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

[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.

Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Eh...I felt very silenced as a pro-move McKinley parent and I know others felt exactly the same. Pretty much out of the gate, the emails were - here's what we think, here's your talking points, here's your chance to go tell the Board how anti-move you are. No balance AT ALL. Very uncomfortable. After a few of those emails, who is going to show up at a PTA meeting or a SB meeting and openly disagree? A total silencing effect.

I'm sure she'd say the people in the room at a first PTA meeting to discuss this issue all agreed with her. See: self-selection. You are representing a lot more people than the people who show up to one of your insular, clubby PTA meetings. Or you're supposed to at least.

I'm sorry, you deserved better from your PTA. It's bugged me that the PTA took sides on an issue where the central question was: who gets to stay in our community? Families in McKinley's walk zone seemed content to wave good-bye to the McKinley families north of I-66 and take away any chance of them staying in the program once Reed opens, so that walkers could keep walking. PTAs shouldn't be picking sides on issues like that, at least not without a broad base of support that includes families who would be worse off. That would require giving all affected families a genuine opportunity to be heard before deciding the PTA's position. It's sad that this didn't happen here.

DP here. I agree with what PP says. However, if a PTA does not have a broad base of active parents and doesn't receive feedback from the whole community, it can't really represent the spectrum of perspectives from the community. It can only represent the feedback it receives. I'm not at McKinley; so I don't know how much pro-move expression there was at the beginning of the process So I'm not saying that's what was done there. Just pointing out the limitations of any PTA fully representing its community.

Some options I can think of that we’re not used:

Survey monkey just to get a sense of where broader group who don’t go to meetings stands
Actively solicit email feedback after presenting an open/safe environment where anonymity will be respected IF requested

[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.

Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

I'm not "Karen" but "equity" is getting way over-applied. Equity doesn't mean equal. I understand what you're saying and how it can contribute to inequity (and I agree); but at the same time, if both the spanish speaking communities and the english speaking communities have an equal opportunity to access immersion and one group or the other simply doesn't want to, I don't think that in and of itself is inequitable. Arlington has chosen the 50/50 model and I agree with that. It's the right thing to do in a system with a sufficient # of Spanish speakers.

However, what is the actual % of Spanish speaking families in APS now? Is it dwindling? There are so many other English language learners who do not speak Spanish. Where's the equity for them? Is there a population for any immersion language 50/50 model? I'm guessing Spanish is still the most likely to have sufficient students for 50/50; but is that changing? And if there are so many different languages so that none of them could fill the 50% non-English side, is the 50/50 model still necessary? Do we continue offering immersion - in any language?

[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.

Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

So fill it with VPI classes.

Bottom line is we need seats and that is a nice, central location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

I'm not "Karen" but "equity" is getting way over-applied. Equity doesn't mean equal. I understand what you're saying and how it can contribute to inequity (and I agree); but at the same time, if both the spanish speaking communities and the english speaking communities have an equal opportunity to access immersion and one group or the other simply doesn't want to, I don't think that in and of itself is inequitable. Arlington has chosen the 50/50 model and I agree with that. It's the right thing to do in a system with a sufficient # of Spanish speakers.

However, what is the actual % of Spanish speaking families in APS now? Is it dwindling? There are so many other English language learners who do not speak Spanish. Where's the equity for them? Is there a population for any immersion language 50/50 model? I'm guessing Spanish is still the most likely to have sufficient students for 50/50; but is that changing? And if there are so many different languages so that none of them could fill the 50% non-English side, is the 50/50 model still necessary? Do we continue offering immersion - in any language?

I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

I'm not "Karen" but "equity" is getting way over-applied. Equity doesn't mean equal. I understand what you're saying and how it can contribute to inequity (and I agree); but at the same time, if both the spanish speaking communities and the english speaking communities have an equal opportunity to access immersion and one group or the other simply doesn't want to, I don't think that in and of itself is inequitable. Arlington has chosen the 50/50 model and I agree with that. It's the right thing to do in a system with a sufficient # of Spanish speakers.

However, what is the actual % of Spanish speaking families in APS now? Is it dwindling? There are so many other English language learners who do not speak Spanish. Where's the equity for them? Is there a population for any immersion language 50/50 model? I'm guessing Spanish is still the most likely to have sufficient students for 50/50; but is that changing? And if there are so many different languages so that none of them could fill the 50% non-English side, is the 50/50 model still necessary? Do we continue offering immersion - in any language?

