Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will Key immersion be moved to?

Either Carlin Springs, ATS, or Barcroft.

Makes no sense. They are taking something that is working very well and have decided to ruin it. Who hates immersion so much?

No one. Have you read the analysis or are you simply getting upset? They are advocating that immersion schools should be closer to dense populations of native Spanish speakers. Changes in residential patterns means that you have more pockets of native Spanish elsewhere than in the current Key area, and by moving immersion schools closer you might get more native Spanish participation than if you put it somewhere further from them.

Seems more like rich white people shoving off immersion to s Arlington. Key is in n Arlibgton now and has a good balance. And it was a partial neighborhood school. So that dog won’t hunt.

No, there aren't enough Spanish speakers living near Key. They have to bus them in now. So now it's the rich white people's turn to get on a bus. Key will still be a more economically diverse school, though, just because there are some CAFs in the R-B corridor. ASFS could be pretty diverse, too. But the families currently there will mostly get rezoned to Key.

Not all of the white families at Key are rich, you clueless fake lefty hypocrite.

So what you're saying is that there is a substantial/statistically significant number of disadvantaged white children at Key who would like to continue Immersion and would face hardship by being bused to another location? Is it a higher number than the number of economically disadvantaged Spanish speakers who would have to take a bus into Key in order to maintain the 50/50 split? If yes, show me the receipts.

So what you’re saying is you want immersion out of North Arlington?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key is two way immersion. That means native English and native Spanish. I think this idea will effectively end one of the immersion schools.

There is plenty of demand from parents who want their kids to learn Spanish. So APS will have no problem filling 2 schools when they are close to the native speakers. Time to get on the Bus.

Time for north arlingtonians to choose immersion. Not to “consider” it. Not to be “tempted by the gift of two languages.” But to actually choose it. Doubt that will happen more often following the whites’ recolonization of Key.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In which case, that data would support a premise that those Arlingtonians value neighborhood schools over lottery ones unless they are highly conveniently located. ESOL is in all schools so this is not about throwing out the Spanish speakers.

There seems to be a misperception that the main purpose of Immersion is to educate Spanish speakers in their native language. This is really not the main thrust of the program. The idea is to teach the native Spanish speakers English and the native English speakers Spanish. The end-goal is that the kids are effectively bi-lingual. This should happen naturally for the native Spanish speakers, since they are exposed to so much English anyway, but the Immersion program can both accelerate that process as well as provide additional substantive academic support in Spanish. I suspect that the English-language side of Key will remain full, but we shall see. The one annual event at Key which will definitely change is the annual Halloween parade, where the kids dress up and go trick or treating through many of the businesses at Courthouse. That won't happen at any of the proposed sites.

Neighborhood school Key will continue to do that, most likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will Key immersion be moved to?

Either Carlin Springs, ATS, or Barcroft.

Makes no sense. They are taking something that is working very well and have decided to ruin it. Who hates immersion so much?

No one. Have you read the analysis or are you simply getting upset? They are advocating that immersion schools should be closer to dense populations of native Spanish speakers. Changes in residential patterns means that you have more pockets of native Spanish elsewhere than in the current Key area, and by moving immersion schools closer you might get more native Spanish participation than if you put it somewhere further from them.

Seems more like rich white people shoving off immersion to s Arlington. Key is in n Arlibgton now and has a good balance. And it was a partial neighborhood school. So that dog won’t hunt.

No, there aren't enough Spanish speakers living near Key. They have to bus them in now. So now it's the rich white people's turn to get on a bus. Key will still be a more economically diverse school, though, just because there are some CAFs in the R-B corridor. ASFS could be pretty diverse, too. But the families currently there will mostly get rezoned to Key.

Not all of the white families at Key are rich, you clueless fake lefty hypocrite.

So what you're saying is that there is a substantial/statistically significant number of disadvantaged white children at Key who would like to continue Immersion and would face hardship by being bused to another location? Is it a higher number than the number of economically disadvantaged Spanish speakers who would have to take a bus into Key in order to maintain the 50/50 split? If yes, show me the receipts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will Key immersion be moved to?

