Discussion Boundary Map out for APS- elementary schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

wait, why can't people complain about overcrowding at ATS be 'for real'? it is over capacity as far as i know and has many trailers.

I don't think the larger class sizes at ATS are permanent though. They added larger class sizes right now because they had to figure out a way to funnel more kids away from McKinley, Glebe, and Ashlawn-- all of which are out of space, even with trailers. The transfer report will show you that about 1/4 of ATS pulls from those three school boundaries, which makes sense given the current ATS location. Once Reed opens, I thought the plan is for ATS to go back to being smaller. That's also why APS was eyeing the Nottingham site location last year as a possible location switch-- that's one of the smaller elementary school buildings, but it does have capacity for trailers if ATS needs to ramp up enrollment in the future again to help with another population boom. APS staff explained that pretty clearly at one of the work sessions.

But they also said in recent work sessions that we are going to need to add capacity to every school that isn't currently at 752. So I would guess that ATS will not scale back down.

It depends on the facility that houses it. They will size the program to fit the facility. They don't have that luxury with neighborhood schools.

And the option schools should bear the burdens of full capacity and overcrowding just like neighborhood schools. ALL schools should be used to BALANCE enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would think immersion is going to ATS. They will eliminate the traditional model. And do this all again when the next elementary school is built. That school will be the IV with immersion in it.

They are not going to eliminate ATS in this cycle or ever. They would be more likely to evolve it into something else. Also, we already have an IB elementary school. It's just not an option school, it's Randolph. That's the IB with Immersion target.

How is evolving it into something else not eliminating it? The something else would be something from the IPP, and none of those options are Traditional Model.

The way the first post read, I thought the poster was saying they would move immersion to ATS and dissolve ATS in 2021 and send those kids back to their neighborhood schools and then create and entirely new immersion with IB school when the next school is built. That is not going to happen. ATS will continue with the same students, teachers and administration while possibly moving to a new building. The progammatic focus might shift to IB over the next few years, which to me is not the same as elimination.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

Again: immersion is not a safety valve for UMC wealthy people to point to as a means of dispersing “the poors.”[/quote]

In that case, location doesn’t matter so we can put immersion in Nottingham or Tuckahoe. You can’t have it both ways. Either the school is vital to low income Hispanic populations and should bear the western Pike or we are misunderstanding immersion and it doesn’t really matter where it goes. Either way it doesn’t need to stay in Courthouse.[/quote]

I never said it did. I only said that posters are fundamentally misunderstanding the program. Why? Who knows. Maybe it’s the false equation of Spanish speaking with poor. I could care less where it goes or even of it is eliminated in favor of just one immersion school.

[Anonymous]

There are so many location constraints in Arlington that the days of ideal placement of option schools is over. Obviously immersion needs to be where Spanish speakers are in high concentration in order to obtain close to a 50:50 mix, but beyond that the option schools need to go to areas that can bear to give up neighborhood seats, and those locations probably won’t be in the center of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the option school parents- those that say things like 'moving ATS north would be inequitable' and 'you don't understand immersion- we have to stay in Courthouse'- is that they generally think of themselves as 'better' more diverse people than the rest of us plebes at neighborhood schools. They are for the most part social justice minded. Thus, they can't admit even to themselves that they are really promoting their own interests in their current locations- so they come up with specious arguments like the above, then get a lot of validation of the arguments from other option school parents. The reasoning does sound good at first- but when you probe it you realize both that it is not really true, or doesn't hold up to competing reasoning.
e.g. some version of options schools have to be centrally located to be accessible to everyone. That's great in theory- and if we had a multitude of centrally located school sites I don't think anyone would object. But surely you can't think it is more 'equitable' to keep ATS centrally located, and bus kids who are currently west of the Pike past 1) Campbell; 2) Carlin Springs; 3)Ashlawn;4) ATS; 5)Barrett- all the way to McKinley so as to keep the option schools centrally located?

Or alternatively- surely APS can do a better job of finding school sites that are centrally located. I have a pipe dream of building another school on top of Key- pursue that at the cost of a bizillian dollars and several additional years of suffocating overcrowding rather than making me leave the Key school site.

Obviously, this self interest disguised as others interest is not limited to option school parents- see the flip out in Westover over the map as the Westover residents realize that they are going to have to use the Reed school site for kids other than their own.

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

[Anonymous]

Wish I could read that! But not badly enough to join the AEM train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Westover may get a neighborhood school. But it will serve south and east. Most of the “advocates” for that school live north and west of it. And they are going to be sad. I am playing my tiny violin for them. Gleefully.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to be tangential, but can anyone please point out where I can see the capacity totals for each of the schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

wait, why can't people complain about overcrowding at ATS be 'for real'? it is over capacity as far as i know and has many trailers.

