Discussion Boundary Map out for APS- elementary schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Campbell. There were 4 K classes last year and they looked full to me. I don’t know the exact numbers but I’m guessing 21-22 kids per class. I’d like to know the exact numbers and why they didn’t consider them full. Anyone know how I can find out? Thanks.

21 is hardly full.

That’s considered very full for a Title 1 school.

Okay fair, didn’t realize an option school could be title 1. But that means it is engineered that way, so they can adjust its option formula and increase usage of that sites capacity and benefit the whole system.

If they adjusted the option formula it wouldn’t increase usage, just change who the school was serving. I don’t know why they would do that. It’s serving a historically underserved population very well right now, and the MC/UMC kids, too. It’s the highest performing Title 1 school. It has made great strides in closing “achievement” gaps. I don’t know why they’d limit access to the program for kids eligible for fr/l to serve more MC and UMC kids, as if they aren’t being served elsewhere. If they want to grow the program to give access to more students from each population, they’ll need to build an addition. The current building is really small and there’s no reason to force further overcrowding when there’s existing capacity in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Campbell. There were 4 K classes last year and they looked full to me. I don’t know the exact numbers but I’m guessing 21-22 kids per class. I’d like to know the exact numbers and why they didn’t consider them full. Anyone know how I can find out? Thanks.

21 is hardly full.

That’s considered very full for a Title 1 school.

Okay fair, didn’t realize an option school could be title 1. But that means it is engineered that way, so they can adjust its option formula and increase usage of that sites capacity and benefit the whole system.

If they adjusted the option formula it wouldn’t increase usage, just change who the school was serving. I don’t know why they would do that. It’s serving a historically underserved population very well right now, and the MC/UMC kids, too. It’s the highest performing Title 1 school. It has made great strides in closing “achievement” gaps. I don’t know why they’d limit access to the program for kids eligible for fr/l to serve more MC and UMC kids, as if they aren’t being served elsewhere. If they want to grow the program to give access to more students from each population, they’ll need to build an addition. The current building is really small and there’s no reason to force further overcrowding when there’s existing capacity in the system.

DP. I really wanted the Campbell experience for my kids, but I'm happy that it's serving kids who will benefit most from it. I support the plan to keep it Title 1 even if that means my kids can't attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

The optics of moving an immersion school out of a neighborhood that has gentrified and lost the native Spanish speakers it had in the 80s and 90s and was the reason it was sited there in the first place? Those optics seem pretty good to me.

Let’s not forget how good it looks when you get only 35 Spanish speaking applicants for 72 reserved spots and fill the rest with English speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

Honestly curious what optics is bad about moving key from one UMC neighborhood (LV) to another (ATS or Nottingham)?

Nottingham would be bad for immersion specifically. ATS would be fine - it's accessible by both Spanish-and English-speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a child at Campbell. There were 4 K classes last year and they looked full to me. I don’t know the exact numbers but I’m guessing 21-22 kids per class. I’d like to know the exact numbers and why they didn’t consider them full. Anyone know how I can find out? Thanks.

21 is hardly full.

That’s considered very full for a Title 1 school.

Okay fair, didn’t realize an option school could be title 1. But that means it is engineered that way, so they can adjust its option formula and increase usage of that sites capacity and benefit the whole system.

If they adjusted the option formula it wouldn’t increase usage, just change who the school was serving. I don’t know why they would do that. It’s serving a historically underserved population very well right now, and the MC/UMC kids, too. It’s the highest performing Title 1 school. It has made great strides in closing “achievement” gaps. I don’t know why they’d limit access to the program for kids eligible for fr/l to serve more MC and UMC kids, as if they aren’t being served elsewhere. If they want to grow the program to give access to more students from each population, they’ll need to build an addition. The current building is really small and there’s no reason to force further overcrowding when there’s existing capacity in the system.

Sorry, but lots of middle class kids are not being served elsewhere. If they were, they wouldn’t be trying to send their kids to Campbell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

Honestly curious what optics is bad about moving key from one UMC neighborhood (LV) to another (ATS or Nottingham)?

