ASFS/Key Swap Off . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that’s what PP meant, not a swap but moving Immersion to schools that are better situated to access the Latinx community, where they live now, and then redrawing boundaries accordingly. That would be moving towards equity. Making this option, and others, more accessible to the families who have the highest barriers to participation makes very good sense.

I think if we’re interested in lowering barriers, we want to add some immersion K classes at Barrett, not just swap one Latinx community for another, while replacing their neighborhood school with an option school. What most Spanish speakers want is pretty much what everyone else wants- a neighborhood school. Immersion has a rich history, strong support in the county, and seems to be in demand for both English and Spanish speakers. There is a sizeable Spanish speaking population in the Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area who have remained despite gentrification, who share the very same barriers to access, and have specifically asked that their school not be moved. A lottery is a barrier in and of itself, but that’s another topic.

So I think the whole “sizeable spanish speaking population in Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area” is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation from this whole swap conversation. The closest thing to a large spanish speaking population are the residents at Woodbury park (who were the ones quoted in that wash post article). There are I think around 100 kids at the planning unit, and over 50 of themgo to asfs currently. The extended day argument is bs because Woodbury park residents have an after school program in their building. It’s such fake news.
Even look at the key pta website. Not a word of spanish. Look at the Barrett pta website. It has a convert to spanish button, and their pta notes are in both spanish and English.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t move key, it’s obvious that the community is extremely attached to the location. But aps should look at having immersion classrooms in the majority Hispanic schools. Maybe get rid of having full immersion schools and have the model be instead immersion classrooms at several neighborhood schools.

For the hundredth time, two way immersion is not esl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that’s what PP meant, not a swap but moving Immersion to schools that are better situated to access the Latinx community, where they live now, and then redrawing boundaries accordingly. That would be moving towards equity. Making this option, and others, more accessible to the families who have the highest barriers to participation makes very good sense.

I think if we’re interested in lowering barriers, we want to add some immersion K classes at Barrett, not just swap one Latinx community for another, while replacing their neighborhood school with an option school. What most Spanish speakers want is pretty much what everyone else wants- a neighborhood school. Immersion has a rich history, strong support in the county, and seems to be in demand for both English and Spanish speakers. There is a sizeable Spanish speaking population in the Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area who have remained despite gentrification, who share the very same barriers to access, and have specifically asked that their school not be moved. A lottery is a barrier in and of itself, but that’s another topic.

So I think the whole “sizeable spanish speaking population in Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area” is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation from this whole swap conversation. The closest thing to a large spanish speaking population are the residents at Woodbury park (who were the ones quoted in that wash post article). There are I think around 100 kids at the planning unit, and over 50 of themgo to asfs currently. The extended day argument is bs because Woodbury park residents have an after school program in their building. It’s such fake news.
Even look at the key pta website. Not a word of spanish. Look at the Barrett pta website. It has a convert to spanish button, and their pta notes are in both spanish and English.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t move key, it’s obvious that the community is extremely attached to the location. But aps should look at having immersion classrooms in the majority Hispanic schools. Maybe get rid of having full immersion schools and have the model be instead immersion classrooms at several neighborhood schools.

For the hundredth time, two way immersion is not esl.

Uh, what? Pp didn’t mention ESL? Are you saying it’s a pure optional enrichment program?

[Anonymous]

Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

I disagree. The compromise solution would create schools within schools, which has been very problematic. Immersion should either move or not move based on data, not community feelings. If there are more than two schools where it makes sense, great. I think three slightly smaller Immersion schools rather than two giant ones might make sense. Phasing the classes in could be a good way to transition if immersion moves into a new location, but that shouldn’t be the long-term solution.

[Anonymous]

I felt this way during the last boundary process, but it bears repeating here: these are PUBLIC schools. No one has a right to any particular program or any particular location. Let's make decisions based on what makes sense for present and future APS as a whole.

Personally, I think moving immersion wholesale to Carlin Springs is one of the things that would make a lot of sense. I do feel badly for families that will be disrupted and barriers to access should be considered, etc., but ultimately APS should make decisions for the future, not carve out weird exceptions or compromises or otherwise kick cans down roads. Any school that currently receives 12 buses probably ought to have a hard look, since we are trying as a system to move away from extensive busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

I disagree. The compromise solution would create schools within schools, which has been very problematic. Immersion should either move or not move based on data, not community feelings. If there are more than two schools where it makes sense, great. I think three slightly smaller Immersion schools rather than two giant ones might make sense. Phasing the classes in could be a good way to transition if immersion moves into a new location, but that shouldn’t be the long-term solution.

