ASFS/Key Swap Off . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the what, where and why for now, WHEN do we think changes (if any) are coming? Will they take effect in fall 2020? Or Fall 2021 to coincide with Reed opening?

If it's Fall 2020, they have to make the decision before the end of this year, because they have to provide info to Kindergarten info night which takes place in Jan 2020. But that only gives them 6 months, including the summer.

Reed opening if boundary changes are required - which will happen if they don't do a swap. And they won't do a swap because it is a waste, it doesn't add any seats in the east.

Even if there was a swap (which, I agree with the PP won't happen because it doesn't add any seats in the east), boundaries will still have to be adjusted. There aren't enough permanent seats at Key to accommodate all the elementary kids who live in the attendance zone. So even if they swapped schools, eventually the boundaries would need to be adjusted. APS has already stated (maybe at the late Jan. SB meeting?) that nothing is moving until at least 2021, i.e., immersion will stay at Key through at least the 2020-2021 school year.

In a perfect world, APS would figure out where to put Key (and any other option school) by the end of this year, though, so the incoming K class will know where they will (eventually) end up by first grade. It would also give APS almost 12 months to tinker with the boundaries for everyone (including new boundaries around any option school that moves). And that is what APS has said it will do but I'm sure that won't happen. If APS tries to move any school, there will be a huge uprising and APS will punt the decision down the road and everything (location and boundaries) will all be on the table til the bitter end.

If the bolded is true, why haven't they reflected the website to say that? Nothing has been updated on the swap site since Jan. except to say it's been postponed.

Here's the only thing in writing I can find, though it's also from January (Page 7) https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jan-25-2019-Annual-Update-Final.pdf

Key/ASFS Building Swap

There is a need for neighborhood seats in the eastern end of North Arlington due to its continued growth. Key is currently an option school – a location for one of the APS Immersion programs, serving students from about half of the county.

APS is committed to sustaining and potentially growing the immersion instructional pathway. APS will undertake a process to explore locations that provide equitable access for all students, which is critical to the integrity of the two-way instructional model and to the enrollment of more native Spanish speakers. Participation by English learners along with native English speakers helps ensure that the program’s academic benefits are fairly distributed within a community. Decisions on identifying locations for immersion would need to be completed by December 2019, in anticipation of the 2020 elementary school boundary process. The process is still being shaped, and there will be opportunity for community input. The move would be made for the 2021-22 school year.

Thank you! I appreciate that you dug this out for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the what, where and why for now, WHEN do we think changes (if any) are coming? Will they take effect in fall 2020? Or Fall 2021 to coincide with Reed opening?

If it's Fall 2020, they have to make the decision before the end of this year, because they have to provide info to Kindergarten info night which takes place in Jan 2020. But that only gives them 6 months, including the summer.

Reed opening if boundary changes are required - which will happen if they don't do a swap. And they won't do a swap because it is a waste, it doesn't add any seats in the east.

Even if there was a swap (which, I agree with the PP won't happen because it doesn't add any seats in the east), boundaries will still have to be adjusted. There aren't enough permanent seats at Key to accommodate all the elementary kids who live in the attendance zone. So even if they swapped schools, eventually the boundaries would need to be adjusted. APS has already stated (maybe at the late Jan. SB meeting?) that nothing is moving until at least 2021, i.e., immersion will stay at Key through at least the 2020-2021 school year.

In a perfect world, APS would figure out where to put Key (and any other option school) by the end of this year, though, so the incoming K class will know where they will (eventually) end up by first grade. It would also give APS almost 12 months to tinker with the boundaries for everyone (including new boundaries around any option school that moves). And that is what APS has said it will do but I'm sure that won't happen. If APS tries to move any school, there will be a huge uprising and APS will punt the decision down the road and everything (location and boundaries) will all be on the table til the bitter end.

If the bolded is true, why haven't they reflected the website to say that? Nothing has been updated on the swap site since Jan. except to say it's been postponed.

Here's the only thing in writing I can find, though it's also from January (Page 7) https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jan-25-2019-Annual-Update-Final.pdf

Key/ASFS Building Swap

There is a need for neighborhood seats in the eastern end of North Arlington due to its continued growth. Key is currently an option school – a location for one of the APS Immersion programs, serving students from about half of the county.