Either Carlin Springs, ATS, or Barcroft.

Makes no sense. They are taking something that is working very well and have decided to ruin it. Who hates immersion so much?

No one. Have you read the analysis or are you simply getting upset? They are advocating that immersion schools should be closer to dense populations of native Spanish speakers. Changes in residential patterns means that you have more pockets of native Spanish elsewhere than in the current Key area, and by moving immersion schools closer you might get more native Spanish participation than if you put it somewhere further from them.

Seems more like rich white people shoving off immersion to s Arlington. Key is in n Arlibgton now and has a good balance. And it was a partial neighborhood school. So that dog won’t hunt.

No, there aren't enough Spanish speakers living near Key. They have to bus them in now. So now it's the rich white people's turn to get on a bus. Key will still be a more economically diverse school, though, just because there are some CAFs in the R-B corridor. ASFS could be pretty diverse, too. But the families currently there will mostly get rezoned to Key.

Not all of the white families at Key are rich, you clueless fake lefty hypocrite.

So what you're saying is that there is a substantial/statistically significant number of disadvantaged white children at Key who would like to continue Immersion and would face hardship by being bused to another location? Is it a higher number than the number of economically disadvantaged Spanish speakers who would have to take a bus into Key in order to maintain the 50/50 split? If yes, show me the receipts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Key is two way immersion. That means native English and native Spanish. I think this idea will effectively end one of the immersion schools.

There is plenty of demand from parents who want their kids to learn Spanish. So APS will have no problem filling 2 schools when they are close to the native speakers. Time to get on the Bus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In which case, that data would support a premise that those Arlingtonians value neighborhood schools over lottery ones unless they are highly conveniently located. ESOL is in all schools so this is not about throwing out the Spanish speakers.

There seems to be a misperception that the main purpose of Immersion is to educate Spanish speakers in their native language. This is really not the main thrust of the program. The idea is to teach the native Spanish speakers English and the native English speakers Spanish. The end-goal is that the kids are effectively bi-lingual. This should happen naturally for the native Spanish speakers, since they are exposed to so much English anyway, but the Immersion program can both accelerate that process as well as provide additional substantive academic support in Spanish. I suspect that the English-language side of Key will remain full, but we shall see. The one annual event at Key which will definitely change is the annual Halloween parade, where the kids dress up and go trick or treating through many of the businesses at Courthouse. That won't happen at any of the proposed sites.

Neighborhood school Key will continue to do that, most likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at that spreadsheet for April 12. Honestly, I'm not outraged. They were very clear that they were identifying schools they thought would be better fits as option sites. Everyone knew they were already thinking about what could go where. They only said over and over that spanish immersion needed to be near native Spanish speakers.

And now we should give them credit. They have CHANGED their thinking after listening to the principals and delving further into the transportation issues. ASFS is no longer on the list to become an immersion school. And I read the current analysis as leaning towards putting the second immersion in S. Arlington and leaving ATS where it is.

The changed that part of the analysis, but not the whole thing. Not the part where they snuck back in the only supposedly data-based argument they could make for putting an option program at Nottingham, one that they already admitted was an error last time. They keep pushing for Nottingham even though all of their data and analysis argues otherwise. So many people said the Nottingham community was crazy for thinking the staff was targeting them, that they were making it up that the staff was disregarding the data and analysis in order to justify Nottingham as an option site, that clearly Nottingham must be a good candidate and if the final result is anything else it must be because the Nottingham community bribed people. But now we have it in a spreadsheet. That the data doesn't support the conclusion, but the staff has already decided they want to move ATS to Nottingham and they're going to make whatever unprincipled exceptions they need to make it happen. No wonder the staff was so willing to fix their errors on Nottingham the last time around, they knew it didn't matter either way.

We all know they want to make a NW school an option school. They don't want to draw those boundaries. Unfortunately for them, none of the NW schools fit their criteria for moving the other option schools. Rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, they made it up.