Yes, let's look at other language options for immersion. There are many non-Spanish-speaking EL students who could benefit.

[Anonymous]

Key and Claremont each have 32 VPI students this year. Maybe expand VPI at the new Key location (after adding seats).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

I'm not "Karen" but "equity" is getting way over-applied. Equity doesn't mean equal. I understand what you're saying and how it can contribute to inequity (and I agree); but at the same time, if both the spanish speaking communities and the english speaking communities have an equal opportunity to access immersion and one group or the other simply doesn't want to, I don't think that in and of itself is inequitable. Arlington has chosen the 50/50 model and I agree with that. It's the right thing to do in a system with a sufficient # of Spanish speakers.

However, what is the actual % of Spanish speaking families in APS now? Is it dwindling? There are so many other English language learners who do not speak Spanish. Where's the equity for them? Is there a population for any immersion language 50/50 model? I'm guessing Spanish is still the most likely to have sufficient students for 50/50; but is that changing? And if there are so many different languages so that none of them could fill the 50% non-English side, is the 50/50 model still necessary? Do we continue offering immersion - in any language?

I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.

You do realize that most of Key's English speakers are from N Arlington? And if you're going to throw that argument agaisnt immersion, I hope you're advocating for the end of ATS too?

But we've been through this before--even if option schools were abolished tomorrow, it would not be enough to create a balanced enrollment in SA due to the concentration of AH there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.

You do realize that most of Key's English speakers are from N Arlington? And if you're going to throw that argument agaisnt immersion, I hope you're advocating for the end of ATS too?

But we've been through this before--even if option schools were abolished tomorrow, it would not be enough to create a balanced enrollment in SA due to the concentration of AH there.

That's not what I'm saying at all! I think we should keep our option schools and strive for the immersion programs to achieve the 50/50 balance of their model. My only point was that if APS considers letting more English speakers into an immersion program without a proportionate increase in Spanish speakers, then it matters where those English speakers would be coming from. If their neighborhood assignments are to lower-FRL schools, then that's less of an equity problem than if they're higher-income kids coming from higher-FRL schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.


You do realize that most of Key's English speakers are from N Arlington? And if you're going to throw that argument agaisnt immersion, I hope you're advocating for the end of ATS too?

But we've been through this before--even if option schools were abolished tomorrow, it would not be enough to create a balanced enrollment in SA due to the concentration of AH there.


That's not what I'm saying at all! I think we should keep our option schools and strive for the immersion programs to achieve the 50/50 balance of their model. My only point was that if APS considers letting more English speakers into an immersion program without a proportionate increase in Spanish speakers, then it matters where those English speakers would be coming from. If their neighborhood assignments are to lower-FRL schools, then that's less of an equity problem than if they're higher-income kids coming from higher-FRL schools.

So rich kids can go to immersion, but middle class kids who live in South Arlington and can't afford to move to North Arlington can't go to immersion because its too important that there be 1 semi-wealthy kid in each classroom so that the 25 ESL kids can benefit from their presence? Did I get that right?

As mentioned before there are not enough high income kids in some of these South Arlington schools to positively impact the overall learning environment there, even if option schools didn't exist. Those kids get lost because their needs are not met in the school and they end up being educationally behind their peers at other schools due to all resources going to the non-English speakers.

Pretty sure that banning the 5 high income kids in a high FRL school from going to an option school doesn't create equitable solutions for those 5 kids or for the other 100 kids in that school who are supposed to be magically benefitting from their presence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.


You do realize that most of Key's English speakers are from N Arlington? And if you're going to throw that argument agaisnt immersion, I hope you're advocating for the end of ATS too?

But we've been through this before--even if option schools were abolished tomorrow, it would not be enough to create a balanced enrollment in SA due to the concentration of AH there.


That's not what I'm saying at all! I think we should keep our option schools and strive for the immersion programs to achieve the 50/50 balance of their model. My only point was that if APS considers letting more English speakers into an immersion program without a proportionate increase in Spanish speakers, then it matters where those English speakers would be coming from. If their neighborhood assignments are to lower-FRL schools, then that's less of an equity problem than if they're higher-income kids coming from higher-FRL schools.

So rich kids can go to immersion, but middle class kids who live in South Arlington and can't afford to move to North Arlington can't go to immersion because its too important that there be 1 semi-wealthy kid in each classroom so that the 25 ESL kids can benefit from their presence? Did I get that right?

