APS Elementary Location Working Group 4/12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Campbell usually not have a waiting list? All of the schools the staff identified as their top five have building capacities (nevermind relocatables) at least a hundred seats larger than the current Campbell program so I don’t see how they can relocate it to another site without wasting seats that we really need.

It didn't used to, but it has for the past four or five years or so now. I think it's gotten larger, but not by a couple hundred. Which is why I have no idea why Staff, who'd previously said that it could/should grow to around 600 are now saying that every option school has to be in a location that could accommodate up to 750. And I would be very surprised to learn that this was based on application data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Campbell usually not have a waiting list? All of the schools the staff identified as their top five have building capacities (nevermind relocatables) at least a hundred seats larger than the current Campbell program so I don’t see how they can relocate it to another site without wasting seats that we really need.

It didn't used to, but it has for the past four or five years or so now. I think it's gotten larger, but not by a couple hundred. Which is why I have no idea why Staff, who'd previously said that it could/should grow to around 600 are now saying that every option school has to be in a location that could accommodate up to 750. And I would be very surprised to learn that this was based on application data.

I think this is because they've previously said the new standard for building an ES is to accommodate 725-750. That being the case, if neighborhood schools have to be that big then choice schools should be that big too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Campbell usually not have a waiting list? All of the schools the staff identified as their top five have building capacities (nevermind relocatables) at least a hundred seats larger than the current Campbell program so I don’t see how they can relocate it to another site without wasting seats that we really need.

It didn't used to, but it has for the past four or five years or so now. I think it's gotten larger, but not by a couple hundred. Which is why I have no idea why Staff, who'd previously said that it could/should grow to around 600 are now saying that every option school has to be in a location that could accommodate up to 750. And I would be very surprised to learn that this was based on application data.

I think this is because they've previously said the new standard for building an ES is to accommodate 725-750. That being the case, if neighborhood schools have to be that big then choice schools should be that big too.

Well, that might make sense if we were starting from scratch, but we're not. We are where we are. So if you use that rationale, that every school has to be able to grow to 750, then we should just sell off every neighborhood school that can't go up to 750, like Long Branch and Campbell, and consolidate the smaller schools into nearby larger schools. This would make APS money. They didn't build Discovery to 750, and it has limited growth potential because of sharing a campus. I guess we need to turn that into a community center?

[Anonymous]

About moving the immersion schools close to the spanish speakers. You all make an assumption (as does the county) that the immigrants who live in the county's lower income housing are spanish speakers. A larger percentage are not.

My kid was at Claremont and a larger percentage of the spanish speakers were middle or upper middle class. They are educated professionals. That is why both Key and Claremont may be 50% spanish speakers, but not 50% free and reduced lunch. At a PTA meeting with a SB member, it was made very clear that if the SB wants more lower income families, it needs to educate those families about the options and why dual immersion is good for them. Many immigrants DO NOT WANT IMMERSION. They want their kids to learn english asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About moving the immersion schools close to the spanish speakers. You all make an assumption (as does the county) that the immigrants who live in the county's lower income housing are spanish speakers. A larger percentage are not.

My kid was at Claremont and a larger percentage of the spanish speakers were middle or upper middle class. They are educated professionals. That is why both Key and Claremont may be 50% spanish speakers, but not 50% free and reduced lunch. At a PTA meeting with a SB member, it was made very clear that if the SB wants more lower income families, it needs to educate those families about the options and why dual immersion is good for them. Many immigrants DO NOT WANT IMMERSION. They want their kids to learn english asap.

Sounds like another example of Democrats acting like they know what is best for people instead of listening to what those people think is best for them. Because the SB will not give up on the notion that immersion has to be close to Spanish speaking communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About moving the immersion schools close to the spanish speakers. You all make an assumption (as does the county) that the immigrants who live in the county's lower income housing are spanish speakers. A larger percentage are not.

My kid was at Claremont and a larger percentage of the spanish speakers were middle or upper middle class. They are educated professionals. That is why both Key and Claremont may be 50% spanish speakers, but not 50% free and reduced lunch. At a PTA meeting with a SB member, it was made very clear that if the SB wants more lower income families, it needs to educate those families about the options and why dual immersion is good for them. Many immigrants DO NOT WANT IMMERSION. They want their kids to learn english asap.

Sounds like another example of Democrats acting like they know what is best for people instead of listening to what those people think is best for them. Because the SB will not give up on the notion that immersion has to be close to Spanish speaking communities.

