ASFS/Key Swap Off . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I agree. Either you can bear the inconvenience of an long drive to school events or to extended day as the price you play for the choice program that you value, or you can put your kid in his or her neighborhood school. You are not entitled to have a countywide choice program located near your home. Get over yourself.

Just like nobody is entitled to have a neighborhood school near their home. Don't people understand that there are always going to be students who need to take a bus or drive - with the rare near-exception of Randolph? Doesn't anyone get that everyone can't have the school of their choice within walking distance? That it's not possible to have all the option schools in the backyards of everyone attending and that kids are going to need to take a car or bus to a neighborhood school?

Yes, nobody is entitled to be able to walk to school. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider what’s good for the entire system and evaluate whether some option school sites would be more efficient/cost effective to become a neighborhood school just because we are scared of change. That and we should hold people accountable for saying they “walk”. Take away their buses and see if they still want to be zoned at that particular school.
We should also think about long term planning for the county in these discussions. The county pushes a car free diet and actively reduces parking, but then the school board makes all the walkable schools in that area full option. That makes no sense. The county clusters all of the affordable housing in one part of the county, and then the school board bemoans that they can’t create diverse schools. Again no sense.

That's because there are two competing "logics" and priorities: you want choice schools to be accessible by the whole County - so you need to locate them more centrally. That happens to also be where the most efficient public transit is. Unless you can build a slew of schools along that highly-populated, transit-heavy corridor, you can't offer enough option and neighborhood schools in those areas.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. Most of the countys choice schools aren’t centrally located. Campbell, Claremont, and Montessori aren’t centrally located. Only key and Ats are remotely near the metro/public transit. Why is it that accessibility isn’t an issue for Campbell or Montessori? I agree that for immersion at least, making it convenient to native Spanish speakers is necessary, but I’m not sure if putting it on the metro line is the way to do that.
There are only two areas where the county has actively reduced parking— along the orange line up to ballston, and along rt 1. I think that for those two regions, proximity and walkability should be prioritized because those are the only areas in the county that have been designated “car free”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I agree. Either you can bear the inconvenience of an long drive to school events or to extended day as the price you play for the choice program that you value, or you can put your kid in his or her neighborhood school. You are not entitled to have a countywide choice program located near your home. Get over yourself.

Just like nobody is entitled to have a neighborhood school near their home. Don't people understand that there are always going to be students who need to take a bus or drive - with the rare near-exception of Randolph? Doesn't anyone get that everyone can't have the school of their choice within walking distance? That it's not possible to have all the option schools in the backyards of everyone attending and that kids are going to need to take a car or bus to a neighborhood school?

Yes, nobody is entitled to be able to walk to school. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider what’s good for the entire system and evaluate whether some option school sites would be more efficient/cost effective to become a neighborhood school just because we are scared of change. That and we should hold people accountable for saying they “walk”. Take away their buses and see if they still want to be zoned at that particular school.
We should also think about long term planning for the county in these discussions. The county pushes a car free diet and actively reduces parking, but then the school board makes all the walkable schools in that area full option. That makes no sense. The county clusters all of the affordable housing in one part of the county, and then the school board bemoans that they can’t create diverse schools. Again no sense.

That's because there are two competing "logics" and priorities: you want choice schools to be accessible by the whole County - so you need to locate them more centrally. That happens to also be where the most efficient public transit is. Unless you can build a slew of schools along that highly-populated, transit-heavy corridor, you can't offer enough option and neighborhood schools in those areas.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. Most of the countys choice schools aren’t centrally located. Campbell, Claremont, and Montessori aren’t centrally located. Only key and Ats are remotely near the metro/public transit. Why is it that accessibility isn’t an issue for Campbell or Montessori? I agree that for immersion at least, making it convenient to native Spanish speakers is necessary, but I’m not sure if putting it on the metro line is the way to do that.
There are only two areas where the county has actively reduced parking— along the orange line up to ballston, and along rt 1. I think that for those two regions, proximity and walkability should be prioritized because those are the only areas in the county that have been designated “car free”.

I agree. Option schools go where there are more seats than kids in a close radius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we get rid of 60-80% FRL neighborhood schools? I think most folks would love to do this if you know how. Bussing children all over the county is not an option, however.