As mentioned before there are not enough high income kids in some of these South Arlington schools to positively impact the overall learning environment there, even if option schools didn't exist. Those kids get lost because their needs are not met in the school and they end up being educationally behind their peers at other schools due to all resources going to the non-English speakers.

Pretty sure that banning the 5 high income kids in a high FRL school from going to an option school doesn't create equitable solutions for those 5 kids or for the other 100 kids in that school who are supposed to be magically benefitting from their presence.

JFC. You seem more interested in strawmaning than listening, so I'm leaving this alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. Why should we be building more option seats for UMC white kids? That actually worsens segregation, dilutes the program, and doesn’t have anything to do with equity or better serving the needs of the least privileged and at-risk students. If the programs can’t attract more low-income Spanish speakers, it needs to shrink the number of English speakers admitted. Otherwise we’re fueling economic segregation, and at a big financial and environmental cost all those buses to transport UMC kids further from home, to what end? To a majority whites and wealthy school? That’s not equity. We have the good fortune to have a significant Spanish speaking population in Arlington. If this program isn’t actually going to serve them, it should not exist.

Uh, the program is not geared only for native Spanish speakers. It also serves English speakers, of all income levels. I understand that you don't seem to want your kids to learns Spanish through an immersion model. That's your decision. But I don't see why you should decide that others can't have that option. Contrary to popular wisdom on this board, the immersion program is not particularly costly for APS as a whole. The most complicated and difficult part is getting bilingual staff.

Oh, right. There are so many low income white people kicking around Arlington.



Karen, immersion isn’t a program for your kid’s benefit. If it’s not going to equally serve kids in the Spanish speaking community, there’s no need to incur the cost of transporting Karen Jr. from one part of the county to another. That’s not equity and you know it.

I'm not "Karen" but "equity" is getting way over-applied. Equity doesn't mean equal. I understand what you're saying and how it can contribute to inequity (and I agree); but at the same time, if both the spanish speaking communities and the english speaking communities have an equal opportunity to access immersion and one group or the other simply doesn't want to, I don't think that in and of itself is inequitable. Arlington has chosen the 50/50 model and I agree with that. It's the right thing to do in a system with a sufficient # of Spanish speakers.

However, what is the actual % of Spanish speaking families in APS now? Is it dwindling? There are so many other English language learners who do not speak Spanish. Where's the equity for them? Is there a population for any immersion language 50/50 model? I'm guessing Spanish is still the most likely to have sufficient students for 50/50; but is that changing? And if there are so many different languages so that none of them could fill the 50% non-English side, is the 50/50 model still necessary? Do we continue offering immersion - in any language?

I think you're missing PP's point about equity. The problem with letting immersion programs get out of balance in favor of English speakers is that it worsens the trend of UMC kids fleeing higher-FRL schools, worsening inequity at those schools.

I'm not missing the point. My kids went to one of those schools people flee from. My point is, if the spanish speaking families don't want it, does that really mean nobody can have it? They can limit it to one program rather than two elementary schools and cap the # from each neighborhood school who can attend, like they do with HBW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

Nope. It was full of lies.

None of the community-generated scenarios worked - they certainly didn’t take 6 factors into consideration.
The community-generated scenarios did not result in fewer buses.
Key won’t need to function at 152%.
Key families can move if they are supported (and want to stick with immersion). Key families are willing to set up carpools to all school events, meetings, enrichment, etc.

She has fallen short on just about every claim she made.

Wut? We are telling families to move their household now to follow their school? Or deal with a school move by setting up some carpools? Are you for real?

*not Mary*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the op-ed was slimy. Very misleading and such an obvious ploy for sympathy. She is exploiting those at-risk families.

IMO a good letter and well reasoned.

Nope. It was full of lies.

None of the community-generated scenarios worked - they certainly didn’t take 6 factors into consideration.
The community-generated scenarios did not result in fewer buses.
Key won’t need to function at 152%.
Key families can move if they are supported (and want to stick with immersion). Key families are willing to set up carpools to all school events, meetings, enrichment, etc.

She has fallen short on just about every claim she made.

Wut? We are telling families to move their household now to follow their school? Or deal with a school move by setting up some carpools? Are you for real?

*not Mary*

Mary said they can’t move to the new location.

They CAN move (if they want to) if they have transportation support (issue identified by Key parents).

Someone earlier on the thread said that Key families are willing to provide carpools for enrichment, events, meetings, etc.

Problem solved.