Discussion Boundary Map out for APS- elementary schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

Just because UMC families think Spanish-speaking families are better off in immersion doesn't mean they are or that they want to be in it. Many immigrant families want their children to be immersed in English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think immersion should stay at Key? I do not, but I am also not an impartial observer.

Only some people at Key think immersion should stay at Key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think immersion should stay at Key? I do not, but I am also not an impartial observer.

We are in a SA school. I think Key should be a neighborhood school and the immersion program should move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

Pretty sure that certain members of the school board would take offense at your characterizations. TT just recently asked "Do all our schools need to look the same?" See also the treatment of Randolph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

Pretty sure that certain members of the school board would take offense at your characterizations. TT just recently asked "Do all our schools need to look the same?" See also the treatment of Randolph.

It was a bit tongue in cheek on what makes certain communities "better off." But I do think it makes sense to put Immersion in a convenient location for the students we want to attract to the program, and in point of fact Spanish speakers are needed to achieve the 50/50 ratio. I also think it makes sense to break up the Western Pike high poverty schools. Immersion to Carlin Springs serves both separate needs, even if I lumped them together a bit in the first post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

Pretty sure that certain members of the school board would take offense at your characterizations. TT just recently asked "Do all our schools need to look the same?" See also the treatment of Randolph.

It was a bit tongue in cheek on what makes certain communities "better off." But I do think it makes sense to put Immersion in a convenient location for the students we want to attract to the program, and in point of fact Spanish speakers are needed to achieve the 50/50 ratio. I also think it makes sense to break up the Western Pike high poverty schools. Immersion to Carlin Springs serves both separate needs, even if I lumped them together a bit in the first post.

Oh and, I wouldn't propose touching Randolph. It is its own beast per the last boundary process.

On a related note, while I am not sure I agree with TT, I also know Randolph families who love the school and wouldn't change it. My own child is at a high poverty SA school and I am also very happy with it. Different strokes for different folks is a very valid point and I'm not sure it's wrong. I am concerned that not all students are meeting their potential though. It's a tough issue and I didn't mean to be as flip as maybe I came across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe we're already fighting about this. It's going to be a long year and a half.

Key to ATS, ATS to the NW. that’s enough to solve the seat imbalance and likely all the central admin can handle.

The SB knows that moving Spanish immersion somewhere else north of 50 would be a huge fumble. It’s going south would be my bet.

Nah, putting it near buckingham makes sense. That’s Barrett or the ats building

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue with Immersion to ATS is that it doesn't help break up the high poverty schools along the west Pike. There is literally nothing that can be done to address demographics at Carlin Springs or Barcroft if they are neighborhood schools. There's more flex if the surrounding PUs to either of those schools can be dispersed to multiple schools.

And, in theory, there's tons of potential Immersion/Spanish students right there in the school's neighborhood. APS has all kinds of surveys showing that most parents want a close-by school, even including Spanish-speaking families who we the UMC community think might be better off in an immersion program. So, let's put the program we think will serve them best as close as possible and see how things shake out. ATS is in an okay location for Spanish speakers but probably not closer to them than Barrett already is.

As someone already pointed out, you can put an option school close to Spanish speakers but it’s no guarantee that those kids will go there. Its not like Claremont is a haul from the western pike. The only way to actually break up poverty on the western pike is to stop building subsidized housing and start building owner occupied townhouses.

[Anonymous]

ATS is getting quite big. You have to move it where it will fit. Not all sites have the seats or the trailer space. That is a problem. Can it fit at McKinley?!

[Anonymous]

I’m so glad my kid is out of elementary school. I moved out of the Ashlawn spike only to wind up in what looks like the Discovery spike - still a couple miles in the wrong direction, and would have to pass several schools along the way. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ATS is getting quite big. You have to move it where it will fit. Not all sites have the seats or the trailer space. That is a problem. Can it fit at McKinley?!

APS can control the size of option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS is getting quite big. You have to move it where it will fit. Not all sites have the seats or the trailer space. That is a problem. Can it fit at McKinley?!

APS can control the size of option schools.

Or eliminate them entirely. I don’t see the traditional model in the IPP summary table showing the options it wants to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m so glad my kid is out of elementary school. I moved out of the Ashlawn spike only to wind up in what looks like the Discovery spike - still a couple miles in the wrong direction, and would have to pass several schools along the way. Sigh.

That is not the real map. It was just something APS posted to stir the pot.

[Anonymous]

Just waiting for the Rosslyn contingency to see this thread and the map, and start whining about the longest bus ride in Arlington!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS to Mckinley, Mckinley to Reed (like Henry moved to Fleet, except for real this time), and Immersion to ATS makes a lot of sense. The only argument would be that immersion would have to shrink to fit at ATS, but they already said that they are opening another immersion site within the "elementary ib" program (ats).

Only problem is McK is already larger than Reed. (800 vs 725 seats).

Yes, this is why it probably won't be McKinley. Reed can consume a smaller school (like 490 student Nottingham) and still take the overflow from McKinley to fill the remaining 725 seats. If you move McKinley to Reed, you haven't solved the McKinley capacity problem because McKinley already has more kids than Reed's capacity. And you still leave Glebe overcrowded, with empty seats at Nottingham, Discovery, and arguably Jamestown (which only looks full because APS fills it with so many preschool kids). I think ATS is going to Tuckahoe or Nottingham. Once you move the Westover kids out of Tuckahoe and McKinley, you can consolidate those two schools at McKinley. Consolidating them at Tuckahoe is tougher because it is a smaller building and would result in immediate overcrowding. Also, Tuckahoe is arguably more accessible than McKinley to public transit-- walkable to the EFC metro, and a ton of buses run up and down Lee Highway. That said, when APS signaled they were moving ATS to Nottingham in the last discussion, they indicated that it was because Nottingham sits on a huge piece of land and can easily handle trailers, which means they could ramp up the size of ATS or ramp it down as needed without needing to reopen ES boundaries. And if Nottingham's Sept 30 enrollment numbers look like they did last year, APS will be talking about Nottingham again as a potential location for ATS. Remember, last year Nottingham only had 50 Kindergarteners compared to 145 at McKinley and 100 at Tuckahoe. APS will be hard-pressed to justify letting Nottingham continue as a <500 student school at the same time they are building new schools to hold 725-750 kids. It is not efficient from a cost standpoint. We'll know a lot more once those Sept 30 enrollment numbers come out.