APS is committed to sustaining and potentially growing the immersion instructional pathway. APS will undertake a process to explore locations that provide equitable access for all students, which is critical to the integrity of the two-way instructional model and to the enrollment of more native Spanish speakers. Participation by English learners along with native English speakers helps ensure that the program’s academic benefits are fairly distributed within a community. Decisions on identifying locations for immersion would need to be completed by December 2019, in anticipation of the 2020 elementary school boundary process. The process is still being shaped, and there will be opportunity for community input. The move would be made for the 2021-22 school year.

So fate of Key Immersion and swap will be DECIDED in 6 months. And not a peep? Where are pathways, especially with recent resignation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the what, where and why for now, WHEN do we think changes (if any) are coming? Will they take effect in fall 2020? Or Fall 2021 to coincide with Reed opening?

If it's Fall 2020, they have to make the decision before the end of this year, because they have to provide info to Kindergarten info night which takes place in Jan 2020. But that only gives them 6 months, including the summer.

Reed opening if boundary changes are required - which will happen if they don't do a swap. And they won't do a swap because it is a waste, it doesn't add any seats in the east.

Even if there was a swap (which, I agree with the PP won't happen because it doesn't add any seats in the east), boundaries will still have to be adjusted. There aren't enough permanent seats at Key to accommodate all the elementary kids who live in the attendance zone. So even if they swapped schools, eventually the boundaries would need to be adjusted. APS has already stated (maybe at the late Jan. SB meeting?) that nothing is moving until at least 2021, i.e., immersion will stay at Key through at least the 2020-2021 school year.

In a perfect world, APS would figure out where to put Key (and any other option school) by the end of this year, though, so the incoming K class will know where they will (eventually) end up by first grade. It would also give APS almost 12 months to tinker with the boundaries for everyone (including new boundaries around any option school that moves). And that is what APS has said it will do but I'm sure that won't happen. If APS tries to move any school, there will be a huge uprising and APS will punt the decision down the road and everything (location and boundaries) will all be on the table til the bitter end.

If the bolded is true, why haven't they reflected the website to say that? Nothing has been updated on the swap site since Jan. except to say it's been postponed.

Here's the only thing in writing I can find, though it's also from January (Page 7) https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jan-25-2019-Annual-Update-Final.pdf

Key/ASFS Building Swap

There is a need for neighborhood seats in the eastern end of North Arlington due to its continued growth. Key is currently an option school – a location for one of the APS Immersion programs, serving students from about half of the county.

APS is committed to sustaining and potentially growing the immersion instructional pathway. APS will undertake a process to explore locations that provide equitable access for all students, which is critical to the integrity of the two-way instructional model and to the enrollment of more native Spanish speakers. Participation by English learners along with native English speakers helps ensure that the program’s academic benefits are fairly distributed within a community. Decisions on identifying locations for immersion would need to be completed by December 2019, in anticipation of the 2020 elementary school boundary process. The process is still being shaped, and there will be opportunity for community input. The move would be made for the 2021-22 school year.

So fate of Key Immersion and swap will be DECIDED in 6 months. And not a peep? Where are pathways, especially with recent resignation?

Presumably, they are done or near complete, as the framework is scheduled to be presented to the SB in June 11th. Please note: there is no action for the SB to take regarding the framework at this time. The framework is meant to inform FUTURE decisions/votes. I don’t know that current or potential locations will be revealed by this framework, specifically as regards immersion.

[Anonymous]

Presumably, they are done or near complete, as the framework is scheduled to be presented to the SB in June 11th. Please note: there is no action for the SB to take regarding the framework at this time. The framework is meant to inform FUTURE decisions/votes. I don’t know that current or potential locations will be revealed by this framework, specifically as regards immersion.

I was at the IPP meeting in March (that they had for school reps and members of certain committees). It was made very clear that potential locations would not be part of the IPP process or even discussed. The focus was on picking what options/pathways to take. I doubt we'll see or hear anythign about locations until later in the fall (like right before the December meeting, and then the vote on locations will be pushed to next year).

[Anonymous]

So Murphy is gone, and won’t be fall guy to make the switch, so is swap off the table completely.

Only question is where Immersion will move to if not Key.

December still decision point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Murphy is gone, and won’t be fall guy to make the switch, so is swap off the table completely.

Only question is where Immersion will move to if not Key.

December still decision point?

No, if you watch the Work Session on IPP it was made pretty clear that this year the focus will on be deciding which options will remain/be adopted (i.e., if you look at the slides-- I think 46-47-- you will see that IB replaces Traditional/ATS), and then next year, the option locations will be done at the same time the boundaries are readjusted. So we won't know where Immersion will end up until sometime next year (and, knowing the School Board and APS, it won't be until December of 2020).

