APS: Four options for Ed Center seats: STEAM, Performing Arts, Early College or IB expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on this listserv says the county will never create another HB Woodlawn. I frankly think after taking the survey that people need to ask that this be considered. What is the point of an expansion of an Ed Center if it ends up underenrolled? We want an option that people want, so that overenrollments in existing comprehensive schools drops. This is not complicated! If 4% of the list gets into HBWoodlawn right now, open up a second school on a progressive education model, and reduce overcrowding with a school that parents want to send their children to.

I could not get into any of the four options listed. If IB continues at WL, how does IB at Ed Center change anything? None of the other options make a lot of sense to me. They smell to me like programs begging to be under-filled, while enrollments surge at the other schools.

+1.

By the fall of 2021, APS projects that Wakefield will have 2,316 students, Yorktown 2,282 students and Washington-Lee a whopping 2,906 students. And this is all assuming that Arlington Tech is a success and 700 students are enrolled. The SB absolutely must come up with a plan for the Ed Center and the additional seats at the career center that will actually attract lots of students who are within the W-L boundaries and eventually the Wakefield boundaries, since those are the two HS projected to be most overcrowded in the next decade.

Meanwhile, in the fall of 2021 HB's high school component is projected to enroll 440 students. And by the fall of 2026 when Wakefield is projected to have 2,947 students, Washington-Lee 3,127 students and Yorktown 2,336 students - well, HB's high school will still be at 440 students. So unless an HB style program at the Ed Center or career center actually enrolls between 700 and 800 high school students, another HB at either location will not reduce overcrowding to the degree needed.

These numbers are huge (and probably underestimate the actual numbers given APS's poor track record). If another HB were to be opened at Arlington Tech and the Ed Center, trust me there would be enough interest. The other types of programs all strike me as blah.

I am not doubting the interest in another HB. I am simply stating that an HBII, based on the model of HBI will not do enough to relieve overcrowding at the three comprehensive high schools.. For one thing, an HBII at either the Ed Center or Career Center should not be accommodating middle school students, and another is that an HBII would need roughly 700-800 high school students rather than the 440 that currently make up HB.

A second progressive education model in APS does not have to be middle and high school years; it could be just high school years.

My point is that space is at a premium in Arlington County. Whatever they put at the Ed Center needs to be a program that meaningfully reduces demand on the 3 comprehensive high schools or we are just continuing to let the space at Syphax be underutilized.

I personally think a second progressive model--not necessarily identical to HB Woodlawn but with similarities in approach and style--would be popular, well-subscribed and might at least be one place the county could go to reduce overcapacity pressure. It would not be everything or all the APS needs to do, and the Ed Center is only one space the APS should use to address overcapacity challenges.

[Anonymous]

I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is steam different, in practice, from a normal high school that has science/tech and arts classes?

Also, how is it in any way possible that Arlington would have three population for a performing arts high school? I love FAME as much as the next person, but is that practical here?

Why wouldn’t it be practical? Is Arlington devoid of creative people?

Not devoid in the least, but I think this option would face an uphill challenge. I think too many Arlington upper class families see the arts as a nice extracurricular or a way to distinguish yourself on your college application but would not honestly support their children's desires to pursue arts professionally, as a career ambition. I also think lower income families would not see how an arts academy could meaningfully prepare their kids for work or college.

That said, after initially laughing off this idea, it has grown on me (especially after I realized it also includes visual arts). If I had a child who was really interested in and had a talent for one of these areas, and they would also be provided the same academic options to prepare them for college, I might find it really interesting to have this option. A lot of parents (myself included) have been very impressed by the quality of arts curriculum at Kenmore and for kids who really enjoy that kind of learning this could be a great opportunity. Not all the kids in this county are excellent at math and science, writing, and foreign languages. Some have skills and talents in other areas, that if they can further exploit now might take them to great places in the future. Even if all the aspiring art or dance or theater majors don't pursue professional arts careers, they can pursue it for now and with the right instruction to get them a better shot at it (or at whatever else, like attending regular university) later on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But your example doesn't really make sense with an increasing high school population. If you had 2,000 kids in 2017 and 2025, and 15% of them want to do band, and so 300 kids are at W-L playing band in 2017 and then in 2025 another 300 kids decide to stay at W-L instead of go to ed center or career center so they could do band, your example would make sense.

