Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is completely inequitable to move ATS to far NW Arlington. It needs to be central. There’s only one. If you move it to the wealthiest enclaves then those will be the only families who can make the trek across the county. You will lose all/most lower income families. I sure hope APS is not that clueless.

Is it really more inequitable than having “neighborhood” schools be too far away for families to be involved? People choose option schools, so when push comes to shove they should deal with more inconvenience.

DP - but that inconvenience should be spread out at least somewhat fairly, not overly burden one third of the county

Anonymous wrote:I don't quite understand why people keep saying its not a real map. It's not real in the sense that its not a staff recommendation for Board consideration. But it does not seem right to me to compare it to say the single factor maps they put out (e.g. taking only diversity into consideration, only considering alignment, etc.) The single factor maps have obvious 'better' choices.
In this case- the only way to do 'better' than this map is to move an option program.

And that is precisely the point of the map - to show the community that option program(s) need to move!!!!
Everyone is overanalyzing this - that's ALL this map is meant for!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is an argument for option at Tuckahoe. Those kids can get redirected to Nottingham or McKinley or Westover. What it is also an argument for is efficient public transportation north and south - your transportation points only lead credence to an option program being filled with north arlington students and inaccessible to students south.

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?!

McKinley's addition brought it to a much higher capacity than the current building, yes? no matter what you put at the current ATS site, you need an addition there.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP - I can accept that different folks like different things and have different priorities, etc. What I cannot accept is allowing that to result in unequal academic and social experiences for the students. There can be a range of demographic balances in schools within the district; but every school should be offering a comparable experience and comparable level of opportunities. They are not. And allowing essentially a Latino school here, a mostly ESL school there, and a wealthy arctic white school yonder prohibits the ability to provide a similar and "equal" experience.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

Again: immersion is not a safety valve for UMC wealthy people to point to as a means of dispersing “the poors.”[/quote]

In that case, location doesn’t matter so we can put immersion in Nottingham or Tuckahoe. You can’t have it both ways. Either the school is vital to low income Hispanic populations and should bear the western Pike or we are misunderstanding immersion and it doesn’t really matter where it goes. Either way it doesn’t need to stay in Courthouse.[/quote]

Some truth here. Immersion was started at Key BECAUSE the surrounding neighborhood had a large Spanish speaking population. Times have changed, and it makes sense to move the school so that it is more accessible to Spanish speakers. What their income is, is irrelevant. APS has planning unit maps of Spanish speakers, though I can’t put my hands on it at the moment. Anyone have that link?

[quote=Anonymous]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.

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

Again: immersion is not a safety valve for UMC wealthy people to point to as a means of dispersing “the poors.”[/quote]

In that case, location doesn’t matter so we can put immersion in Nottingham or Tuckahoe. You can’t have it both ways. Either the school is vital to low income Hispanic populations and should bear the western Pike or we are misunderstanding immersion and it doesn’t really matter where it goes. Either way it doesn’t need to stay in Courthouse.

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.

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.

I’m sorry that accommodating the specifics of your immersion program do not trump the much wider challenges faced by this boundary redefining process.

You will take the location you are given and adjust accordingly.

I personally feel option programs should all be in office buildings, like the Baileys Upper School, so you should be THRILLED to get a nice location like ATS.

Hold onto that personal feeling and let it make you happy to think that way.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.[/quote]

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??[/quote]

Again: immersion is not a safety valve for UMC wealthy people to point to as a means of dispersing “the poors.”

Anonymous wrote:It is completely inequitable to move ATS to far NW Arlington. It needs to be central. There’s only one. If you move it to the wealthiest enclaves then those will be the only families who can make the trek across the county. You will lose all/most lower income families. I sure hope APS is not that clueless.

Is it really more inequitable than having “neighborhood” schools be too far away for families to be involved? People choose option schools, so when push comes to shove they should deal with more inconvenience.

It is completely inequitable to move ATS to far NW Arlington. It needs to be central. There’s only one. If you move it to the wealthiest enclaves then those will be the only families who can make the trek across the county. You will lose all/most lower income families. I sure hope APS is not that clueless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

its is half the county wide, but I think poor crapped on McKiney gets the honor or longest and worst bus ride.

And what’s up with the Reed nipple?

You could ask the same about the lower Ashlawn, um, member. They needed something to spice up their fake map.

Yeah, it seems really crazy to me to take part of the neighborhood that is right behind Ashlawn (a short walk) and move it to McKinley where they would likely have to bus it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Won’t they be going to Key, which will be a neighborhood school?

This map BY DEFINITION keep Key as option school. That’s it reason for being. To spur discussion if county should move Immersion.

Not if the Key folks get their way ...

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.

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

This post, like so many others, seems to misunderstand the nature of the APS two-way immersion program. SMH.[/quote]

I sometimes feel there is someone pulling us by pretending to be from Key, to be as tone deaf as this. Same as the PPs who complained about overcrowding at ATS... can these people be for real??