APS Immersion Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

I don’t think you are reading the tables correctly. The issue is that while the Claremont zone has more Spanish speakers they apply for the immersion program at a much lower rate than people zoned to Key (24% for Claremont vs 48 percent for Key). Key actually has more native Spanish speakers than Claremont despite having a smaller pool.

So if you look at the FRL slide, while Claremont zone has higher % of FRL population, Key actually has higher enrollment (40% FRL vs 31% at Claremont). The changes are expected to reduce reduce Keys FRL % but would still be similar to Claremont.

The applicant pool being so unbalanced will be seen in the school population over time, and will reflect the demographics of the potential applicants. The data says that under the new boundaries the percentage of fr/l potential applicants will increase at Claremont from 38% to 49%, while at Key it will decrease from 22% to 19%. The percentage of potential white applicants at Claremont decreases from 49% to 28% at Claremont and increases at Key from 51% to 72%. Tell me again how this isn’t going to, over time, result in a whiter and wealthier school at Key and a less white and less wealthy population at Claremont. The reason Claremont is so unbalanced now isn’t a result of the current boundary map and applicant pool, but rather the historic neighborhood preferences for Claremont, whereby white families utilized their preferences and others did not.

You are looking at theoretical data. In actuality last year 61/126 eligible Spanish speakers applied to Key vs 54/225 applied to Claremont. Under the proposed changes that would be 49/215 for Claremont and 67/126 for Key.

There are also a grand total of 20 students from Nottingham, Tuckhahoe and Cardinal combined across all grades. Shifting them to Key will not make much of a difference (especially since there is still a 50/50 preference for Spanish speakers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

I don’t think you are reading the tables correctly. The issue is that while the Claremont zone has more Spanish speakers they apply for the immersion program at a much lower rate than people zoned to Key (24% for Claremont vs 48 percent for Key). Key actually has more native Spanish speakers than Claremont despite having a smaller pool.

So if you look at the FRL slide, while Claremont zone has higher % of FRL population, Key actually has higher enrollment (40% FRL vs 31% at Claremont). The changes are expected to reduce reduce Keys FRL % but would still be similar to Claremont.

The applicant pool being so unbalanced will be seen in the school population over time, and will reflect the demographics of the potential applicants. The data says that under the new boundaries the percentage of fr/l potential applicants will increase at Claremont from 38% to 49%, while at Key it will decrease from 22% to 19%. The percentage of potential white applicants at Claremont decreases from 49% to 28% at Claremont and increases at Key from 51% to 72%. Tell me again how this isn’t going to, over time, result in a whiter and wealthier school at Key and a less white and less wealthy population at Claremont. The reason Claremont is so unbalanced now isn’t a result of the current boundary map and applicant pool, but rather the historic neighborhood preferences for Claremont, whereby white families utilized their preferences and others did not.

You are looking at theoretical data. In actuality last year 61/126 eligible Spanish speakers applied to Key vs 54/225 applied to Claremont. Under the proposed changes that would be 49/215 for Claremont and 67/126 for Key.

There are also a grand total of 20 students from Nottingham, Tuckhahoe and Cardinal combined across all grades. Shifting them to Key will not make much of a difference (especially since there is still a 50/50 preference for Spanish speakers).

And you don’t think that moving the location of one of the schools and changes in neighborhood preferences will change who applies? Come on. Of course the “theoretical” applicants matter. But again, we always do the worst thing when it comes to segregation, so it’s par for the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

I don’t think you are reading the tables correctly. The issue is that while the Claremont zone has more Spanish speakers they apply for the immersion program at a much lower rate than people zoned to Key (24% for Claremont vs 48 percent for Key). Key actually has more native Spanish speakers than Claremont despite having a smaller pool.

So if you look at the FRL slide, while Claremont zone has higher % of FRL population, Key actually has higher enrollment (40% FRL vs 31% at Claremont). The changes are expected to reduce reduce Keys FRL % but would still be similar to Claremont.

The applicant pool being so unbalanced will be seen in the school population over time, and will reflect the demographics of the potential applicants. The data says that under the new boundaries the percentage of fr/l potential applicants will increase at Claremont from 38% to 49%, while at Key it will decrease from 22% to 19%. The percentage of potential white applicants at Claremont decreases from 49% to 28% at Claremont and increases at Key from 51% to 72%. Tell me again how this isn’t going to, over time, result in a whiter and wealthier school at Key and a less white and less wealthy population at Claremont. The reason Claremont is so unbalanced now isn’t a result of the current boundary map and applicant pool, but rather the historic neighborhood preferences for Claremont, whereby white families utilized their preferences and others did not.

