W. Barrett Elementary School at the end of this year if the recommendations of Arlington Public Schools Superintendent Robert Smith are accepted by the school board. He will formally present these recommendations to the board Thursday Jan. 17. A public comment session has been set up by APS for Tuesday, Jan. 22.

In recommendations released late Friday, Mr. Smith said he studied the ideas posited by the Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee, a group of 25 community representatives from all the elementary schools in Arlington. However, the tight adherence the ECCC paid to keeping the school boundaries the same was largely ignored in his recommendations.

Given that many schools lost entire planning units (sections of neighborhoods) under the plan, Barrett Principal Terry Bratt said, “I thought we came out really well.”

She said she views the superintendent’s recommendations as another part of the overall overcrowding discussion. The school board does not have to follow the recommendations made by the superintendent or the ECCC.

“I don’t want to lose anybody, but I thought overall, I thought we came out well,” she said, given that none of Barrett’s eight planning units was removed. Two planning units, 42 students according to the report, formally in the Ashlawn School boundary would move to Barrett under the plan.

Although Peter Constantine, the Barrett representative to the ECCC said he believes Mr. Smith was thoughtful in his approach, he said the superintendent’s recommendation “clearly is intended to fulfill the charge, but it ignores the bigger issues that the Arlington community has said they value.” That is, walk zones to neighborhood schools, and diversity among others. Under the ECCC plan, no boundary changes were made.

Mr. Constantine also admitted that the superintendent is facing the same basic problem the ECCC faced, that of easing the crowding either by offering as many choices as possible, or by changing boundaries. He said it was a difficult decision.

You will be able to find them on the Arlington Public Schools website as of Friday, Jan. 11.

--Barrett Principal Terry Bratt, in an email to the community

Labels: Barrett, eccc, schools

// posted by Steve Thurston @ 9:01 AM 0 comments

The decision to do this comes as the school board’s Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee draws its work to a close in December.

“This is the calm before the storm,” said Peter Constantine, Barrett’s representative on the ECCC at an informational meeting last night. He said in December, when the ECCC recommends solutions to the overcrowding, schools will be moving fast to get their ways, and Barrett needs to be prepared.