But actually in 2025 it will be more like 2500 or 3000 kids split between W-L and the Ed Center and Career Center, so if you assume the same level of interest you get more like 400 or 450 kids instead of 300. That puts a huge burden on W-L to find room in the band program for all those kids, or the ones at the fringes have to drop band because it's too competitive to get a spot. The numbers don't just magically work out when you burden the comprehensive high school with more kids in the same facilities. Someone gets screwed.

+1. But the SB seems completely unaware of this. I brought it up, and the response was that ultimate Frisbee won't cut. But at somr point, even the ultimate team would have to cut or.not let some.kids.play.

[Anonymous]

And keep in mind that extracurriculars like band and sports and plays etc. are important for college applications because they distinguish students and show students' interest and dedication over time. The kid that played basketball in middle school but wasn't good enough to make the cut in high school is going to have a harder time getting into college because APS couldn't get its act together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

That's not fair. Why aren't we concerned about programs that drain higher-achieving kids from other high schools? Doesn't seem right that the high-achieving kids at Wakefield are supposed to stay there are make the school "better," when apparently its OK for high-achieving kids at Yorktown and W-L, who have a large peer group, to stay where they are or take advantage of whatever choice programs Arlington has to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

This is the stupidest logic in the world. First, why would restrict choice only at Wakefield? How is penalizing kids in South Arlington making the system "more equitable"? Second, if a child is not going thrive in a larger comprehensive environment, then eliminating smaller alternatives isn't going to help Wakefield and isn't going to help the student; it's setting up everyone to lose. And finally, it completely allows the county to continue to avoid facing any problem that may or may not exist at any of the comprehensive schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

This is the stupidest logic in the world. First, why would restrict choice only at Wakefield? How is penalizing kids in South Arlington making the system "more equitable"? Second, if a child is not going thrive in a larger comprehensive environment, then eliminating smaller alternatives isn't going to help Wakefield and isn't going to help the student; it's setting up everyone to lose. And finally, it completely allows the county to continue to avoid facing any problem that may or may not exist at any of the comprehensive schools.

Dp- My take away wasn’t “ penalize South Arlington kids” and “ take away their choices”. It think that point is choice programs that won’t drain Wakefield of their top students. So, a Votech would be a good option.

[Anonymous]

No matter which way you cut it screwing middle class S Arlington kids is the result. Super schools and choice for N Arlington but oh no let’s keep S Arlington kids at Wakefield so long as HB Woodlawn, Yorktown, and Washington Lee are protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

This is the stupidest logic in the world. First, why would restrict choice only at Wakefield? How is penalizing kids in South Arlington making the system "more equitable"? Second, if a child is not going thrive in a larger comprehensive environment, then eliminating smaller alternatives isn't going to help Wakefield and isn't going to help the student; it's setting up everyone to lose. And finally, it completely allows the county to continue to avoid facing any problem that may or may not exist at any of the comprehensive schools.

PP here. JFC, no. No one is talking about restricting choice at Wakefield or penalizing S. Arlington kids. What I'm suggesting is that choice programs that attract the highest-achieving students will have the most deleterious effect on Wakefield, which has a smaller share of these students to begin with. And that's what I believe the problem is at Wakefield--a concentration of students from lower income homes who tend to be lower-achieving. Pulling off the most high-achieving of students at Wakefield only makes the concentration there worse--THAT is what would penalize kids in South Arlington. That is what would be setting up everyone to lose. We need programs that will not drain these students from Wakefield. In fact, that would be facing the problem. (This is not an issue at the other high schools because they are not facing the same income demographics. Seems odd that I would have to point this out to some PPs.)