You are looking at theoretical data. In actuality last year 61/126 eligible Spanish speakers applied to Key vs 54/225 applied to Claremont. Under the proposed changes that would be 49/215 for Claremont and 67/126 for Key.

There are also a grand total of 20 students from Nottingham, Tuckhahoe and Cardinal combined across all grades. Shifting them to Key will not make much of a difference (especially since there is still a 50/50 preference for Spanish speakers).

And you don’t think that moving the location of one of the schools and changes in neighborhood preferences will change who applies? Come on. Of course the “theoretical” applicants matter. But again, we always do the worst thing when it comes to segregation, so it’s par for the course.

I mean they moved Key this year and there were still more Spanish K apps for Key than Claremont. I don’t think Key’s success at getting Spanish speakers to apply is random, but thanks to the work of the admin there.

The 50/50 model effectively limits the non-Hispanic white population at Key. You also can’t zone more Spanish speakers to Key without sending some back to Claremont otherwise Claremont will not hit 50/50 (without getting a lot more Spanish speakers to apply).

Obviously if these trends change you can redraw the borders but at the end of the day Key is still a higher FRL school than Claremont.

[Anonymous]

I can not believe they are making a North/South split. We are a Claremont family and I do not think that is a good idea long term.

I think what they are going to do eventually is send the East side of the country (Rosslyn area) to Claremont. But since they can't do that right now, since that was the OLD Key zone, they are making this egregious decision to split the county at Rt 50. No one thinks that's a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe they are making a North/South split. We are a Claremont family and I do not think that is a good idea long term.

I think what they are going to do eventually is send the East side of the country (Rosslyn area) to Claremont. But since they can't do that right now, since that was the OLD Key zone, they are making this egregious decision to split the county at Rt 50. No one thinks that's a good idea.

Sure they do. People like proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe they are making a North/South split. We are a Claremont family and I do not think that is a good idea long term.

I think what they are going to do eventually is send the East side of the country (Rosslyn area) to Claremont. But since they can't do that right now, since that was the OLD Key zone, they are making this egregious decision to split the county at Rt 50. No one thinks that's a good idea.

The proposed N/S split is incredibly tone deaf. Good job, central office.

[Anonymous]

Claremont family here and I'm happy with this, because selfishly I love Claremont and didn't want my kids to be moved. I'm not sure I'm picking up the egregiousness of the North / South divide, esp given the actual enrollment numbers referred to by a previous poster. What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Claremont family here and I'm happy with this, because selfishly I love Claremont and didn't want my kids to be moved. I'm not sure I'm picking up the egregiousness of the North / South divide, esp given the actual enrollment numbers referred to by a previous poster. What am I missing?

The forest for the trees. A N/S spilt is a horrible idea, especially since for some reason they also carve out “little North Arlington” Fleet for Key. Again, who is making these proposals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Claremont family here and I'm happy with this, because selfishly I love Claremont and didn't want my kids to be moved. I'm not sure I'm picking up the egregiousness of the North / South divide, esp given the actual enrollment numbers referred to by a previous poster. What am I missing?

The forest for the trees. A N/S spilt is a horrible idea, especially since for some reason they also carve out “little North Arlington” Fleet for Key. Again, who is making these proposals?

My question is why is it a horrible idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

There are white upperclass English-native speaking moms who have been pushing for a shift from the 50/50 instruction model - which solely caters to their interests to increase access to immersion and to make boundary shifts like this that are north/south instead of them having to go "all the way down to Claremont or Gunston" - next will be the push to move high school immersion out of Wakefield and make the 600 seats at the ed center opening next year a "world languages" program and house the immersion program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

I don’t think you are reading the tables correctly. The issue is that while the Claremont zone has more Spanish speakers they apply for the immersion program at a much lower rate than people zoned to Key (24% for Claremont vs 48 percent for Key). Key actually has more native Spanish speakers than Claremont despite having a smaller pool.

So if you look at the FRL slide, while Claremont zone has higher % of FRL population, Key actually has higher enrollment (40% FRL vs 31% at Claremont). The changes are expected to reduce reduce Keys FRL % but would still be similar to Claremont.