And that's the problem. Folks are all for solving the problem - without using any solutions to solve the problem.
We ALREADY bus children all over the County for option programs - and probably more inefficiently than busing them for neighborhood schools would be because of the ridiculous bus pick-ups for very small #s of children from some areas opting into programs.

So, you eliminate high FRL schools in various ways:
1) you can do it in one fell swoop by changing to an all-choice system (Cambridge model); or
2) with various other tools - note the plurality there, toolSSS - including busing children who are being bused to their neighborhood school now to a different assigned neighborhood school; eliminating geographical preferences for options schools was one piece the Board actually implemented; locate option schools in/near areas of concentrated low-income families so that they are more easily accessible and families more likely to apply; stop fighting weirdly-shaped boundaries and drop the idiotic "contiguity" principle; and push the County to stop adding CAF's in areas of schools that already have a high FRL% and push them TO build CAFs in areas with schools with low FRL%s.

The implication here is that you're either for all tools under #2 or you don't REALLY want to solve the problem. BS. Reasonable minds can disagree on which of these are acceptable/desirable and/or to what degree to address the issue. We might also have disagreements about what the goal is (i.e., what distribution of FRL is considered success... every school identical? Every school within +/- 20% of each other? 80% of schools within +/- 20% of each other with possibly a few outliers in certain geographies due to distributions?). It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned and legitimately desiring to solve the problem and still not see a massive increase in bussing as an acceptable approach to doing so... there are other toolsssss and options, just disagreeing with one approach doesn't mean you violate purity test of wanting to successfully solve the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RG will meet with you and say one thing then show up a the SB meeting and say the opposite. He is no gem.

+1 Exactly this.

Reid is a liar and a gaslighter. He only admitted his lies when Arlnow published his email. People need to stop blindly following him just because he’s from South Arlington.

You must be Henry or soon-to-be former Henry parents.

Henry/Fleet. Doesn’t change the fact that he lies out his a$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we get rid of 60-80% FRL neighborhood schools? I think most folks would love to do this if you know how. Bussing children all over the county is not an option, however.

And that's the problem. Folks are all for solving the problem - without using any solutions to solve the problem.
We ALREADY bus children all over the County for option programs - and probably more inefficiently than busing them for neighborhood schools would be because of the ridiculous bus pick-ups for very small #s of children from some areas opting into programs.

So, you eliminate high FRL schools in various ways:
1) you can do it in one fell swoop by changing to an all-choice system (Cambridge model); or
2) with various other tools - note the plurality there, toolSSS - including busing children who are being bused to their neighborhood school now to a different assigned neighborhood school; eliminating geographical preferences for options schools was one piece the Board actually implemented; locate option schools in/near areas of concentrated low-income families so that they are more easily accessible and families more likely to apply; stop fighting weirdly-shaped boundaries and drop the idiotic "contiguity" principle; and push the County to stop adding CAF's in areas of schools that already have a high FRL% and push them TO build CAFs in areas with schools with low FRL%s.

The implication here is that you're either for all tools under #2 or you don't REALLY want to solve the problem. BS. Reasonable minds can disagree on which of these are acceptable/desirable and/or to what degree to address the issue. We might also have disagreements about what the goal is (i.e., what distribution of FRL is considered success... every school identical? Every school within +/- 20% of each other? 80% of schools within +/- 20% of each other with possibly a few outliers in certain geographies due to distributions?). It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned and legitimately desiring to solve the problem and still not see a massive increase in bussing as an acceptable approach to doing so... there are other toolsssss and options, just disagreeing with one approach doesn't mean you violate purity test of wanting to successfully solve the issue.

To "solve the issue" in my book would mean no school in aps is 60% frl or higher. There are several now. And if we continue with current policies, it's a certainty there will be more. No school 20 pts in excess of title 1 status is a modest goal, I think. And it's probably not achievable without some combination of most or all the above "toolss", and I think you understand that too. You either support the end goals and accept the means necessary to achieve it, or you dont; this isn't a salad bar.