Smaller schools? How about immersion in office buildings, like Upper Bailey?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

I think it is really unfortunate that the Key parents have refused to engage in this type of creative thinking. There are lots of workable solutions that could have minimized disruption. But they took a 'H** no we won't go' approach, aggressively silence voices that suggest compromise, and are willing to manipulate facts to try and make any discussion of a move out to mean that the proponents of it are racist. They have families who live near Key believing that APS is discussing closing Key, not making it neighborhood. I find this to be despicable. As per usual, this is being driven by white upper middle class parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

I think it is really unfortunate that the Key parents have refused to engage in this type of creative thinking. There are lots of workable solutions that could have minimized disruption. But they took a 'H** no we won't go' approach, aggressively silence voices that suggest compromise, and are willing to manipulate facts to try and make any discussion of a move out to mean that the proponents of it are racist. They have families who live near Key believing that APS is discussing closing Key, not making it neighborhood. I find this to be despicable. As per usual, this is being driven by white upper middle class parents.

Are you saying that white UMC parents are telling the community that APS may just shutter a school at a time when enrollment is sky high? I have a hard time believing that if so.

[Anonymous]

Believe it
“ they are going to make all the key kids ride a bus way over there!”
Not making it clear that the kids living nearby will still be able to attend class in the same building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you saying that white UMC parents are telling the community that APS may just shutter a school at a time when enrollment is sky high? I have a hard time believing that if so.

Go listen to what the speakers before the school board in Spanish have said. They are not focused on the benefits of immersion, and why they want immersion. They are focused on why they want a school close to them. Listening to them, it is clear that they believe if immersion moves their kids will not be able to attend school in the Key bldg. The problem is the FARMS hispanic community is by and large not sold on the benefits of immersion. They care about proximity for sure. They care about having people in the front office and school workers who they can communicate with in Spanish. But the benefits of their kids learning to read in Spanish? That they are not sold on.

The wealthy spanish speaking expat community is very sold on the benefits of immersion- but they don't have the same hardships if the location moves, and there are not enough of them to provide a 50% native speaker ratio.

The white UMC parents who dominate the Key PTA etc- are sold on the benefits of immersion. They are also convinced that they 'need' the native speakers to make sure their kids get the maximum benefit from the immersion program. They are also the ones who are largely taking advantage of extended day, dropping kids and metro ing to work- etc. The location works very well for them. They know that those reasons are not compelling for leaving the school where it is- so they are attempting to rally the shrinking number of nearby hispanic families who do benefit from Key as an immersion school. But to get them to turn out- they are disguising the fact that if immersion moves those families would still be eligible to attend school at Key.

If they were really trying to look out for those families they would be focused on what Key immersion currently offers those families that could also be offered by the new neighborhood elementary school- e.g. bilingual school social workers, bilingual front office workers- and make sure that those things would continue. After all- as was previously pointed out up thread- there is more Spanish to be found on the Barrett PTA website than the Key PTA website, these type of things are not unique to Key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you saying that white UMC parents are telling the community that APS may just shutter a school at a time when enrollment is sky high? I have a hard time believing that if so.

Go listen to what the speakers before the school board in Spanish have said. They are not focused on the benefits of immersion, and why they want immersion. They are focused on why they want a school close to them. Listening to them, it is clear that they believe if immersion moves their kids will not be able to attend school in the Key bldg. The problem is the FARMS hispanic community is by and large not sold on the benefits of immersion. They care about proximity for sure. They care about having people in the front office and school workers who they can communicate with in Spanish. But the benefits of their kids learning to read in Spanish? That they are not sold on.

The wealthy spanish speaking expat community is very sold on the benefits of immersion- but they don't have the same hardships if the location moves, and there are not enough of them to provide a 50% native speaker ratio.

The white UMC parents who dominate the Key PTA etc- are sold on the benefits of immersion. They are also convinced that they 'need' the native speakers to make sure their kids get the maximum benefit from the immersion program. They are also the ones who are largely taking advantage of extended day, dropping kids and metro ing to work- etc. The location works very well for them. They know that those reasons are not compelling for leaving the school where it is- so they are attempting to rally the shrinking number of nearby hispanic families who do benefit from Key as an immersion school. But to get them to turn out- they are disguising the fact that if immersion moves those families would still be eligible to attend school at Key.

If they were really trying to look out for those families they would be focused on what Key immersion currently offers those families that could also be offered by the new neighborhood elementary school- e.g. bilingual school social workers, bilingual front office workers- and make sure that those things would continue. After all- as was previously pointed out up thread- there is more Spanish to be found on the Barrett PTA website than the Key PTA website, these type of things are not unique to Key.

Now that's a takedown! But don't forget that key can't even recruit enough Spanish speakers to get to 50/50.

[Anonymous]

I’m really sorry your kids might be zoned out of ASFS or Taylor, and that the Key building probably won’t help you with that. I’m also sorry if it was hard to take that the Key (and immersion) community fought back against a plan that had no benefit at all for the program, all while the ASFS community was so divided. Boundaries are being redrawn for everyone, if that softens the blow at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think that’s what PP meant, not a swap but moving Immersion to schools that are better situated to access the Latinx community, where they live now, and then redrawing boundaries accordingly. That would be moving towards equity. Making this option, and others, more accessible to the families who have the highest barriers to participation makes very good sense.

