APS Elementary Location Working Group 4/12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montessori may not move next year or 2020 but by 2023 it will have too. The career center is happening. Seats are going there for H.S. regardless of how it’s developed. hSchools need 3000 + seats. Demand for Montessori is down, it may bump slightly with the Fleet move but not enough to justify it taking the only realistic space for more H School seats and a 4th Comprehensive High School. There are lots of moving pieces and it’s not just elementary boundaries that are being debated and drawn right now.

It's never going to be a comprehensive HS. Stop trying to make Fetch happen.

[Anonymous]

What neighborhood does talento live in? She cited concerns about traffic patterns that sounded like a personal agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What neighborhood does talento live in? She cited concerns about traffic patterns that sounded like a personal agenda.

I think she lives by W&L. I think she was very swayed by the Glen Carlin Neighborhood and their traffic concerns surrounding the use of the Kenmore site. She brings this up a lot and has really internalized it.
I tend to agree with Nancy V-D on this one- its a congested community, all sites in Arlington are going to have trouble with a new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is crazy that nearly everyone on DCUM and beyond thought the opening of Reed would destroy Tuckahoe, but instead it will sink Nottingham!

Actually, early on there was quite a bit of DCUM discussion on whether Nottingham or Tuckahoe would go option. Then Tuckahoe folks flipped their lids, mobilized, posted weird documents that shouldn’t have seen the light of day, and that naturally shifted the entire focus to tuckahoe. Tuckahoe and Nottingham are so close that it’s not a huge surprise.

[Anonymous]

The biggest surprise to me is that Jamestown and Tuckahoe were off the table. Filling schools with walkers is one of the top priorities right now and neither of those schools can do that. Jamestown has an astonishingly low walk percentage.

To the poster saying kids N of Lee will be going to McKinley, that will not happen. Tuckahoe is going to have a lot of capacity and I guess they won't mind adding trailers for their moral cohesion.

[Anonymous]

I can see why they took Jamestown and tuckahoe off the table. They are at the corners of the county— bussing kids there for option schools would be so expensive.
My bet is that they get rid of the expeditionary curriculum as a county wide program. I’m not sure what the difference between an option and an exemplar project really is. It’s hard for me to tell how Campbell having expeditionary in their curriculum is different from hoffman Boston being science focused or asfs being science focused. It seems you could make it a neighborhood school and keep the curriculum but not make it county wide anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest surprise to me is that Jamestown and Tuckahoe were off the table. Filling schools with walkers is one of the top priorities right now and neither of those schools can do that. Jamestown has an astonishingly low walk percentage.

To the poster saying kids N of Lee will be going to McKinley, that will not happen. Tuckahoe is going to have a lot of capacity and I guess they won't mind adding trailers for their moral cohesion.

The staff analysis seems off. I think Nottingham is a much more walkable school than Tuckahoe. And in the chart where they list which schools have others within 1 mile and how many, Reed is not listed as a school. Why not? Isn't that the whole issue with the N/W quadrant once that school is built? Also, it seems they did not take any feedback from the community or members of FAC and ACI about all locations not being suitable for all programs. How would they do two-way Spanish Immersion at Nottingham? With what Spanish-speaking kids? And how would moving Campbell away from the Nature Center and the outdoor spaces they've built have no impact on the program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

Isn’t Campbell Title I because of the large number of VPI students that are guaranteed to continue?

So here's part of the issue with moving any option school that far north: what VPI-eligible families live anywhere near there? Option schools are all supposed to have VPI classrooms, so where are they going to find VPI kids near Nottingham?

Good point. Any option school they move to Nottingham would become much paler and more affluent, which isn’t a good look. The only thing that makes Nottingham at all compelling as an option site is the difficult of filling all of the seats at Tuckahoe after Reed opens. But for that, Nottingham would be effectively off the table.

And if they make Nottingham option, they are going to have to fill McKinley with kids North of Lee Highway. So those kids will bus past Reed.

It is infuriating with the criteria staff presented that Reed isn’t being considered as an option site.

You can’t ask a community to give a year of their lives to planning a school under the promise that it will be their neighborhood school and then go back on your word. It would destroy community trust in the school board and people would be rightfully outraged at having been taken advantage of like that.

You are hilarious! What about the years and years the Nottingham community has spent planning things for its school. And hasn’t it had a promise of a neighborhood school for much longer? Reed’s promise was recently. But that doesn’t mean other schools didn’t have that same promise. The promise should be irrelevant and it should be looked at just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

If implemented properly, Campbell has a terrific instructional focus that will be more popular once parents learn more about it. It is not a real "competitive" school, but there is some deep learning going on at that place. Each year there is more and more demand. Part of that demand is based on parents (like me) seeking refuge from very low performing schools. That will not change because the low performing schools in south arlington will not improve any time soon (if ever). But parents are also seeing that the scores for non- FARMS kids are as high as any white north arlington school.

I will say that if the school is moved and enlarged with kids from wealthy families the instructional focus will be gutted. One, because the students will no longer have access to weekly spring and fall classrooms at the nature center. Even if it could be enlarged at the Campbell site the nature center can only accommodate so many kids. And, they will lose the wetlands as an instructional tool. The gardens are easily replicated, but the other two are not. That alone will cause a drop in demand for the school.

If the school loses its Title I status because it grows and brings in too many wealthier families, a lot of the resources that enrich the school's learning environment will disappear. The school uses those resources for lots of students, my kid included. There are extra teachers to help with math, reading etc that are not available at non-Title I schools and if your kid struggles like mine, a school like Campbell is very helpful. I know many parents send their kids there for that reason, and because the school is known to nurture and challenge all kids. There is a lot of differentiation in the classroom to make sure everyone is challenged. That won't happen if the school almost doubles in size and loses those resources.

My kid will be out by the time any move could happen and I am glad. I would probably have gone private if it were not for Campbell.

[Anonymous]

Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

So why blow so much money on HB? Because it's a sacred cow with alumni who can pressure the SB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Size might be true for north Arlington parents, but the appeal of ATS and Campbell in SA is to avoid neighborhood schools , like one of the PP with a kid at Campbell just stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

Isn’t Campbell Title I because of the large number of VPI students that are guaranteed to continue?

So here's part of the issue with moving any option school that far north: what VPI-eligible families live anywhere near there? Option schools are all supposed to have VPI classrooms, so where are they going to find VPI kids near Nottingham?

Good point. Any option school they move to Nottingham would become much paler and more affluent, which isn’t a good look. The only thing that makes Nottingham at all compelling as an option site is the difficult of filling all of the seats at Tuckahoe after Reed opens. But for that, Nottingham would be effectively off the table.

And if they make Nottingham option, they are going to have to fill McKinley with kids North of Lee Highway. So those kids will bus past Reed.

It is infuriating with the criteria staff presented that Reed isn’t being considered as an option site.

You can’t ask a community to give a year of their lives to planning a school under the promise that it will be their neighborhood school and then go back on your word. It would destroy community trust in the school board and people would be rightfully outraged at having been taken advantage of like that.

You are hilarious! What about the years and years the Nottingham community has spent planning things for its school. And hasn’t it had a promise of a neighborhood school for much longer? Reed’s promise was recently. But that doesn’t mean other schools didn’t have that same promise. The promise should be irrelevant and it should be looked at just like everyone else.

Objectively what's making Reed a neighborhood school isn't "promises", it's walkability. Why put an option school there when 600 kids can walk there? (And for those ready to jump up and say many of them won't walk, they'll be driven--the county doesn't care. They just care that they won't have to pay for buses for those kids).