[Anonymous]

even 60% is too high. 45% should be the goal. system average is 30%. it would be a huge lift to get there but it's what is best for students. schools much over 40 struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
To "solve the issue" in my book would mean no school in aps is 60% frl or higher. There are several now. And if we continue with current policies, it's a certainty there will be more. No school 20 pts in excess of title 1 status is a modest goal, I think. And it's probably not achievable without some combination of most or all the above "toolss", and I think you understand that too. You either support the end goals and accept the means necessary to achieve it, or you dont; this isn't a salad bar.

Oh give me a break. Someone can legitimately say I support the end goal of reducing poverty, but Universal Basic Income is not a means I accept. Or I support the end goal of reducing abortions, but banning them is not one of the means that I accept. Or I support the end goal of universal coverage, but single-payer is not a means that I accept. Or I support the end goal of reducing gun violence, but banning guns is not a means that I accept. These are all reasonable positions, as there are plenty of alternative solutions to achieve each of those goals... just because someone doesn't accept one of the many means available to achieve the goal doesn't mean they don't legitimately support it. And the exact same goes for the goal of a more equitable distribution of FRL amongst our schools, but not supporting extensive bussing as the means to achieve it... because that's just replacing one harm to our kids with another. There are better and more sustainable ways to make progress to this goal that don't come with as much accompanying downside as a widescale bussing program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To "solve the issue" in my book would mean no school in aps is 60% frl or higher. There are several now. And if we continue with current policies, it's a certainty there will be more. No school 20 pts in excess of title 1 status is a modest goal, I think. And it's probably not achievable without some combination of most or all the above "toolss", and I think you understand that too. You either support the end goals and accept the means necessary to achieve it, or you dont; this isn't a salad bar.

Oh give me a break. Someone can legitimately say I support the end goal of reducing poverty, but Universal Basic Income is not a means I accept. Or I support the end goal of reducing abortions, but banning them is not one of the means that I accept. Or I support the end goal of universal coverage, but single-payer is not a means that I accept. Or I support the end goal of reducing gun violence, but banning guns is not a means that I accept. These are all reasonable positions, as there are plenty of alternative solutions to achieve each of those goals... just because someone doesn't accept one of the many means available to achieve the goal doesn't mean they don't legitimately support it. And the exact same goes for the goal of a more equitable distribution of FRL amongst our schools, but not supporting extensive bussing as the means to achieve it... because that's just replacing one harm to our kids with another. There are better and more sustainable ways to make progress to this goal that don't come with as much accompanying downside as a widescale bussing program.

NP. Can you list them? Even optional/choice programs would involve “busing,” at least until our neighborhoods are less segregated. We can’t get to the end result without a transportation component. Do you mean you don’t support “forced busing,” but do support busing by choice? Or you think we should wait another 20-50 years or however long it takes for this magically unsegregated Arlington to come into being?

[Anonymous]

Back to swap. So it’s really completely scrubbed — we are buying a home in Cherrydale and are wondering when they will decide the new boundaries for the ASFS site vs still entertaining swap.

The slide makes it unclear if this is final decision for path forward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to swap. So it’s really completely scrubbed — we are buying a home in Cherrydale and are wondering when they will decide the new boundaries for the ASFS site vs still entertaining swap.

The slide makes it unclear if this is final decision for path forward?

If you are dead set on asfs, I would wait to buy. There won’t be any clarity until Dec of this year.
As earlier pps pointed out, immersion is likely to be relocated, so that will be either to asfs, or somewhere else in the county. Even if it’s to somewhere else and asfs stays put, a lot of the more senior faculty has/is rumored to be leaving. So the school could be completely different since it won’t have the neighborhoods currently zoned to it and a lot of the staff that pushes the “science focus”. It will likely be less diverse than the current asfs, look more like taylor than current asfs. Who knows if the new pta will be supportive of maintaining the “science focus”. Both asfs and the new school at key will be unknowns. The chance of either of them being a bad school is low though, kind of like reed won’t likely be a bad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to swap. So it’s really completely scrubbed — we are buying a home in Cherrydale and are wondering when they will decide the new boundaries for the ASFS site vs still entertaining swap.

The slide makes it unclear if this is final decision for path forward?

