1300 High School Seats: Process

Analysis Process

On May 3, 2017, over 25 participants including APS staff, students, and Arlington County staff analyzed site options for the 1,300 high school seats.

     APS Staff and Students        Arlington County Staff
  • Instruction
  • Administrative Services
  • Administrators and students from
    • Career Center
    • Washington-Lee
    • Kenmore
  • Finance
  • Facilities
  • Planning & Evaluation
  • County Manager’s office
  • Community Planning, Housing and Development
  • Environmental Services
    • Transportation
  • Parks and Recreation


Each site was analyzed according to eight criteria developed from themes that emerged from community feedback: number of seats, timeline, costs, instructional program, complextiy of move, transportation, long-term growth, and maximum use of site.

Weighting and Ratings

Each criteria were given a weight from 1-10; one being the lowest and 10 being the highest.  The criteria were weighted rather than ranked to allow for multiple criteria to have the same weight.  Each criterion had between one and six sub-topics.

The weights were developed through a group consensus. Participants were randomly seated at six different tables. Each criterion was weighted individually followed by a table discussion to reach consensus and followed by a facilitated discussion among the tables to reach a group consensus.

After the weights were agreed to by the whole group, they were divided into six different groups to ensure a diversity of viewpoints and expertise in each group. Each group was given one or two criteria to analyze further. Each sub-topic was scored with a 1, 2, or 3 according to how well each site met the criteria. One – does not meet expectations; 2 – partially meets expectations; 3 – fully meets expectations. Groups then rotated to see other scores and to add any additional information.

Overall scores for each site were then calculated. The sub-topic scores were averaged for each criteria and multiplied by the weight. The weighted score for each criterion was summed for an overall rating. The documents below reflect this work.

Full comparison of sites: A comparative analysis, including the ratings and rationales, for all three sites

Breakdown of sites: Maps and individual ratings and rationales for each site

Rating Calculations:  Overall view of the ratings for each site

Summary of Analysis : Details of ratings for each site