APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

Yeah... Use the temporary dip in enrollment to get an addition on that building and a few years later enrollment in the program is back up again.

[Anonymous]

Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

Good point. Although LOL at the clueless Key parents who said they are now hearing for the first time that ATS is under consideration for an expansion. It's right on the APS website, people!

I guess they have been too busy lobbing accusations of racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

Agree. We need the seats and they will get filled, though probably not with 50/50 Spanish speakers. The 50/50 split has not been a reality for quite some time anyway at either immersion school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

Or they can evolve it into a K-8 program and free up seats in Gunston, while also making middle school immersion more accessible to more of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

There will be hellfire from certain corners of the Arlington immersion community if staff proposes changing the 50:50 model. Someone posted on AEM (a couple months back) an article criticizing English speaking communities of dominating immersion and watering it down. Cintia Johnson has spoken in favor of the 50:50 model too, so changing it might be an uphill climb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

There will be hellfire from certain corners of the Arlington immersion community if staff proposes changing the 50:50 model. Someone posted on AEM (a couple months back) an article criticizing English speaking communities of dominating immersion and watering it down. Cintia Johnson has spoken in favor of the 50:50 model too, so changing it might be an uphill climb.

Apparently Claremont is running a "50:50" model program with 28% Spanish speakers, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to keep it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

+1. Even without more students enrolling in the immersion program, those extra seats can be used for Pre-K, Special Ed, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key did this all wrong. They should have accepted that they were moving early on and spent their efforts advocating for a move to a building that meets their needs.

They really aren't in a bad position right now all things considered. They got THE central location in the county and there is already a feasibility study underway for an addition. All they have to do is advocate hard for the addition to be done as quickly as possible (preferably without being jerks) and they are golden.

If 40% of the current Key isn't going to move, why do they need an addition?
But seriously, if they can't get more Spanish speaking applicants, than they probably don't need an addition. I think they only got 35 Spanish speaking applicants last year, it will be interesting to see how many they get this year. If the number doesn't go up, than they need to reduce the number of Kindergarten classrooms.

If there is room for more seats there we should build them. (Since we need seats and all)

They can change to a different model (not 50/50) if the current one isn’t working.

There will be hellfire from certain corners of the Arlington immersion community if staff proposes changing the 50:50 model. Someone posted on AEM (a couple months back) an article criticizing English speaking communities of dominating immersion and watering it down. Cintia Johnson has spoken in favor of the 50:50 model too, so changing it might be an uphill climb.

Apparently Claremont is running a "50:50" model program with 28% Spanish speakers, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to keep it.

Just don’t call it something aside from 50:50. Wink wink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, EVERYONE should be doing that, not just the parents who support the moves. They didn't word it "help hold APS accountable", they said "hold APS accountable". Implying it wasn't their responsibility.

We will see what they actually do when it comes down to it. Will they be spiteful or constructive?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/arlington-makes-a-bad-move-on-elementary-schools/2020/02/09/e4812398-4a9d-11ea-8a1f-de1597be6cbc_story.html

I can’t access it. Who wrote it?

The McKinley PTA president. Her gotcha points are that they didn't follow the boundary procedure and that it hurts poor minority kids. Apparently she didn't see the inherent contradiction in this sentence: "One of these programs, Key Immersion, will be moved into a building where it will have to try to function at 152 percent capacity. Many Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to move with Key to its new location."

When I read it I couldn't believe she put those two things back to back. Um, you just solved the problem! Not everyone will move with the program, which solves the capacity issue. They can figure out future enrollment once they see how many Key Immersion families move.

I actually respected how she professionally handled the process and parents at McKinley - until now. This is lower than the trash that McKrazy and Data Dudes were spewing out.

I don't understand the statement that the boundary-only approach would have involved fewer buses and re-assigning fewer students. I assume she's probably counting all the ATS and Key kids moving en masse? Otherwise this statement makes no sense. And there is no way that community driven boundary option involved less busing. Just no way.