So sit back and relax--- it's going to be a looonnnng 18 months. The first fight will be from the ATS community who will likely oppose being replaced or knocked out by an IB program.

[Anonymous]

Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Yes. Seats are the biggest issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Agree, but we're running out of time. They have to redo boundaries when Reed opens in 2021 and APS (stupidly, imo) ended the team model for ASFS, Key, etc. and made ASFS a neighborhood school. They've got to do something with ASFS and the Key attendance zone-- even if they keep the Key attendance zone for ASFS (i.e., say, hey, we know it's weird that ASFS' attendance zone doesn't include the school but we've got to keep it that way for a few more years until we can find space for a new school), it still wouldn't work. The Key zone has too many kids for ASFS so they are going to have to re-boundary kids regardless. Plus, it goes against everything APS purports to promote (walkability, continuity, etc.). APS created a real mess when they got rid of the neighborhood preference for Key-- although I think they did that to shrink the neighborhood attendance in anticipation of moving the program (if everyone commutes, then who cares where they move Key).

At the end of the day, that area needs two neighborhood schools and since APS won't be able (nor seems to have any plans) to acquire space for a new elementary school, the they really need to move Immersion somewhere else. It made no sense to move the Key program to ASFS other than APS was banking on there being less parent protests (since the current ASFS families would probably be happy to have ASFS move to the Key building).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

Did you mean Nero?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

Did you mean Nero?

Yes. It’s summer. Disney 24/7.

Though I think Captain Nemo player the sitar...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

Not sure what data you are looking at. They have a plan for high school seats, it may not be a great or even good plan, but it is at least a plan. The most recent projections show that at the elementary school level, APS needs three new schools over the next ten years.

Elementary School: Hamm & Reed add seats, but updated projections still show a deficit every year that increases by almost 300 seats each year and is over 600 again by 2022-23, over 1100 by 2024-25, and over 1800 by 2026-27.
Middle School: Deficit in 2021, over 500 in 2024-25, and over 600 in 2026-27
High School: Getting seats in the next few years from both the Ed center and the Career Center and the most recent projections don't show a deficit until 2026-27 and then it is only 53 seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

Not sure what data you are looking at. They have a plan for high school seats, it may not be a great or even good plan, but it is at least a plan. The most recent projections show that at the elementary school level, APS needs three new schools over the next ten years.

Elementary School: Hamm & Reed add seats, but updated projections still show a deficit every year that increases by almost 300 seats each year and is over 600 again by 2022-23, over 1100 by 2024-25, and over 1800 by 2026-27.
Middle School: Deficit in 2021, over 500 in 2024-25, and over 600 in 2026-27
High School: Getting seats in the next few years from both the Ed center and the Career Center and the most recent projections don't show a deficit until 2026-27 and then it is only 53 seats.

Can we build like 3 elementary schools collocates with a central field, separate playgrounds, and then as kids age convert 3 buildings into one middle or one high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather than pissing off every group of parents possible by changing and moving and reconfiguring option programs, I wish they would devote all of their attention to creating new seats through land acquisition and construction. The limited benefits of shuffling programs and changing program focus shouldn’t be anyone’s priority right now! If they spend multiple school board meetings exploring the relative value of traditional education vs IB without showing how such a change will have a meaningful contribution to alleviating the capacity crisis, they’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Making new seats is needed at high school level; Hamm and Reed address lower grade capacity for several years (except all to the west).

High school capacity is a thorny crisis, they rather fiddle IB in the style of Nemo

Not sure what data you are looking at. They have a plan for high school seats, it may not be a great or even good plan, but it is at least a plan. The most recent projections show that at the elementary school level, APS needs three new schools over the next ten years.

Elementary School: Hamm & Reed add seats, but updated projections still show a deficit every year that increases by almost 300 seats each year and is over 600 again by 2022-23, over 1100 by 2024-25, and over 1800 by 2026-27.
Middle School: Deficit in 2021, over 500 in 2024-25, and over 600 in 2026-27
High School: Getting seats in the next few years from both the Ed center and the Career Center and the most recent projections don't show a deficit until 2026-27 and then it is only 53 seats.

Can we build like 3 elementary schools collocates with a central field, separate playgrounds, and then as kids age convert 3 buildings into one middle or one high school?

Sure! We can just go ahead and take the top half of the Army Navy Club by eminent domain and build a option school megasite there!