Is Nottingham going to be the new option school in Arlington or its still being decided?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So as much as I love me some good Nottingham ribbing. And believe me I do; there are many compelling reasons not to put an option there:
1. Proposal to put immersion at Barcroft and leave ARS came from principals and should get a great deal of weight. How often do principals weigh in on this stuff? Most of them have worked in multiple schools around the county. They have more objective view of what’s best.
2. Once in a lifetime chance to maybe rearrange some of the planning units in our poorest elementaries and improve outcomes at all schools.
3. Compelling reasons to keep our options central to encourage the most disadvantaged children to attend and escape their overly poor elementary.
4. NW population growth isn’t going to slow down. Take transfers if there’s room for 2021-2024. You’ll need all those NW seats after that anyway.

Where did you hear the Barcroft idea came from principals, and which ones? Not doubting you, I just hadn't heard that before and it gives a very different color to the conversation.

its kind of in the aps report- look at pages 19-20. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Apr-30-Analysis-Final-3.pdf
to be perfectly clear, it doesn't say principles, it says 'instructional leaders.' and they don't say move it to Barcroft, they say move the two immersion programs physically close together in the area with the highest concentration of spanish speakers.
I'm not the poster who said that the Barcroft idea came from the principles, but I'm assuming this is what they were referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So as much as I love me some good Nottingham ribbing. And believe me I do; there are many compelling reasons not to put an option there:
1. Proposal to put immersion at Barcroft and leave ARS came from principals and should get a great deal of weight. How often do principals weigh in on this stuff? Most of them have worked in multiple schools around the county. They have more objective view of what’s best.
2. Once in a lifetime chance to maybe rearrange some of the planning units in our poorest elementaries and improve outcomes at all schools.
3. Compelling reasons to keep our options central to encourage the most disadvantaged children to attend and escape their overly poor elementary.
4. NW population growth isn’t going to slow down. Take transfers if there’s room for 2021-2024. You’ll need all those NW seats after that anyway.

Where did you hear the Barcroft idea came from principals, and which ones? Not doubting you, I just hadn't heard that before and it gives a very different color to the conversation.

its kind of in the aps report- look at pages 19-20. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Apr-30-Analysis-Final-3.pdf
to be perfectly clear, it doesn't say principles, it says 'instructional leaders.' and they don't say move it to Barcroft, they say move the two immersion programs physically close together in the area with the highest concentration of spanish speakers.
I'm not the poster who said that the Barcroft idea came from the principles, but I'm assuming this is what they were referring to.

I guess I kind of blended together points 1 and 2 in my head and thought pp was saying the principals had suggested moving immersion to Barcroft as part of a plan to better balance socioeconomic diversity across schools.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I've also heard that the idea of moving choice schools to Barcroft and Carlin Springs to break up the concentrated poverty in that part of the county came, in part, from principals. I'm not sure which principals - i.e. whether it was the Barcroft and Carlin Springs principals - although I do have the impression that the Barcroft principal favors this plan. I've heard this from several different parents (of kids at different schools) who have been deeply engaged with this process and have spent lots of time with SB staff and at SB office hours. I don't have any first hand knowledge, though.

I'm zoned for Barcroft, but don't have a child there (we opted for a choice school), so I'm particularly interested in how this plays out. I'm inclined to support the plan to put a choice school at Barcroft to break up the poverty there, but I do have some concerns. It's a tricky situation.

[Anonymous]

Heard Barcroft as option directly from staff. It wasn’t a Barcroft or Nottingham. Fleet is expected to open at or over capacity. Oakridge needs relief. Not sure how moving an option South that displaces a neighborhood school is going to affect boundaries. Staff wants to avoid more crazy boundaries but I don’t see how that is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard Barcroft as option directly from staff. It wasn’t a Barcroft or Nottingham. Fleet is expected to open at or over capacity. Oakridge needs relief. Not sure how moving an option South that displaces a neighborhood school is going to affect boundaries. Staff wants to avoid more crazy boundaries but I don’t see how that is possible.

Huh? Not following.

[Anonymous]

The process seems to be shifting to emphasize ideal immersion location, and sidetracking from the basic task of allocating sufficient seats to all planning units. Maybe the vision of bringing the two immersion programs closer together needs to be reserved for another day, after Fleet and Reed go live and we see whether seats really are available north or south? If they can find enough space at that point to cluster two options in close proximity, then by all means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Nice try, Knights. You are't trying to stay neighborhood for some moral reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The process seems to be shifting to emphasize ideal immersion location, and sidetracking from the basic task of allocating sufficient seats to all planning units. Maybe the vision of bringing the two immersion programs closer together needs to be reserved for another day, after Fleet and Reed go live and we see whether seats really are available north or south? If they can find enough space at that point to cluster two options in close proximity, then by all means.

Disagree. APS's materials point out that if we're going to be doing major boundary shifts, might as well do it all at once. If option school locations are a problem in allocating neighborhood seats, then it's the right time to consider their locations as well. I'm more and more coming around to the idea that we don't have the capacity for option schools any longer, but if they aren't going away then their locations are rightly on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Nice try, Knights. You are't trying to stay neighborhood for some moral reason.

Not Nottingham. How do you expect moving an option school to Nottingham will improve diversity across schools? Please explain the shifts that will make that happen when fewer kids from South Arlington go to ATS and Ashlawn boundaries have to stay north of 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Nice try, Knights. You are't trying to stay neighborhood for some moral reason.

Please don't try to claim some moral high ground here. You're hellbent on sticking it to Nottingham and if some brown kids get screwed in the process, oh well, who cares about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

It wouldn’t be under capacity if the Taylor pearl clutchers hadn’t freaked out about moving during the Discovery redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

It wouldn’t be under capacity if the Taylor pearl clutchers hadn’t freaked out about moving during the Discovery redistricting.

What pearls were there to clutch about Jamestown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

It wouldn’t be under capacity if the Taylor pearl clutchers hadn’t freaked out about moving during the Discovery redistricting.

What pearls were there to clutch about Jamestown?

Exactly! Yet, they did. Selfish. We could have had somewhat more balanced enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

It wouldn’t be under capacity if the Taylor pearl clutchers hadn’t freaked out about moving during the Discovery redistricting.

What pearls were there to clutch about Jamestown?

Exactly! Yet, they did. Selfish. We could have had somewhat more balanced enrollment.

What were their arguments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

It wouldn’t be under capacity if the Taylor pearl clutchers hadn’t freaked out about moving during the Discovery redistricting.

What pearls were there to clutch about Jamestown?

Exactly! Yet, they did. Selfish. We could have had somewhat more balanced enrollment.

What were their arguments?

To stay with their friends?