Nottingham would be bad for immersion specifically. ATS would be fine - it's accessible by both Spanish-and English-speakers.

Don’t you think the play by APS will be immersion to ATS. And then they move traditional to a NW school with a plan to phase it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

Honestly curious what optics is bad about moving key from one UMC neighborhood (LV) to another (ATS or Nottingham)?

Nottingham would be bad for immersion specifically. ATS would be fine - it's accessible by both Spanish-and English-speakers.

Don’t you think the play by APS will be immersion to ATS. And then they move traditional to a NW school with a plan to phase it out?

They aren’t phasing out ATS, they’re converting it to IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

Honestly curious what optics is bad about moving key from one UMC neighborhood (LV) to another (ATS or Nottingham)?

Nottingham would be bad for immersion specifically. ATS would be fine - it's accessible by both Spanish-and English-speakers.

Don’t you think the play by APS will be immersion to ATS. And then they move traditional to a NW school with a plan to phase it out?

Cintia Johnson advocates for immersion moving south, aside from an immersion component to IB if IB ends up north.

Immersion needs many more Spanish speaking kids in order to thrive. That probably won’t happen in the north.

[Anonymous]

I'm genuinely curious what the argument against moving Key is given the last two years' dismal Spanish-speaking K enrollment numbers? I don't have any stake, but don't understand why a move is perceived to have "bad optics" when it's not in demand by native Spanish-speakers??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guessing immersion stays at Key. The optics of moving it are terrible.

The optics of moving an immersion school out of a neighborhood that has gentrified and lost the native Spanish speakers it had in the 80s and 90s and was the reason it was sited there in the first place? Those optics seem pretty good to me.

Let’s not forget how good it looks when you get only 35 Spanish speaking applicants for 72 reserved spots and fill the rest with English speakers.

Oh. I did not know that. Maybe just shut it down.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe the VPI classes are the same size as the K classes, so you can have 3 VPI pre-K classes and 3 K classes and still have open slots for non-VPI students.

At ATS, I believe the VPI pre-K classes are about half the size of a regular K class. (though our K classes are 24 kids, unless there is a set of multiples, then they might be 25.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the VPI classes are the same size as the K classes, so you can have 3 VPI pre-K classes and 3 K classes and still have open slots for non-VPI students.

At ATS, I believe the VPI pre-K classes are about half the size of a regular K class. (though our K classes are 24 kids, unless there is a set of multiples, then they might be 25.)

VPI classes are capped at 18.

K cap is 24.

Title 1 K cap is 23 (1 fewer than cap), but most Title 1 schools in APS are able to keep class sizes closer to 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm genuinely curious what the argument against moving Key is given the last two years' dismal Spanish-speaking K enrollment numbers? I don't have any stake, but don't understand why a move is perceived to have "bad optics" when it's not in demand by native Spanish-speakers??

This has been rehashed to death 100 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe the VPI classes are the same size as the K classes, so you can have 3 VPI pre-K classes and 3 K classes and still have open slots for non-VPI students.

At ATS, I believe the VPI pre-K classes are about half the size of a regular K class. (though our K classes are 24 kids, unless there is a set of multiples, then they might be 25.)

VPI classes are capped at 18.

K cap is 24.

Title 1 K cap is 23 (1 fewer than cap), but most Title 1 schools in APS are able to keep class sizes closer to 18.

VPI is 16.

Siblings also get priority in the lottery- a lot of the non-VPI spots at Campbell go to younger siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm genuinely curious what the argument against moving Key is given the last two years' dismal Spanish-speaking K enrollment numbers? I don't have any stake, but don't understand why a move is perceived to have "bad optics" when it's not in demand by native Spanish-speakers??

This has been rehashed to death 100 times.

And yet we still have people commenting that it's bad optics to move it or that Key needs to stay in place for the neighborhood Spanish speakers. Are they immune to facts or being deliberately misinformed?