Now, what do us NW parents do? For one, I think we need to be on them to share these draft maps they are coming up with. Just how do the boundaries work if you move Key to S. Arlington, leave ATS where it is and make their other recommended moves? Are those boundaries really as crazy as they are making them out to be once Reed opens?

How can all of S. Arlington be served if so many of the option schools are there?

I will be interested to see if ATS is still singing its centrally located tune or if Nottingham somehow appeals to some on the squeaky wheels over there.

I think because they assume that all the SA families already in option programs located in South Arlington would stay in them (Campbell, Montessori, one Immersion school). With Drew coming online as a neighborhood school, they are gaining some neighborhood seats. Plus, if they do make Claremont a neighborhood school, it would be a gain of neighborhood seats (and I think Abingdon is not at capacity yet). Fleet will open, and there will be a new neighborhood school built in SA in about 5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at that spreadsheet for April 12. Honestly, I'm not outraged. They were very clear that they were identifying schools they thought would be better fits as option sites. Everyone knew they were already thinking about what could go where. They only said over and over that spanish immersion needed to be near native Spanish speakers.

And now we should give them credit. They have CHANGED their thinking after listening to the principals and delving further into the transportation issues. ASFS is no longer on the list to become an immersion school. And I read the current analysis as leaning towards putting the second immersion in S. Arlington and leaving ATS where it is.

The changed that part of the analysis, but not the whole thing. Not the part where they snuck back in the only supposedly data-based argument they could make for putting an option program at Nottingham, one that they already admitted was an error last time. They keep pushing for Nottingham even though all of their data and analysis argues otherwise. So many people said the Nottingham community was crazy for thinking the staff was targeting them, that they were making it up that the staff was disregarding the data and analysis in order to justify Nottingham as an option site, that clearly Nottingham must be a good candidate and if the final result is anything else it must be because the Nottingham community bribed people. But now we have it in a spreadsheet. That the data doesn't support the conclusion, but the staff has already decided they want to move ATS to Nottingham and they're going to make whatever unprincipled exceptions they need to make it happen. No wonder the staff was so willing to fix their errors on Nottingham the last time around, they knew it didn't matter either way.

We all know they want to make a NW school an option school. They don't want to draw those boundaries. Unfortunately for them, none of the NW schools fit their criteria for moving the other option schools. Rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, they made it up.

Now, what do us NW parents do? For one, I think we need to be on them to share these draft maps they are coming up with. Just how do the boundaries work if you move Key to S. Arlington, leave ATS where it is and make their other recommended moves? Are those boundaries really as crazy as they are making them out to be once Reed opens?

How can all of S. Arlington be served if so many of the option schools are there?

I will be interested to see if ATS is still singing its centrally located tune or if Nottingham somehow appeals to some on the squeaky wheels over there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In which case, that data would support a premise that those Arlingtonians value neighborhood schools over lottery ones unless they are highly conveniently located. ESOL is in all schools so this is not about throwing out the Spanish speakers.

There seems to be a misperception that the main purpose of Immersion is to educate Spanish speakers in their native language. This is really not the main thrust of the program. The idea is to teach the native Spanish speakers English and the native English speakers Spanish. The end-goal is that the kids are effectively bi-lingual. This should happen naturally for the native Spanish speakers, since they are exposed to so much English anyway, but the Immersion program can both accelerate that process as well as provide additional substantive academic support in Spanish. I suspect that the English-language side of Key will remain full, but we shall see. The one annual event at Key which will definitely change is the annual Halloween parade, where the kids dress up and go trick or treating through many of the businesses at Courthouse. That won't happen at any of the proposed sites.

Anonymous wrote:In which case, that data would support a premise that those Arlingtonians value neighborhood schools over lottery ones unless they are highly conveniently located. ESOL is in all schools so this is not about throwing out the Spanish speakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will Key immersion be moved to?

Either Carlin Springs, ATS, or Barcroft.