Exactly. Parents who have almost no experience with formal education are making the most informed choices...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But the option program at ATS can technically go anywhere. They need a neighborhood scjool closer to Ballston as that area is just going to continue to grow.

Fully agree. There should be walkable elementary schools in the Rosslyn to Ballston corridor. ATS's building is just on the edge of Ballston and should be neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About moving the immersion schools close to the spanish speakers. You all make an assumption (as does the county) that the immigrants who live in the county's lower income housing are spanish speakers. A larger percentage are not.

My kid was at Claremont and a larger percentage of the spanish speakers were middle or upper middle class. They are educated professionals. That is why both Key and Claremont may be 50% spanish speakers, but not 50% free and reduced lunch. At a PTA meeting with a SB member, it was made very clear that if the SB wants more lower income families, it needs to educate those families about the options and why dual immersion is good for them. Many immigrants DO NOT WANT IMMERSION. They want their kids to learn english asap.

Sounds like another example of Democrats acting like they know what is best for people instead of listening to what those people think is best for them. Because the SB will not give up on the notion that immersion has to be close to Spanish speaking communities.

Exactly. Parents who have almost no experience with formal education are making the most informed choices...

They get to decide what is best for their kids. Not the SB. And they are speaking by not applying to be in the immersion programs. You are exactly what is wrong Democrats and government: they think they know is best for everyone. If your kids didn’t speak English, would you want them to learn ASAP?

[Anonymous]

It's clear they shouldn't add any more option schools. First they kick the Tuckahoe hornet's nest and now they've angered Nottingham. We all know how that turns out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's clear they shouldn't add any more option schools. First they kick the Tuckahoe hornet's nest and now they've angered Nottingham. We all know how that turns out.

And how would you react if your kid walked a block to a school you could see from your house and then we’re told they would be riding a bus to who knows where?

And the reason it all happened is because some NEW school has been promised to another neighborhood? And no one told you that having that school means losing yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear they shouldn't add any more option schools. First they kick the Tuckahoe hornet's nest and now they've angered Nottingham. We all know how that turns out.

And how would you react if your kid walked a block to a school you could see from your house and then we’re told they would be riding a bus to who knows where?

And the reason it all happened is because some NEW school has been promised to another neighborhood? And no one told you that having that school means losing yours?

Yeah. Those kids who can walk to Reed don't deserve it! Those are McKinley kids and you know ours are deserving than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's clear they shouldn't add any more option schools. First they kick the Tuckahoe hornet's nest and now they've angered Nottingham. We all know how that turns out.

+100

No more option schools!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear they shouldn't add any more option schools. First they kick the Tuckahoe hornet's nest and now they've angered Nottingham. We all know how that turns out.

And how would you react if your kid walked a block to a school you could see from your house and then we’re told they would be riding a bus to who knows where?

And the reason it all happened is because some NEW school has been promised to another neighborhood? And no one told you that having that school means losing yours?

Yeah. Those kids who can walk to Reed don't deserve it! Those are McKinley kids and you know ours are deserving than yours.

No one said anything about deserving it. Just asking how you would react, but clearly you live in Westover. The least disruptive way to do this is to make Reed an option site. Of course Westover will go nuts over how it deserves a neighborhood school more than anyone and how it was promised one. But it has no claims to one anymore than anyone else. It should be part of this discussion to.

[Anonymous]

The board expressed a lot of skepticism about the capacity criteria in their rubric (must be able to go up to 750 with at least 20% coming from relocatables. I think we’ll see some revision of that standard once they look at the application numbers for each option school. If a school gets 1000+ applications, yes, put it in a place that can flex up to 750 because that’s a great program to help manage capacity. But if a school gets only 650 applications, putting it at a school that can flex up to 750 is a waste of seats, and they’re better of putting it at a site with a lower maximum preferred capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board expressed a lot of skepticism about the capacity criteria in their rubric (must be able to go up to 750 with at least 20% coming from relocatables. I think we’ll see some revision of that standard once they look at the application numbers for each option school. If a school gets 1000+ applications, yes, put it in a place that can flex up to 750 because that’s a great program to help manage capacity. But if a school gets only 650 applications, putting it at a school that can flex up to 750 is a waste of seats, and they’re better of putting it at a site with a lower maximum preferred capacity.

Exactly. You should have explained it to the SB!

But couldn’t ATS fill 750 seats easily at Reed or McKinley?