The applicant pool being so unbalanced will be seen in the school population over time, and will reflect the demographics of the potential applicants. The data says that under the new boundaries the percentage of fr/l potential applicants will increase at Claremont from 38% to 49%, while at Key it will decrease from 22% to 19%. The percentage of potential white applicants at Claremont decreases from 49% to 28% at Claremont and increases at Key from 51% to 72%. Tell me again how this isn’t going to, over time, result in a whiter and wealthier school at Key and a less white and less wealthy population at Claremont. The reason Claremont is so unbalanced now isn’t a result of the current boundary map and applicant pool, but rather the historic neighborhood preferences for Claremont, whereby white families utilized their preferences and others did not.

You are looking at theoretical data. In actuality last year 61/126 eligible Spanish speakers applied to Key vs 54/225 applied to Claremont. Under the proposed changes that would be 49/215 for Claremont and 67/126 for Key.

There are also a grand total of 20 students from Nottingham, Tuckhahoe and Cardinal combined across all grades. Shifting them to Key will not make much of a difference (especially since there is still a 50/50 preference for Spanish speakers).

And you don’t think that moving the location of one of the schools and changes in neighborhood preferences will change who applies? Come on. Of course the “theoretical” applicants matter. But again, we always do the worst thing when it comes to segregation, so it’s par for the course.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

There are white upperclass English-native speaking moms who have been pushing for a shift from the 50/50 instruction model - which solely caters to their interests to increase access to immersion and to make boundary shifts like this that are north/south instead of them having to go "all the way down to Claremont or Gunston" - next will be the push to move high school immersion out of Wakefield and make the 600 seats at the ed center opening next year a "world languages" program and house the immersion program.

Wow, I never realized that was the point of the "world languages" program. I think the boundaries proposed are silly since a lot of the thinking behind moving key was to provide easier access to the spanish speakers around barrett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

There are white upperclass English-native speaking moms who have been pushing for a shift from the 50/50 instruction model - which solely caters to their interests to increase access to immersion and to make boundary shifts like this that are north/south instead of them having to go "all the way down to Claremont or Gunston" - next will be the push to move high school immersion out of Wakefield and make the 600 seats at the ed center opening next year a "world languages" program and house the immersion program.

The boundary process is part of a complete review of the immersion program. They are sticking with the 50/50 model so I guess those white moms will be upset.

They are planning to change the instruction mode such that K is 80 percent in Spanish as opposed to 50 percent now.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Community-DLI-Task-Force-Updates-Oct-26-FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

There are white upperclass English-native speaking moms who have been pushing for a shift from the 50/50 instruction model - which solely caters to their interests to increase access to immersion and to make boundary shifts like this that are north/south instead of them having to go "all the way down to Claremont or Gunston" - next will be the push to move high school immersion out of Wakefield and make the 600 seats at the ed center opening next year a "world languages" program and house the immersion program.

Wow, I never realized that was the point of the "world languages" program. I think the boundaries proposed are silly since a lot of the thinking behind moving key was to provide easier access to the spanish speakers around barrett.

Barrett was and is still zoned to Key. Less than five percent of their Spanish speakers applied to Key last year, so I imagine increasing that percentage is still a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yayyyy! This is the right set of recommendations for right now, IMO.

Wow, so looking at the data table, they just made Claremont a Title 1 school and Key will now be under 20% fr/l. Also, look at the imbalance of white kids now assigned to Key over Claremont and the imbalance of native Spanish speakers. How can they adopt this policy and talk about “equity.” Who was on this committee? JFC

There are white upperclass English-native speaking moms who have been pushing for a shift from the 50/50 instruction model - which solely caters to their interests to increase access to immersion and to make boundary shifts like this that are north/south instead of them having to go "all the way down to Claremont or Gunston" - next will be the push to move high school immersion out of Wakefield and make the 600 seats at the ed center opening next year a "world languages" program and house the immersion program.

The boundary process is part of a complete review of the immersion program. They are sticking with the 50/50 model so I guess those white moms will be upset.

They are planning to change the instruction mode such that K is 80 percent in Spanish as opposed to 50 percent now.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Community-DLI-Task-Force-Updates-Oct-26-FINAL.pdf

I guess they won't be so upset after all. It's the new enrollees that matter - you can't start immersion mid-way through elementary school without demonstrating sufficient proficiency in Spanish. A gradual shift in the instructional model is the only way to do it. So your comment about the 50/50 model seems a bit contradictory to what you're saying regarding their new policy. This only supports PP's contention about the instructional focus.