Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they move ATS..there are hardly any potential walkers if it was a neighborhood school

If you look at the map, I think they are setting themselves to say they don't have walkers so they can stay Option. ATS would pick up a ton of potential walkers with some crossing guards to nearby streets. One of the comments was that their child lives across the street from ATS but is bused 2 miles away. The population around ATS are a lot of bus kids that go to Ashlawn. ATS also sits almost right next to Ballston which has huge population potential. Don't let ATS parents say they're isolated when they really don't need to be.

Anonymous wrote:I doubt they move ATS..there are hardly any potential walkers if it was a neighborhood school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Campbell meets none of the four considerations for option site suitability. Step one was to ID suitable option sites, and the sites most suitable are ASFS, ATS, Carlin Springs, Claremont, and Nottingham (in addition to Henry). Others met maybe half the criteria or just one, but Campbell met none. Maybe in a later step the board will take on special considerations, or decide that moving Campbell isn’t worth it. What I can tell you is lots of people are attached to their neighborhood schools and don’t want them switched to option. Lots of people are attached to their kds’ option schools and don’t want them moved. But changes are coming regardless of how “beloved” (to use a Nottingham parent’s argument) the schools are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

DP, but there has to be a balance. Did the retirees during the baby boom refuse to pay higher taxes and set aside land for schools? Because we have more kids in APS now than during the baby boom, and all I hear from my Boomer neighbors are complaints about rising taxes/assessments, traffic, and lack of parking. Arlington is not really the place it once was, and it's not the best place to retire given the HCOL, increasing urbanism (which is an unsettling change for many long time Arlington residents). Unless they have family here, they should take their housing windfall and move to places better suited for retirees. Or stay, and do for our kids what the previous generations did for you: build the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

DP, but there has to be a balance. Did the retirees during the baby boom refuse to pay higher taxes and set aside land for schools? Because we have more kids in APS now than during the baby boom, and all I hear from my Boomer neighbors are complaints about rising taxes/assessments, traffic, and lack of parking. Arlington is not really the place it once was, and it's not the best place to retire given the HCOL, increasing urbanism (which is an unsettling change for many long time Arlington residents). Unless they have family here, they should take their housing windfall and move to places better suited for retirees. Or stay, and do for our kids what the previous generations did for you: build the schools.

This x 10000

Some (thankfully not all!) of my older neighbors are just like that, complaining about change and about the high taxes, and saying "excuse me, if I don't want my home to rise any further in value" - well, cry me a river. You have made a windfall on your home you bought in 1960. You are not paying a mortgage and have made an unreal amount of money. Something that will never repeat for this current "young" parent generation. Stop complaining! Perhaps take out an equity loan. Or move! Gah!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Again, as applied at Campbell, the Nature Center and Wetlands have been made integral to the instructional model. You think the teachers should have to recreate nearly every expedition and re-do the entire EL curriculum so that a few more students can maybe walk (or really be driven) to school? Where do you think the kids can easily do their EL learning at another site not ajoinjng a Nature Center? And the grounds, which the kids themselves have built and cared for, should be abandoned to students who likely won't be able to utilize or care for them? For what? I need a better reason than, "because they could." Many kids in the walk zone are already Campbell students. So what would this change gain the system? That is what has not been answered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

They must apply. They are getting a spot, but they must still apply.

Then why didn't they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county does care if kids are being driven---they don't want more cars and congestion on the road. Also, evne when there is not neighborhood preference, people who live close to the school are more likely to apply. Even if not everyone is guaranteed admission---plenty of students will live locally. Choice is one of the main mechanisms by which we can encourage integration--which Arlington desperately needs. I don't think choice schools should be based in N. Arlington, but based on capacity, more may need to be.

Right now cutting buses is a top priority. Reed isn’t going to be choice.

Cutting buses is the staff’s priority. I heard SB members say they want to see option programs on main roads like, maybe, Washington Blvd!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

They must apply. They are getting a spot, but they must still apply.

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Anonymous wrote:re Campbell and expeditionary learning:

The concept of expeditionary learning is not tied to the nature center and wetlands. Campbell uses these resources well in their program, but if the school has to move, they can develop new expeditions and projects.

On Montessori numbers:

The application numbers for this year assume Montessori will still be at Drew for 2018-2019 school year, correct? I'm not sure those can be used as a proxy for when the school is at a more accessible location, as it will be at Henry. Also, I thought the assumption was that most of the Montessori program came out of the pre-school program- do they have to apply for K? Or do they just move up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

DP, but there has to be a balance. Did the retirees during the baby boom refuse to pay higher taxes and set aside land for schools? Because we have more kids in APS now than during the baby boom, and all I hear from my Boomer neighbors are complaints about rising taxes/assessments, traffic, and lack of parking. Arlington is not really the place it once was, and it's not the best place to retire given the HCOL, increasing urbanism (which is an unsettling change for many long time Arlington residents). Unless they have family here, they should take their housing windfall and move to places better suited for retirees. Or stay, and do for our kids what the previous generations did for you: build the schools.