I don't think the larger class sizes at ATS are permanent though. They added larger class sizes right now because they had to figure out a way to funnel more kids away from McKinley, Glebe, and Ashlawn-- all of which are out of space, even with trailers. The transfer report will show you that about 1/4 of ATS pulls from those three school boundaries, which makes sense given the current ATS location. Once Reed opens, I thought the plan is for ATS to go back to being smaller. That's also why APS was eyeing the Nottingham site location last year as a possible location switch-- that's one of the smaller elementary school buildings, but it does have capacity for trailers if ATS needs to ramp up enrollment in the future again to help with another population boom. APS staff explained that pretty clearly at one of the work sessions.

But they also said in recent work sessions that we are going to need to add capacity to every school that isn't currently at 752. So I would guess that ATS will not scale back down.

It depends on the facility that houses it. They will size the program to fit the facility. They don't have that luxury with neighborhood schools.

And the option schools should bear the burdens of full capacity and overcrowding just like neighborhood schools. ALL schools should be used to BALANCE enrollment.

Absolutely. But give the neighborhood schools priority with the facilities that best serve the neighborhoods. Option schools can go elsewhere. More seats IN neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the option school parents- those that say things like 'moving ATS north would be inequitable' and 'you don't understand immersion- we have to stay in Courthouse'- is that they generally think of themselves as 'better' more diverse people than the rest of us plebes at neighborhood schools. They are for the most part social justice minded. Thus, they can't admit even to themselves that they are really promoting their own interests in their current locations- so they come up with specious arguments like the above, then get a lot of validation of the arguments from other option school parents. The reasoning does sound good at first- but when you probe it you realize both that it is not really true, or doesn't hold up to competing reasoning.
e.g. some version of options schools have to be centrally located to be accessible to everyone. That's great in theory- and if we had a multitude of centrally located school sites I don't think anyone would object. But surely you can't think it is more 'equitable' to keep ATS centrally located, and bus kids who are currently west of the Pike past 1) Campbell; 2) Carlin Springs; 3)Ashlawn;4) ATS; 5)Barrett- all the way to McKinley so as to keep the option schools centrally located?

Or alternatively- surely APS can do a better job of finding school sites that are centrally located. I have a pipe dream of building another school on top of Key- pursue that at the cost of a bizillian dollars and several additional years of suffocating overcrowding rather than making me leave the Key school site.

Obviously, this self interest disguised as others interest is not limited to option school parents- see the flip out in Westover over the map as the Westover residents realize that they are going to have to use the Reed school site for kids other than their own.

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

What thread on AEM? I don’t see a discussion like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the option school parents- those that say things like 'moving ATS north would be inequitable' and 'you don't understand immersion- we have to stay in Courthouse'- is that they generally think of themselves as 'better' more diverse people than the rest of us plebes at neighborhood schools. They are for the most part social justice minded. Thus, they can't admit even to themselves that they are really promoting their own interests in their current locations- so they come up with specious arguments like the above, then get a lot of validation of the arguments from other option school parents. The reasoning does sound good at first- but when you probe it you realize both that it is not really true, or doesn't hold up to competing reasoning.
e.g. some version of options schools have to be centrally located to be accessible to everyone. That's great in theory- and if we had a multitude of centrally located school sites I don't think anyone would object. But surely you can't think it is more 'equitable' to keep ATS centrally located, and bus kids who are currently west of the Pike past 1) Campbell; 2) Carlin Springs; 3)Ashlawn;4) ATS; 5)Barrett- all the way to McKinley so as to keep the option schools centrally located?

Or alternatively- surely APS can do a better job of finding school sites that are centrally located. I have a pipe dream of building another school on top of Key- pursue that at the cost of a bizillian dollars and several additional years of suffocating overcrowding rather than making me leave the Key school site.

Obviously, this self interest disguised as others interest is not limited to option school parents- see the flip out in Westover over the map as the Westover residents realize that they are going to have to use the Reed school site for kids other than their own.

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

What thread on AEM? I don’t see a discussion like this.

There are two - one with the post wondering whether Reed boundaries were set and one with the Discussion Boundary Map link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the option school parents- those that say things like 'moving ATS north would be inequitable' and 'you don't understand immersion- we have to stay in Courthouse'- is that they generally think of themselves as 'better' more diverse people than the rest of us plebes at neighborhood schools. They are for the most part social justice minded. Thus, they can't admit even to themselves that they are really promoting their own interests in their current locations- so they come up with specious arguments like the above, then get a lot of validation of the arguments from other option school parents. The reasoning does sound good at first- but when you probe it you realize both that it is not really true, or doesn't hold up to competing reasoning.
e.g. some version of options schools have to be centrally located to be accessible to everyone. That's great in theory- and if we had a multitude of centrally located school sites I don't think anyone would object. But surely you can't think it is more 'equitable' to keep ATS centrally located, and bus kids who are currently west of the Pike past 1) Campbell; 2) Carlin Springs; 3)Ashlawn;4) ATS; 5)Barrett- all the way to McKinley so as to keep the option schools centrally located?

