school board work session on enrollment and transfers in options schools(and also a new high school)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can disagree on media centers, but I feel certain that a slide is unnecessary and random.

what are media centers?

aka libraries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But I understand why that community might be worried about not having a guarantee, given how they were really screwed over in the last process. I can't blame them for being mistrustful and worried that they've lost their field space for good. I'd be really upset if I were them, too.

I think we all need to calm down. This is just a conversation. None of this happens right now. The transfer and admissions policy decision is happening now, but the long-term vision for the E/W mirror schools is just a vision right now.

Calming down is part of what got McK in their situation in the first place. They though the SB and Chadwick would actually do what was right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I think the McKinley parents want some relief, not necessarily a "win". I don't think they view this as some sort of fun game. Why do you think they are just looking for a win?

Exactly. They have the only ES without a field, they've just spent a year and a half in a construction zone and the boundary refinements were so manipulated that their school is going to be close to 800 (like Oakridge, I know). Each year, more and more kids move into the McK boundary and elderly houses are turning over as fast as Arl. Co. can submit permits. They need relief. This isn't about winning. It's about using the resources that are right there!

Absolutely. I'm not a McKinley parent (I have a high schooler who went to a different elementary), but I think it's outrageous how the school board has been making McKinley take the brunt of the problems. Every elementary school should have a field, and when there have been misjudgments as to the numbers, it truly stinks that they're not correcting them and are letting there be such huge inequities with McKinley far more crowded than most other schools.

Same poster: I also think it's outrageous that the school board and county board won't work together on boundaries / affordable housing such that many South Arlington schools have a huge portion of FARMS students, which also gives them huge inequities compared to many other schools. I am hopeful that the realignment of boundaries that they've proposed for option schools (in a general fashion, with no specifics as to neighborhoods yet) will help with that, but they also need to figure out how to alleviate the neighborhood schools, ideally so that no school has more than maybe 35-40% FARMS population.

This is apples and oranges. S Arlington HAS a high percentage of FARMS students. So you're dealing with neighborhood schools that have a poorer student population. I agree that's not ideal, but it's not of the school board's doing, if you go for the "neighborhood school" argument. McK was royally screwed by faulty data that the school board refuses to correct. That's different...and totally unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I think the McKinley parents want some relief, not necessarily a "win". I don't think they view this as some sort of fun game. Why do you think they are just looking for a win?

Exactly. They have the only ES without a field, they've just spent a year and a half in a construction zone and the boundary refinements were so manipulated that their school is going to be close to 800 (like Oakridge, I know). Each year, more and more kids move into the McK boundary and elderly houses are turning over as fast as Arl. Co. can submit permits. They need relief. This isn't about winning. It's about using the resources that are right there!

Absolutely. I'm not a McKinley parent (I have a high schooler who went to a different elementary), but I think it's outrageous how the school board has been making McKinley take the brunt of the problems. Every elementary school should have a field, and when there have been misjudgments as to the numbers, it truly stinks that they're not correcting them and are letting there be such huge inequities with McKinley far more crowded than most other schools.

Same poster: I also think it's outrageous that the school board and county board won't work together on boundaries / affordable housing such that many South Arlington schools have a huge portion of FARMS students, which also gives them huge inequities compared to many other schools. I am hopeful that the realignment of boundaries that they've proposed for option schools (in a general fashion, with no specifics as to neighborhoods yet) will help with that, but they also need to figure out how to alleviate the neighborhood schools, ideally so that no school has more than maybe 35-40% FARMS population.

This is apples and oranges. S Arlington HAS a high percentage of FARMS students. So you're dealing with neighborhood schools that have a poorer student population. I agree that's not ideal, but it's not of the school board's doing, if you go for the "neighborhood school" argument. McK was royally screwed by faulty data that the school board refuses to correct. That's different...and totally unfair.

Eh.... hold up. The school board doesn't have go along with the concentrated poverty. That is their doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Eh.... hold up. The school board doesn't have go along with the concentrated poverty. That is their doing.

The only way to completely un-concentrate poverty would be to abandon neighborhood schools altogether. That's never going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eh.... hold up. The school board doesn't have go along with the concentrated poverty. That is their doing.

The only way to completely un-concentrate poverty would be to abandon neighborhood schools altogether. That's never going to happen.

Well then fuck it right? Let's all move in bounds for McKinley or Barret and eventually WL. You all want neighborhood schools. Sounds great.

[Anonymous]

Walkable communities. Sustainable communities. Neighborhood schools. This is what is should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walkable communities. Sustainable communities. Neighborhood schools. This is what is should be.

Bitch, you better be sayin' that from a "vibrant" hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walkable communities. Sustainable communities. Neighborhood schools. This is what is should be.

80% this
20% options

[Anonymous]

Np. I will add that it would be much more difficult to staff 8(!) immersion schools than it is to staff 2.

Totally agree. Immersion presents a unique challenge, in that you need fluent Spanish speakers to teach all these classes, especially in the upper grades. Not sure you can maintain the quality over so many schools. I think the Immersion program would benefit from being under one roof at the middle & high school level - somewhere in the middle, geographically convenient for both North & South Arlington families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Np. I will add that it would be much more difficult to staff 8(!) immersion schools than it is to staff 2.

Totally agree. Immersion presents a unique challenge, in that you need fluent Spanish speakers to teach all these classes, especially in the upper grades. Not sure you can maintain the quality over so many schools. I think the Immersion program would benefit from being under one roof at the middle & high school level - somewhere in the middle, geographically convenient for both North & South Arlington families.

I agree with this. The idea of a county-wide program being equally accessible to all students when it is geographically situated on one end or the other is likely to be a flop for the families that are furthest away. Some of the boundaries they're playing with now already insure that certain "hoods" won't participate. Just for example, they're proposing to move Jamestown to Claremont. I'd say relatively few families from Jamestown participate in immersion to begin with, and the only thing I can assume by the new lines is that they're hoping to completely eliminate Jamestown participation - maybe because Jamestown is currently not overcrowded?

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

[Anonymous]

I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

I think that is a wonderful idea. So glad to be zoned Wakefield. You guys were so desperate for WL, well you got it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

Yes, I was there and that is one of the options. If we use the Ed Center, the 1300 seats would either be a 9th grade academy for WL freshmen + an expansion of IB or county-wide "world languages" program + expansion of IB. Either scenario means 3500-4000 students would be located on the WL campus. Natress said that a 9th grade academy would mean WL graduating class size would increase to 800-900 students. Someone asked what that meant for access to activities, and she admitted it was a challenge that they had not worked out yet.