APS DHMS walk zone nuclear option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

It's similar to the visioning process Montessori did. All from within the sub-community; not the APS community. So if you weren't aware of Montessori's visioning, you might look into that as well.

Why in the world are we listening to these sub-groups? Arlington needs to focus on its regular, neighborhood schools and stop catering to a tiny fraction of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

Ugh. It’s nice that they have a vision, but I don’t think we all need to make the vision of a 300 kid program the priority for planning. Option programs should get what works for the whole county even if it’s not their ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

Ugh. It’s nice that they have a vision, but I don’t think we all need to make the vision of a 300 kid program the priority for planning. Option programs should get what works for the whole county even if it’s not their ideal.

Yeah, this is the pet project of one person in APS. It’s unreasonable for this program to take priority when we have available space in a non-ideal location. Are they moving the HS location? That’s not ideal either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

Ugh. It’s nice that they have a vision, but I don’t think we all need to make the vision of a 300 kid program the priority for planning. Option programs should get what works for the whole county even if it’s not their ideal.

Yeah, this is the pet project of one person in APS. It’s unreasonable for this program to take priority when we have available space in a non-ideal location. Are they moving the HS location? That’s not ideal either.

APS staff or board ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

Ugh. It’s nice that they have a vision, but I don’t think we all need to make the vision of a 300 kid program the priority for planning. Option programs should get what works for the whole county even if it’s not their ideal.

Yeah, this is the pet project of one person in APS. It’s unreasonable for this program to take priority when we have available space in a non-ideal location. Are they moving the HS location? That’s not ideal either.

APS staff or board ?

Staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just let the Hamm walk zone stay at Hamm and bus everyone else to Williamsburg? Wouldn’t this keep everyone happy?

Yes. And it's consistent with APS diversity goals.

I don’t see how recreating the Rosslyn Island to Williamsburg is fine but moving immersion to Williamsburg is a nonstarter. It’s the exact same issues.

No, it's not. Immersion is a countywide program and you need to get students to Williamsburg from all over the County. Rosslyn island to Williamsburg is just a few buses of kids from the NE quadrant to the NW quadrant. Also, those Rosslyn students would be assigned to WMS; whereas immersion students have to choose to continue in the program and many have a far more convenient default and therefore more likely to opt-out....defeating the purpose (alleviating crowding in south Arlington) of moving the program.

Immersion runs busses all over the county no matter where it’s located. Also, why should we care that immersion students have to choose between an inconvenient special program and a more convenient neighborhood option? It’s optional! We should be prioritizing the default. It’s not like Gunston is convenient for people who live near Rosslyn and Courthouse but according to the map they still attend. Williamsburg is projected to be at 65% in a few years. We could just move immersion there and be done without adding bus runs for walk zone kids or creating islands.

OK. Go ahead with that plan and see how it works. I'll put my money down on "it isn't going to play out the way you think it will."

Yes, we already heard this. “Moving Key will kill the school. Families won’t be willing to travel to a new location.”

And yet. 92% of the students moved to the new location. Of the 49 that didn’t, 20 moved out of the county entirely. If the program is truly strong and valuable, people will follow it.

It’s not just about current families moving to a new location. It’s about needing native Spanish speakers for the model to work moving forward. Been to Williamsburg lately? How do you think that will work out?

For those of you rabid to put a stop to any change, this idea isn’t it.

If Spanish speakers don’t want to enroll their children in Immersion, moving to closer won’t work either. I have heard exactly 0 parents IRL say the reason they don’t want Immersion is location. And even telling them that their children’s outcomes will be better isn’t doing the trick. Maybe they don’t want the program? And it’s a bit patronizing to try to make them want it because it’s for their own good.

Option programs need to go where there is space and that’s that. The rest of the county shouldn’t be shuffled around and disrupted for an OPTIONAL program.

Hard disagree. What works best for any school also should be a top consideration. Options are just as real schools as neighborhood, no less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

It's similar to the visioning process Montessori did. All from within the sub-community; not the APS community. So if you weren't aware of Montessori's visioning, you might look into that as well.

Why in the world are we listening to these sub-groups? Arlington needs to focus on its regular, neighborhood schools and stop catering to a tiny fraction of students.

Uh no. First, ther are thousands of APS families at options. Second, their schools are just as important as yours, and the system must treat them with same respect. Can they move? Sure. But should they be shuffled like chess pieces because they are second-class compared with neighborhood? Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

Ugh. It’s nice that they have a vision, but I don’t think we all need to make the vision of a 300 kid program the priority for planning. Option programs should get what works for the whole county even if it’s not their ideal.