Or alternatively- surely APS can do a better job of finding school sites that are centrally located. I have a pipe dream of building another school on top of Key- pursue that at the cost of a bizillian dollars and several additional years of suffocating overcrowding rather than making me leave the Key school site.

Obviously, this self interest disguised as others interest is not limited to option school parents- see the flip out in Westover over the map as the Westover residents realize that they are going to have to use the Reed school site for kids other than their own.

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

What thread on AEM? I don’t see a discussion like this.

There are two - one with the post wondering whether Reed boundaries were set and one with the Discussion Boundary Map link.

That's not at all an accurate representation of those threads. Someone on there (you maybe?) is stirring the pot and has about 20 posts himself.
Also, the map shows Reed boundaries heading north. That's where the walkers are (they're not crossing 66). So, chill out please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

What thread on AEM? I don’t see a discussion like this.

There are two - one with the post wondering whether Reed boundaries were set and one with the Discussion Boundary Map link.

That's not at all an accurate representation of those threads. Someone on there (you maybe?) is stirring the pot and has about 20 posts himself.
Also, the map shows Reed boundaries heading north. That's where the walkers are (they're not crossing 66). So, chill out please.

It's an accurate representation of some of the subthreads. I'm not going to copy and paste from a closed Facebook group, but there's definitely some flipping out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the option school parents- those that say things like 'moving ATS north would be inequitable' and 'you don't understand immersion- we have to stay in Courthouse'- is that they generally think of themselves as 'better' more diverse people than the rest of us plebes at neighborhood schools. They are for the most part social justice minded. Thus, they can't admit even to themselves that they are really promoting their own interests in their current locations- so they come up with specious arguments like the above, then get a lot of validation of the arguments from other option school parents. The reasoning does sound good at first- but when you probe it you realize both that it is not really true, or doesn't hold up to competing reasoning.
e.g. some version of options schools have to be centrally located to be accessible to everyone. That's great in theory- and if we had a multitude of centrally located school sites I don't think anyone would object. But surely you can't think it is more 'equitable' to keep ATS centrally located, and bus kids who are currently west of the Pike past 1) Campbell; 2) Carlin Springs; 3)Ashlawn;4) ATS; 5)Barrett- all the way to McKinley so as to keep the option schools centrally located?

Or alternatively- surely APS can do a better job of finding school sites that are centrally located. I have a pipe dream of building another school on top of Key- pursue that at the cost of a bizillian dollars and several additional years of suffocating overcrowding rather than making me leave the Key school site.

Obviously, this self interest disguised as others interest is not limited to option school parents- see the flip out in Westover over the map as the Westover residents realize that they are going to have to use the Reed school site for kids other than their own.

Westover is FLIPPING OUT on AEM because they may get a choice school instead of their "promised" elementary. Like they are entitled to a special promise. This is going to be fun to watch.

What thread on AEM? I don’t see a discussion like this.

There are two - one with the post wondering whether Reed boundaries were set and one with the Discussion Boundary Map link.

That's not at all an accurate representation of those threads. Someone on there (you maybe?) is stirring the pot and has about 20 posts himself.
Also, the map shows Reed boundaries heading north. That's where the walkers are (they're not crossing 66). So, chill out please.

Everyone on AEM needs to calm down. There are Westover people making solemn vows to fight for Reed as neighborhood as if it’s their birth right. And other non-Westover people dissecting details of discussions from 8 years ago. Breathe. We’re all going to be alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between placing an option program like ATS at McKinley, for example, and placing it at Nottingham. Part of the complaint from immersion middle school parents is how distant Gunston MS is at the southern border. Those are the parents who would love to see MS immersion at Williamsburg.

McKinley and Nottingham are 2 miles apart and a 7 minute drive. McKinley and Tuckahoe are 1.8 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. Nottingham and Tuckahoe are 0.9 miles apart and a 4 minute drive.

ATS and McKinley are 1.9 miles apart and a 6 minute drive. ATS and Nottingham are 2.9 miles apart and a 9 minute drive. ATS and Tuckahoe are 2.9 miles apart and a 10 minute drive.

This is all from GoogleMaps. I am not making it up. I'm not sure what a "big difference" we're talking about here. At most, the location differences mean 1 mile and 4 minutes. If you are coming from say, the Buckingham neighborhood, it is a 14 min drive to Nottingham and an 11 minute drive to McKinley. Moving ATS to McKinley instead of Nottingham makes no difference from a convenience perspective.

If ATS (or another choice program) is relocated to the NW, there really isn't a significant difference from a driving perspective between the McKinley, Tuckahoe, and Nottingham sites. They need to look at building size. If the NW is only going to be overcapacity by +133 seats, then that suggests that if they relocate an option school, then it should go to the smallest of the three buildings. Otherwise, the NW is back to a deficit of neighborhood seats immediately.