Makes no sense. They are taking something that is working very well and have decided to ruin it. Who hates immersion so much?

No one. Have you read the analysis or are you simply getting upset? They are advocating that immersion schools should be closer to dense populations of native Spanish speakers. Changes in residential patterns means that you have more pockets of native Spanish elsewhere than in the current Key area, and by moving immersion schools closer you might get more native Spanish participation than if you put it somewhere further from them.

Seems more like rich white people shoving off immersion to s Arlington. Key is in n Arlibgton now and has a good balance. And it was a partial neighborhood school. So that dog won’t hunt.

No, there aren't enough Spanish speakers living near Key. They have to bus them in now. So now it's the rich white people's turn to get on a bus. Key will still be a more economically diverse school, though, just because there are some CAFs in the R-B corridor. ASFS could be pretty diverse, too. But the families currently there will mostly get rezoned to Key.

Not all of the white families at Key are rich, you clueless fake lefty hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at that spreadsheet for April 12. Honestly, I'm not outraged. They were very clear that they were identifying schools they thought would be better fits as option sites. Everyone knew they were already thinking about what could go where. They only said over and over that spanish immersion needed to be near native Spanish speakers.

And now we should give them credit. They have CHANGED their thinking after listening to the principals and delving further into the transportation issues. ASFS is no longer on the list to become an immersion school. And I read the current analysis as leaning towards putting the second immersion in S. Arlington and leaving ATS where it is.

The changed that part of the analysis, but not the whole thing. Not the part where they snuck back in the only supposedly data-based argument they could make for putting an option program at Nottingham, one that they already admitted was an error last time. They keep pushing for Nottingham even though all of their data and analysis argues otherwise. So many people said the Nottingham community was crazy for thinking the staff was targeting them, that they were making it up that the staff was disregarding the data and analysis in order to justify Nottingham as an option site, that clearly Nottingham must be a good candidate and if the final result is anything else it must be because the Nottingham community bribed people. But now we have it in a spreadsheet. That the data doesn't support the conclusion, but the staff has already decided they want to move ATS to Nottingham and they're going to make whatever unprincipled exceptions they need to make it happen. No wonder the staff was so willing to fix their errors on Nottingham the last time around, they knew it didn't matter either way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at that spreadsheet for April 12. Honestly, I'm not outraged. They were very clear that they were identifying schools they thought would be better fits as option sites. Everyone knew they were already thinking about what could go where. They only said over and over that spanish immersion needed to be near native Spanish speakers.

And now we should give them credit. They have CHANGED their thinking after listening to the principals and delving further into the transportation issues. ASFS is no longer on the list to become an immersion school. And I read the current analysis as leaning towards putting the second immersion in S. Arlington and leaving ATS where it is.

The changed that part of the analysis, but not the whole thing. Not the part where they snuck back in the only supposedly data-based argument they could make for putting an option program at Nottingham, one that they already admitted was an error last time. They keep pushing for Nottingham even though all of their data and analysis argues otherwise. So many people said the Nottingham community was crazy for thinking the staff was targeting them, that they were making it up that the staff was disregarding the data and analysis in order to justify Nottingham as an option site, that clearly Nottingham must be a good candidate and if the final result is anything else it must be because the Nottingham community bribed people. But now we have it in a spreadsheet. That the data doesn't support the conclusion, but the staff has already decided they want to move ATS to Nottingham and they're going to make whatever unprincipled exceptions they need to make it happen. No wonder the staff was so willing to fix their errors on Nottingham the last time around, they knew it didn't matter either way.

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at that spreadsheet for April 12. Honestly, I'm not outraged. They were very clear that they were identifying schools they thought would be better fits as option sites. Everyone knew they were already thinking about what could go where. They only said over and over that spanish immersion needed to be near native Spanish speakers.

And now we should give them credit. They have CHANGED their thinking after listening to the principals and delving further into the transportation issues. ASFS is no longer on the list to become an immersion school. And I read the current analysis as leaning towards putting the second immersion in S. Arlington and leaving ATS where it is.