I agree, but I also think its reasonable to look at one community's priority (though it is far from clear to me that the visioning process represents the immersion community). If a priority for one community helps to solve a problem like overcrowding, isn't it a win all around?

But I do think it is flawed to think this will solve Gunston's overcrowding program. At least half of the MS immersion program comes from Claremont which means most of those kids would go to Gunston MS anyway even if they weren't in the immersion program. Moving immersion won't solve Gunston's overcrowding if a lot of those families pull their kids from immersion because it moves too far north. It would be really great to see where kids who leave immersion go to MS and how many immersion kids live in each MS zone. Even better would be this data by ES zone or planning unit. If anyone knows where to find this data, please share. If you had a lot of MS immersion kids commuting from the far north of Arlington to Gunston, I'd say moving to Kenmore makes more sense. However, I don't expect this is the case. I would guess most immersion kids are concentrated close to 50 and in SA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without option programs APS would be an unimpressive school system. Maybe this is your goal.

No- people would go back to their neighborhood schools and APS would
have more money to invest in the neighborhood schools verses a private school experience on the public’s dime for the chosen few. The very fact that you are stating the option schools are the only good schools means you should understand the issue.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. If you close options you will overnight flood several neighborhood schools. Unless you build enormously, and I mean lots of money. And disrupting those schools. Oh, and options are well-established in APS for probably longer than you've been alive. Longer than some neighborhood schools. Most programs have annual waitlists. Some win awards and outside recognition. They are not second class schools. We will never agree on options - they absolutely belong in APS and literally are why my family chose Arlington 20 years ago. But I'm also flabbergasted how you deluded you are that somehow eliminating options is the solution. Don't you see that alone will spur the biggest boundary shift ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without option programs APS would be an unimpressive school system. Maybe this is your goal.

No- people would go back to their neighborhood schools and APS would
have more money to invest in the neighborhood schools verses a private school experience on the public’s dime for the chosen few. The very fact that you are stating the option schools are the only good schools means you should understand the issue.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. If you close options you will overnight flood several neighborhood schools. Unless you build enormously, and I mean lots of money. And disrupting those schools. Oh, and options are well-established in APS for probably longer than you've been alive. Longer than some neighborhood schools. Most programs have annual waitlists. Some win awards and outside recognition. They are not second class schools. We will never agree on options - they absolutely belong in APS and literally are why my family chose Arlington 20 years ago. But I'm also flabbergasted how you deluded you are that somehow eliminating options is the solution. Don't you see that alone will spur the biggest boundary shift ever?

Obviously there would be a boundary shift to fill up schools where option programs were located. I’m okay with that. Go move to a red state with vouchers if you want school choice. APS should nurture the neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

It's similar to the visioning process Montessori did. All from within the sub-community; not the APS community. So if you weren't aware of Montessori's visioning, you might look into that as well.

My guess is you weren't either or any program visioning because if you were you'd know they were: 1. Very open to public, and 2. Included outsiders. I just did one for a program I don't have kids in, but the neighborhood got a say. Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't make these efforts insular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without option programs APS would be an unimpressive school system. Maybe this is your goal.

No- people would go back to their neighborhood schools and APS would
have more money to invest in the neighborhood schools verses a private school experience on the public’s dime for the chosen few. The very fact that you are stating the option schools are the only good schools means you should understand the issue.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. If you close options you will overnight flood several neighborhood schools. Unless you build enormously, and I mean lots of money. And disrupting those schools. Oh, and options are well-established in APS for probably longer than you've been alive. Longer than some neighborhood schools. Most programs have annual waitlists. Some win awards and outside recognition. They are not second class schools. We will never agree on options - they absolutely belong in APS and literally are why my family chose Arlington 20 years ago. But I'm also flabbergasted how you deluded you are that somehow eliminating options is the solution. Don't you see that alone will spur the biggest boundary shift ever?

Obviously there would be a boundary shift to fill up schools where option programs were located. I’m okay with that. Go move to a red state with vouchers if you want school choice. APS should nurture the neighborhood schools.

No, and no. Go drop your condescension or understand why some of your fellow county residents think you're a snob. Neighborhoods have long sucked up the resources while options fought for scraps. I sure as heck don't think you need more favoritism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without option programs APS would be an unimpressive school system. Maybe this is your goal.

