Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the school board won’t cave to the ASF parents. Key has been in its current building forever, and it’s location has helped the program flourish. It is also a large and growing program, and it would be nearly impossible to find another location where it would fit. ASF suffers overcrowding like all APS schools, but they shouldn’t be allowed to just pick and choose their building and all others be damned.

Where would you recommend the students east of Key building be sent for their neighborhood school. Here's the zone map with boundaries. If ASFS is neighborhood and the boundary is redrawn, the east side doesn't make it in. Where do you send the kids who live in Marbella Apartments or River Place?

The map: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ESZones_Letter_2017_Revised2-1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the school board won’t cave to the ASF parents. Key has been in its current building forever, and it’s location has helped the program flourish. It is also a large and growing program, and it would be nearly impossible to find another location where it would fit. ASF suffers overcrowding like all APS schools, but they shouldn’t be allowed to just pick and choose their building and all others be damned.

Where would you recommend the students east of Key building be sent for their neighborhood school. Here's the zone map with boundaries. If ASFS is neighborhood and the boundary is redrawn, the east side doesn't make it in. Where do you send the kids who live in Marbella Apartments or River Place?

Anonymous wrote:I’m optimistic that the board will see the light and keep Key where it is. Then, fine, turn ASFS into a neighborhood school and solve the Kirkwood issue that seemingly has mommies so nervous.

They already turned it into a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the school board won’t cave to the ASF parents. Key has been in its current building forever, and it’s location has helped the program flourish. It is also a large and growing program, and it would be nearly impossible to find another location where it would fit. ASF suffers overcrowding like all APS schools, but they shouldn’t be allowed to just pick and choose their building and all others be damned.

There are a good number of ASF parents who want ASF to stay exactly where it is. ASF doesn't want to move either

Why not?

I’m optimistic that the board will see the light and keep Key where it is. Then, fine, turn ASFS into a neighborhood school and solve the Kirkwood issue that seemingly has mommies so nervous.

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the school board won’t cave to the ASF parents. Key has been in its current building forever, and it’s location has helped the program flourish. It is also a large and growing program, and it would be nearly impossible to find another location where it would fit. ASF suffers overcrowding like all APS schools, but they shouldn’t be allowed to just pick and choose their building and all others be damned.

There are a good number of ASF parents who want ASF to stay exactly where it is. ASF doesn't want to move either

Hopefully the school board won’t cave to the ASF parents. Key has been in its current building forever, and it’s location has helped the program flourish. It is also a large and growing program, and it would be nearly impossible to find another location where it would fit. ASF suffers overcrowding like all APS schools, but they shouldn’t be allowed to just pick and choose their building and all others be damned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no credible reason for moving Key.

Other than every criteria for a neighborhood school developed by the board thus far in the process? The only reason not to have that building as neighborhood is inertia.

The board didn’t create those criteria, the staff did. The board has sent them back to redo it with more considerations.

There’s an area at the edge of the county with a rapidly growing population and no neighborhood school. We have a building in the neighborhood that hundreds of kids could walk to, but none of them are guaranteed admission, though as recently as a year ago they were. There are no schools nearby that these kids can go to instead. Additionally, this particular area has a lot of families that are transit dependent at all income levels. Those are the reasons for a neighborhood school, what are your reasons for it to remain option?

Conveniently you might also get rid of the brown kids in the area by shipping them off to the ATS site. I’m sure that hasn’t crossed your mind at all, though.

A neighborhood school at Key would have a very socioeconomically diverse student population. I assume you don't have any real counterargument since you've resorted to calling me a racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no credible reason for moving Key.

Other than every criteria for a neighborhood school developed by the board thus far in the process? The only reason not to have that building as neighborhood is inertia.

The board didn’t create those criteria, the staff did. The board has sent them back to redo it with more considerations.

There’s an area at the edge of the county with a rapidly growing population and no neighborhood school. We have a building in the neighborhood that hundreds of kids could walk to, but none of them are guaranteed admission, though as recently as a year ago they were. There are no schools nearby that these kids can go to instead. Additionally, this particular area has a lot of families that are transit dependent at all income levels. Those are the reasons for a neighborhood school, what are your reasons for it to remain option?