If we are going to create more county-wide choice programs, IMO we should create programs that tend to pull from a lower-income demographic. That could help to balance the demographics at Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

This is the stupidest logic in the world. First, why would restrict choice only at Wakefield? How is penalizing kids in South Arlington making the system "more equitable"? Second, if a child is not going thrive in a larger comprehensive environment, then eliminating smaller alternatives isn't going to help Wakefield and isn't going to help the student; it's setting up everyone to lose. And finally, it completely allows the county to continue to avoid facing any problem that may or may not exist at any of the comprehensive schools.

PP here. JFC, no. No one is talking about restricting choice at Wakefield or penalizing S. Arlington kids. What I'm suggesting is that choice programs that attract the highest-achieving students will have the most deleterious effect on Wakefield, which has a smaller share of these students to begin with. And that's what I believe the problem is at Wakefield--a concentration of students from lower income homes who tend to be lower-achieving. Pulling off the most high-achieving of students at Wakefield only makes the concentration there worse--THAT is what would penalize kids in South Arlington. That is what would be setting up everyone to lose. We need programs that will not drain these students from Wakefield. In fact, that would be facing the problem. (This is not an issue at the other high schools because they are not facing the same income demographics. Seems odd that I would have to point this out to some PPs.)

If we are going to create more county-wide choice programs, IMO we should create programs that tend to pull from a lower-income demographic. That could help to balance the demographics at Wakefield.

Or move I-B to Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about programs that will end up draining higher-achieving kids from Wakefield. So I'll support whatever program seems least likely to do that. I think that might be early college program? Meh.

--W-L parent

This is the stupidest logic in the world. First, why would restrict choice only at Wakefield? How is penalizing kids in South Arlington making the system "more equitable"? Second, if a child is not going thrive in a larger comprehensive environment, then eliminating smaller alternatives isn't going to help Wakefield and isn't going to help the student; it's setting up everyone to lose. And finally, it completely allows the county to continue to avoid facing any problem that may or may not exist at any of the comprehensive schools.

PP here. JFC, no. No one is talking about restricting choice at Wakefield or penalizing S. Arlington kids. What I'm suggesting is that choice programs that attract the highest-achieving students will have the most deleterious effect on Wakefield, which has a smaller share of these students to begin with. And that's what I believe the problem is at Wakefield--a concentration of students from lower income homes who tend to be lower-achieving. Pulling off the most high-achieving of students at Wakefield only makes the concentration there worse--THAT is what would penalize kids in South Arlington. That is what would be setting up everyone to lose. We need programs that will not drain these students from Wakefield. In fact, that would be facing the problem. (This is not an issue at the other high schools because they are not facing the same income demographics. Seems odd that I would have to point this out to some PPs.)

If we are going to create more county-wide choice programs, IMO we should create programs that tend to pull from a lower-income demographic. That could help to balance the demographics at Wakefield.

Or move I-B to Wakefield.

Not a bad idea, but to do it you'd have to make room for it by moving a significant number of other kids out of Wakefield. That means you'd still need to have some other kind of choice program elsewhere, presumably one that would not compete with IB for students.

[Anonymous]

i think it's too late. the gap between YT/WL and WF has grown to big to fix it. we might just have to accept that we have failed as a community on this issue and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i think it's too late. the gap between YT/WL and WF has grown to big to fix it. we might just have to accept that we have failed as a community on this issue and move on.

Um, no. That's not acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think it's too late. the gap between YT/WL and WF has grown to big to fix it. we might just have to accept that we have failed as a community on this issue and move on.

Um, no. That's not acceptable.

DP, but what PP wrote is the truth. They had a chance last year to show they would address the disparity, and they took the easy way out by not making it "worse" (which is not actually true) instead of actually lessening the disparity. Now they are out of easy fixes that won't meaningfully tilt the scales, so it can only get worse. The SB will never do anything else. Just watch with the MS boundaries. They have elections to win after all.