There is no official decision. At this point they have signaled that they really want to move immersion to a site that is TBD, but might still be ASFS if they can’t find somewhere else. I suppose immersion not moving at all is still possible as well, but unlikely. Boundaries would change when Reed opens either way in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I agree. Either you can bear the inconvenience of an long drive to school events or to extended day as the price you play for the choice program that you value, or you can put your kid in his or her neighborhood school. You are not entitled to have a countywide choice program located near your home. Get over yourself.

Just like nobody is entitled to have a neighborhood school near their home. Don't people understand that there are always going to be students who need to take a bus or drive - with the rare near-exception of Randolph? Doesn't anyone get that everyone can't have the school of their choice within walking distance? That it's not possible to have all the option schools in the backyards of everyone attending and that kids are going to need to take a car or bus to a neighborhood school?

Yes, nobody is entitled to be able to walk to school. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider what’s good for the entire system and evaluate whether some option school sites would be more efficient/cost effective to become a neighborhood school just because we are scared of change. That and we should hold people accountable for saying they “walk”. Take away their buses and see if they still want to be zoned at that particular school.
We should also think about long term planning for the county in these discussions. The county pushes a car free diet and actively reduces parking, but then the school board makes all the walkable schools in that area full option. That makes no sense. The county clusters all of the affordable housing in one part of the county, and then the school board bemoans that they can’t create diverse schools. Again no sense.

That's because there are two competing "logics" and priorities: you want choice schools to be accessible by the whole County - so you need to locate them more centrally. That happens to also be where the most efficient public transit is. Unless you can build a slew of schools along that highly-populated, transit-heavy corridor, you can't offer enough option and neighborhood schools in those areas.

I’m not sure I follow your logic. Most of the countys choice schools aren’t centrally located. Campbell, Claremont, and Montessori aren’t centrally located. Only key and Ats are remotely near the metro/public transit. Why is it that accessibility isn’t an issue for Campbell or Montessori? I agree that for immersion at least, making it convenient to native Spanish speakers is necessary, but I’m not sure if putting it on the metro line is the way to do that.
There are only two areas where the county has actively reduced parking— along the orange line up to ballston, and along rt 1. I think that for those two regions, proximity and walkability should be prioritized because those are the only areas in the county that have been designated “car free”.

I'm not saying that all the option schools ARE centrally located and easily accessible by the whole County. I'm just saying that such is the ideal, and therefore those more central neighborhoods would be in greater competition for the nearest school being neighborhood v. option. I don't believe immersion has to be on the metro line - that's the argument of current key community because it currently serves lower-income Spanish-speaking families who live there. Immersion would be equally (if not more) successful located closer to where higher concentrations of Spanish-speaking families live - Buckingham, West End Columbia Pike.

Campbell and Claremont have not been such an issue in the past because of the neighborhood preferences for admission. Claremont emerged out of two immersion programs within Oakridge and Abingdon - so the location was bound to be in that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:even 60% is too high. 45% should be the goal. system average is 30%. it would be a huge lift to get there but it's what is best for students. schools much over 40 struggle.

I'm the poster who listed the "toolsSSS" and I agree; though I'd even be okay with a few schools at 50% but continue to hold the goal of having all schools as close to 30% as feasibly possible and no schools over 45%.

I guess the first "tool" is having a determined goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even 60% is too high. 45% should be the goal. system average is 30%. it would be a huge lift to get there but it's what is best for students. schools much over 40 struggle.

I'm the poster who listed the "toolsSSS" and I agree; though I'd even be okay with a few schools at 50% but continue to hold the goal of having all schools as close to 30% as feasibly possible and no schools over 45%.

I guess the first "tool" is having a determined goal.

Open your own FRL thread please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to swap. So it’s really completely scrubbed — we are buying a home in Cherrydale and are wondering when they will decide the new boundaries for the ASFS site vs still entertaining swap.

The slide makes it unclear if this is final decision for path forward?

There is no official decision. At this point they have signaled that they really want to move immersion to a site that is TBD, but might still be ASFS if they can’t find somewhere else. I suppose immersion not moving at all is still possible as well, but unlikely. Boundaries would change when Reed opens either way in 2021.

So they didn’t specify when they had to decide by, and even if ASFS is rezoned in 2021 process they could still be swap?