Conveniently you might also get rid of the brown kids in the area by shipping them off to the ATS site. I’m sure that hasn’t crossed your mind at all, though.

Campbell parent above, well of course we don’t want trailers covering what is already a small green space. Duh. The SB can’t do that and they know it. And, as it is kids eat lunch at 1030. I don’t think they can eat lunch any earlier.

Even if the space turns into a neighborhood school, there are only so many kids that can fit.

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft is still a hot mess. Better with a better principal. But hard to save.

Change the calendar. See if that makes it a more attractive proposition.

Barcroft is still a hot mess. Better with a better principal. But hard to save.

Anonymous wrote:Campbell parent here. Yes, we are pretty uniformly against moving the school. We would love to get away from Carlin springs road, what a mess. We would love the large field space at Claremont. We would love the building at Carlin Springs. BUT, any move seriously screws the basis for the school's EL curriculum and that is really what the school is about - curriculum.

So you would be happy about EVERYTHING, but the curriculum is not adaptable at all to a nicer building and grounds?!
You will loose much of your current outdoor space to trailers since APS plans to expand all option schools “possibly to 750”, if you look at their “optimization study”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell parent here. Yes, we are pretty uniformly against moving the school. We would love to get away from Carlin springs road, what a mess. We would love the large field space at Claremont. We would love the building at Carlin Springs. BUT, any move seriously screws the basis for the school's EL curriculum and that is really what the school is about - curriculum.

Wasn't Campbell at the Claremont site before it moved to Campbell? So how does potentially move it back there 'screw the basis for the curriculum'.

As I understand it, the school's program started out at Claremont as one of the "exemplary" projects back in the 1980's or 1990's. I think almost all the schools had a "hook" at that point, to try to attract students. Then when they decided to grow the Spanish Immersion program, which had outgrown its space at Oakridge, they moved it to Claremont and moved the former Claremont staff to Campbell, which at that time was in danger of closing due to low enrollment. What was left behind by the staff, students, and families that moved out of Claremont was pretty much neglected. Which is probably what would happen to the grounds at Campbell, because maintaining what's been created takes constant maintenance. Anyway, I think all of this was over 20 years ago. Since being moved to Campbell, the project became a program and developed a curriculum and made the current grounds a part of the curriculum. Could they do it all again? Probably, if the county gives them a large sum of money. They will lose their partnership with the Nature Center, which seems like another resource that would be underutilized by a neighborhood school. Should they move them? I don't know whether the gain is worth the cost.

As for moving Campbell to a bigger building: it only make sense if there's demand enough to fill it. If it sits under capacity in a bigger building, while the neighborhood schools are jam packed with trailers, does that make sense? They will only have the one year's worth of data to evaluate countywide demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, because a couple years ago Barcroft was one of the most over crowded schools in the county. It was because the school was on an upward bound and the local UMC neighborhood families started to send their kids there. Then, the county allowed Arlington Mill to be zoned for Barcoft (and not Carlin Springs) and the numbers shot up, new principal came in (and not a good one) and once again the neighborhood left. I was amazed at the number of families that transfer out of Barcroft and Alcova Heights.

The SB is now seriously considering taking out most of Alcova Heights from the boundary because of proximity to Fleet (but of course the new CAF will go to Barcroft), dooming the school to be even higher than its current 60%FR/L. The only place the school has to draw from is low income housing to fill the empty Alcova Heights seats.

Who ever suggested that the new affordable housing units will go to Barcroft even if the rest of the Alcova neighborhood goes to Fleet? Isn't that kinda stupid? A better idea would be to reverse that and send the affordable housing residents to Fleet and keep the rest of Alcova at Barcroft. But when and where has anyone on staff or SB ever said they would entertain splitting a neighborhood based on housing type?

Fleet may be more walkable; but the capacity and available seats at schools is a factor, too. Heaven knows FRL rates are not - SB members don't give a crap about that unless it's in their neighborhood -- then they make sure it doesn't increase.

Interestingly, the FRL% at Barcroft has dropped as enrollment has dropped. It used to be around 65% or 66%. So what does that do to the theory that all the MC families are fleeing?

It's been a 60% since 2011, with exception of 2014. In 2014, enrollment and farms jumped up, and then came back down the following year. Why happened in 2014?