I think if we’re interested in lowering barriers, we want to add some immersion K classes at Barrett, not just swap one Latinx community for another, while replacing their neighborhood school with an option school. What most Spanish speakers want is pretty much what everyone else wants- a neighborhood school. Immersion has a rich history, strong support in the county, and seems to be in demand for both English and Spanish speakers. There is a sizeable Spanish speaking population in the Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area who have remained despite gentrification, who share the very same barriers to access, and have specifically asked that their school not be moved. A lottery is a barrier in and of itself, but that’s another topic.

So I think the whole “sizeable spanish speaking population in Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area” is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation from this whole swap conversation. The closest thing to a large spanish speaking population are the residents at Woodbury park (who were the ones quoted in that wash post article). There are I think around 100 kids at the planning unit, and over 50 of themgo to asfs currently. The extended day argument is bs because Woodbury park residents have an after school program in their building. It’s such fake news.
Even look at the key pta website. Not a word of spanish. Look at the Barrett pta website. It has a convert to spanish button, and their pta notes are in both spanish and English.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t move key, it’s obvious that the community is extremely attached to the location. But aps should look at having immersion classrooms in the majority Hispanic schools. Maybe get rid of having full immersion schools and have the model be instead immersion classrooms at several neighborhood schools.

For the hundredth time, two way immersion is not esl.

Uh, what? Pp didn’t mention ESL? Are you saying it’s a pure optional enrichment program?

Some posters have conflated two way immersion with ESL. Some even seem to think, weirdly, that immersion can be achieved just by attending a school with a large Latino population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you saying that white UMC parents are telling the community that APS may just shutter a school at a time when enrollment is sky high? I have a hard time believing that if so.

Go listen to what the speakers before the school board in Spanish have said. They are not focused on the benefits of immersion, and why they want immersion. They are focused on why they want a school close to them. Listening to them, it is clear that they believe if immersion moves their kids will not be able to attend school in the Key bldg. The problem is the FARMS hispanic community is by and large not sold on the benefits of immersion. They care about proximity for sure. They care about having people in the front office and school workers who they can communicate with in Spanish. But the benefits of their kids learning to read in Spanish? That they are not sold on.

The wealthy spanish speaking expat community is very sold on the benefits of immersion- but they don't have the same hardships if the location moves, and there are not enough of them to provide a 50% native speaker ratio.

The white UMC parents who dominate the Key PTA etc- are sold on the benefits of immersion. They are also convinced that they 'need' the native speakers to make sure their kids get the maximum benefit from the immersion program. They are also the ones who are largely taking advantage of extended day, dropping kids and metro ing to work- etc. The location works very well for them. They know that those reasons are not compelling for leaving the school where it is- so they are attempting to rally the shrinking number of nearby hispanic families who do benefit from Key as an immersion school. But to get them to turn out- they are disguising the fact that if immersion moves those families would still be eligible to attend school at Key.

If they were really trying to look out for those families they would be focused on what Key immersion currently offers those families that could also be offered by the new neighborhood elementary school- e.g. bilingual school social workers, bilingual front office workers- and make sure that those things would continue. After all- as was previously pointed out up thread- there is more Spanish to be found on the Barrett PTA website than the Key PTA website, these type of things are not unique to Key.

That’s a deeply cynical analysis and paints with far too broad of a brush. Are you disgruntled about something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, immersion is not ESL, but it requires a 50-50 split between native spanish speakers and spanish learners. So doesn't it make sense to make it accessible to existing neighborhoods that have significant numbers of native spanish speakers? You could do this by moving the school wholesale, or you could do this by having 2-3 immersion classrooms (per grade) in schools where the majority of students are native spanish speakers. It has nothing to do with ESL -- its making a stronger immersion program for the spanish learners (not kids in ESL). Phase it in so its less disruptive to current families. There are 12 buses to Key. Surely some of those families wouldn't mind being bussed somewhere else. Especially if the community that they will be part of has so many native spanish speaking families that they promote events in a bilingual fashion already.
I understand not wanting to upset status quo for current students, but why not just have a mix of immersion and traditional classrooms rather than having a dedicated school? They could have incoming grades be mixed at Key for the next five years (2-3 classes immersion, 2-3 traditional), but upper grades remain as is. Have generous grandfathering at asfs so that you don't have to add classrooms to the upper grades. It seems like we should be trying to find some sort of a compromise solution like this.

I think it is really unfortunate that the Key parents have refused to engage in this type of creative thinking. There are lots of workable solutions that could have minimized disruption. But they took a 'H** no we won't go' approach, aggressively silence voices that suggest compromise, and are willing to manipulate facts to try and make any discussion of a move out to mean that the proponents of it are racist. They have families who live near Key believing that APS is discussing closing Key, not making it neighborhood. I find this to be despicable. As per usual, this is being driven by white upper middle class parents.

I disagree, but one could argue that every decision about school matters is driven by the de facto segregation in north Arlington, no?