Anonymous wrote:What makes Campbell so special?

Why is it any less special than Montessori or ATS?

What makes Campbell so special?

I have NO interest in ATS. I didn't even tour the school because I wanted my children to attend the neighborhood school. I actually have no interest in immersion or Montessori, either. I know immersion isn't going anywhere because of our population needs. I'd be fine with Montessori going away because I don't need public funds going to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that ATS lottery winners should get last dibs on HB. Since all these special programs are lottery, others in the community should get a chance before those who have already had the good fortune to get into a lottery school.

+100

Other than immersion and (maybe) Montessori, all the other "option" programs really should go. The ATS building either needs to be turned into a neoghborhood school or they need to do that to Reed. The McKinley boundaries will be holding 2 option schools that, instead of helping the insane overcrowding, only make it worse. Bad idea, APS. Oh, how I wish that someone with long-term accountability could take charge of that board.

So if you keep Immersion, and Montessori, than you mean you only want to get rid of ATS, Campbell, and HB? Did you not get in to those three programs? Why the particular hate of just those options? You keep saying this and you know the only one that the SB will axe is Campbell, because they don't have a political action committee or any of the "right" people on advisory boards and such. So you're just turning a school that has a unique program provided to a diverse student body into yet another highly segregated neighborhood school with low test scores in that section of the county. And it still won't help with your overcrowding.

You will never be successful at eliminating ATS and HB. NEVER. But you just might destroy Campbell. So thanks for that.

1:1 isn't going anywhere. Don't you guy get it? They aren't building the fourth comprehensive high school that we need. They are going to wait until there are no other options and then say," these kids are so comfortable with technology, they've been working with it since second grade! We are so prepared to embrace the future and ONLINE learning. See? We didn't need another school? We are so cutting edge and creative. Kids can go to school in shifts every other day."

1:1 is their answer to overcrowding. It's not a secret. Murphy has mentioned online learning plenty of times. Count on it.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that ATS lottery winners should get last dibs on HB. Since all these special programs are lottery, others in the community should get a chance before those who have already had the good fortune to get into a lottery school.

+100

Other than immersion and (maybe) Montessori, all the other "option" programs really should go. The ATS building either needs to be turned into a neoghborhood school or they need to do that to Reed. The McKinley boundaries will be holding 2 option schools that, instead of helping the insane overcrowding, only make it worse. Bad idea, APS. Oh, how I wish that someone with long-term accountability could take charge of that board.

I agree that ATS lottery winners should get last dibs on HB. Since all these special programs are lottery, others in the community should get a chance before those who have already had the good fortune to get into a lottery school.

Anonymous wrote:
There is certainly a lot of evidence to support the efficacy of immersion for some students. Similarly I guess there is evidence for montessori- although I am less well versed in that.
There is evidence for IB.
STEAM is not a gimmick or a magnet- that is the future of learning.
I don't know that there is any evidence to support ATS other than parents like it.

I didn't mention immersion.

I've seen evidence for IB in high school. Can you provide links for its utility in earlier grades?

You can't possibly know what the future of learning is, nor can I. But the more people talk about STEAM, the more they seem to be talking about basic education (really basic, letting-kids-be-kids explorations of a range of academic subjects). Then they slap the phrase "21st century learners" on it and act as though there's an easy, tidy way to get kids engaged in their own education.

I think ATS is ridiculous, but I don't think we can pry it out of the clutches of anxious, score-worshipping adherents. I'd argue for expanding the program (do you you love it when it's just as big as the other big elementaries?) and putting ATS students at the bottom of the heap when it's time for the HB lottery (do you love ATS enough to forgo your shot at HB?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what other options people want.

I want APS to stop with the gimmicks -- STEAM! IB for elementary students! FLES! 1:1! -- and start adopting evidence-based policies that actually meet the neieds of the "whole child" the SB likes to yammer about.

I agree PP. Tired of all the "special" programs. I think Arlington would be well-served to work towards elementary schools that are functionally the same, and strong in academics, arts, etc to build all-around strong students. Having all these "special" programs only creates and exacerbates both real and perceived inequalities.

There are real and perceived inequities and they cannot be addressed through neighborhood schools alone. The choice programs are more integrated than the majority of neighborhood schools (excepting HB). How can you work towards schools that are functionally the same when the neighborhood schools are so economically disparate? Riddle me that. I think this plan is at least an attempt to start that conversation, about how they will try to at least make sure the academic models are the same across the neighborhoods.

1:1 is a stinker and that needs to go, I'll give you that. In theory it sounds great, in practice it's terrible. It is just a gimmick, and a pricey one at that. The other stuff, I think, is an honest attempt at equity, which is pretty difficult to achieve if everyone is kept within their walk zones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what other options people want.

I want APS to stop with the gimmicks -- STEAM! IB for elementary students! FLES! 1:1! -- and start adopting evidence-based policies that actually meet the neieds of the "whole child" the SB likes to yammer about.

I agree PP. Tired of all the "special" programs. I think Arlington would be well-served to work towards elementary schools that are functionally the same, and strong in academics, arts, etc to build all-around strong students. Having all these "special" programs only creates and exacerbates both real and perceived inequalities.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to support the efficacy of immersion for some students. Similarly I guess there is evidence for montessori- although I am less well versed in that.
There is evidence for IB.
STEAM is not a gimmick or a magnet- that is the future of learning.
I don't know that there is any evidence to support ATS other than parents like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what other options people want.

I want APS to stop with the gimmicks -- STEAM! IB for elementary students! FLES! 1:1! -- and start adopting evidence-based policies that actually meet the neieds of the "whole child" the SB likes to yammer about.

I agree PP. Tired of all the "special" programs. I think Arlington would be well-served to work towards elementary schools that are functionally the same, and strong in academics, arts, etc to build all-around strong students. Having all these "special" programs only creates and exacerbates both real and perceived inequalities.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what other options people want.

I want APS to stop with the gimmicks -- STEAM! IB for elementary students! FLES! 1:1! -- and start adopting evidence-based policies that actually meet the neieds of the "whole child" the SB likes to yammer about.

I don't understand what other options people want.

If parents don't speak up about it now, the SB will not bother considering other options.

Anonymous wrote:These are not work sessions. They are community meetings. They are the only meetings planned for the public to ask questions and weigh in - both about the Enrollment Policy changes and the plans for the new high school. They are stuffing both (huge) topics into one meeting and trying to bulldoze this all through.

It is critical that members of the public attend and weigh in. This may be the only real opportunity to do so.

I don't think parents understand that all of this is under consideration.