No- people would go back to their neighborhood schools and APS would
have more money to invest in the neighborhood schools verses a private school experience on the public’s dime for the chosen few. The very fact that you are stating the option schools are the only good schools means you should understand the issue.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. If you close options you will overnight flood several neighborhood schools. Unless you build enormously, and I mean lots of money. And disrupting those schools. Oh, and options are well-established in APS for probably longer than you've been alive. Longer than some neighborhood schools. Most programs have annual waitlists. Some win awards and outside recognition. They are not second class schools. We will never agree on options - they absolutely belong in APS and literally are why my family chose Arlington 20 years ago. But I'm also flabbergasted how you deluded you are that somehow eliminating options is the solution. Don't you see that alone will spur the biggest boundary shift ever?

Obviously there would be a boundary shift to fill up schools where option programs were located. I’m okay with that. Go move to a red state with vouchers if you want school choice. APS should nurture the neighborhood schools.

No, and no. Go drop your condescension or understand why some of your fellow county residents think you're a snob. Neighborhoods have long sucked up the resources while options fought for scraps. I sure as heck don't think you need more favoritism.

…So send your children to their neighborhood school. You are not entitled to special treatment in a public school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just let the Hamm walk zone stay at Hamm and bus everyone else to Williamsburg? Wouldn’t this keep everyone happy?

Yes. And it's consistent with APS diversity goals.

I don’t see how recreating the Rosslyn Island to Williamsburg is fine but moving immersion to Williamsburg is a nonstarter. It’s the exact same issues.

No, it's not. Immersion is a countywide program and you need to get students to Williamsburg from all over the County. Rosslyn island to Williamsburg is just a few buses of kids from the NE quadrant to the NW quadrant. Also, those Rosslyn students would be assigned to WMS; whereas immersion students have to choose to continue in the program and many have a far more convenient default and therefore more likely to opt-out....defeating the purpose (alleviating crowding in south Arlington) of moving the program.

Immersion runs busses all over the county no matter where it’s located. Also, why should we care that immersion students have to choose between an inconvenient special program and a more convenient neighborhood option? It’s optional! We should be prioritizing the default. It’s not like Gunston is convenient for people who live near Rosslyn and Courthouse but according to the map they still attend. Williamsburg is projected to be at 65% in a few years. We could just move immersion there and be done without adding bus runs for walk zone kids or creating islands.

OK. Go ahead with that plan and see how it works. I'll put my money down on "it isn't going to play out the way you think it will."

Yes, we already heard this. “Moving Key will kill the school. Families won’t be willing to travel to a new location.”

And yet. 92% of the students moved to the new location. Of the 49 that didn’t, 20 moved out of the county entirely. If the program is truly strong and valuable, people will follow it.

It’s not just about current families moving to a new location. It’s about needing native Spanish speakers for the model to work moving forward. Been to Williamsburg lately? How do you think that will work out?

For those of you rabid to put a stop to any change, this idea isn’t it.

If Spanish speakers don’t want to enroll their children in Immersion, moving to closer won’t work either. I have heard exactly 0 parents IRL say the reason they don’t want Immersion is location. And even telling them that their children’s outcomes will be better isn’t doing the trick. Maybe they don’t want the program? And it’s a bit patronizing to try to make them want it because it’s for their own good.

Option programs need to go where there is space and that’s that. The rest of the county shouldn’t be shuffled around and disrupted for an OPTIONAL program.

Hard disagree. What works best for any school also should be a top consideration. Options are just as real schools as neighborhood, no less.

They moved around the ES to make space for neighborhood students, and it didn’t destroy any programs. Maybe made them less convenient, but I don’t think the convenience for kids in optional programs should be prioritized over, for instance, furthering the demographic disparity at Kenmore, and I say this as an option parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From watching the pre-CIP table session #1 tonight, I am struck by how much credence has been given to the recommendations of an immersion “visioning” process that - as far as I know - was not publicly noticed.

I will be researching the issue further, but I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency on this issue. Some random assortment of stakeholders say they want one, centrally located middle school immersion program and we upend an entire county’s boundaries accordingly?

It's similar to the visioning process Montessori did. All from within the sub-community; not the APS community. So if you weren't aware of Montessori's visioning, you might look into that as well.

My guess is you weren't either or any program visioning because if you were you'd know they were: 1. Very open to public, and 2. Included outsiders. I just did one for a program I don't have kids in, but the neighborhood got a say. Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't make these efforts insular.

FFS. Calling something a “visioning” is ridiculous — 99% of it is meaningless to non participants. The part about movie go the program and disrupting everyone other middle school — that was buried in the hokey naming.

Now that they have now named it appropriately, the community can get engaged and shut down the nonsense of obliterating half the county middle school walk zones because of some staffers “vision” for an option program.