Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure: I think option schools should go away. I feel like they are a relic of the past and don't make sense with our current enrollment issues.

I don't think option schools should ever get new buildings (I'm looking at you, HB). They should be the ones that rely on older facilities and trailers b/c the families who send their kids there had a choice.

IF we have to have option schools, they should also be in areas with the lowest enrollment, assuming there are other schools nearby that can pick up the slack. Building capacity matters, but total student body size has a significant impact on the school. Since neighborhood schools can't turn people away, they should, unfortunately, be the ones with greatest capacity (all those 700+ seat schools).

Again, I think option schools should go away, but I realize that argument is never going to get me anywhere.

+1 I'm with you actually. Option schools are a relic of APS being a rich system. They are a luxury good. The only benefit I see to them is helping to spread demographics, but they would need to be done intentionally, which it's not. Right now they are mainly an escape valve for parents to avoid certain schools -- both schools that are too rich and schools that are too poor.

I think we need to start at the middle school level and create balanced schools with good demographics. Then we create feeder patterns of elem. schools into those middle schools. You can't get each elem. school balanced, but we can try to do somewhat better. Then we give the poorer schools extra resources. At the same time, we pay a lot of attention to county housing policies and put a stop to building affordable housing in the areas that already have poor schools. That's the best solution I can think of, and it doesn't matter, because we still won't do anything.

Let me guess; you’re zoned one of the handful of integrated neighborhood schools. Not too rich, not too poor. Good for you. Too bad you would deny everyone that “luxury”.

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see 3 maps: Immersion moved to ATS, Carlin Springs and Barcroft. In the Immersion to ATS, move ATS to Barcrft and let’s see that map.

Where are you going to put the hundreds of low income kids at barcroft? Randolph, Carlin? Great idea. 100 percent frl then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see 3 maps: Immersion moved to ATS, Carlin Springs and Barcroft. In the Immersion to ATS, move ATS to Barcrft and let’s see that map.

I'm still not getting how everyone cries "walkability" and you can't put a program in a highly walkable neighborhood school because we should be maximizing walkers and minimizing transportation costs, etc.; yet people keep pushing the idea of an option program at Barcroft - one of the most walkable schools.

Hypocrites.

Barcroft has a crazy high transfer rate without having any historical neighborhood preference or other weirdness that I know about other than being in the old Campbell attendance zone. I don't think it's an ideal option school location, but when 299 out of 679 (44%) in the attendance zone are opting out, perhaps it should be considered.

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure: I think option schools should go away. I feel like they are a relic of the past and don't make sense with our current enrollment issues.

I don't think option schools should ever get new buildings (I'm looking at you, HB). They should be the ones that rely on older facilities and trailers b/c the families who send their kids there had a choice.

IF we have to have option schools, they should also be in areas with the lowest enrollment, assuming there are other schools nearby that can pick up the slack. Building capacity matters, but total student body size has a significant impact on the school. Since neighborhood schools can't turn people away, they should, unfortunately, be the ones with greatest capacity (all those 700+ seat schools).

Again, I think option schools should go away, but I realize that argument is never going to get me anywhere.

+1 I'm with you actually. Option schools are a relic of APS being a rich system. They are a luxury good. The only benefit I see to them is helping to spread demographics, but they would need to be done intentionally, which it's not. Right now they are mainly an escape valve for parents to avoid certain schools -- both schools that are too rich and schools that are too poor.

I think we need to start at the middle school level and create balanced schools with good demographics. Then we create feeder patterns of elem. schools into those middle schools. You can't get each elem. school balanced, but we can try to do somewhat better. Then we give the poorer schools extra resources. At the same time, we pay a lot of attention to county housing policies and put a stop to building affordable housing in the areas that already have poor schools. That's the best solution I can think of, and it doesn't matter, because we still won't do anything.

Full disclosure: I think option schools should go away. I feel like they are a relic of the past and don't make sense with our current enrollment issues.

I don't think option schools should ever get new buildings (I'm looking at you, HB). They should be the ones that rely on older facilities and trailers b/c the families who send their kids there had a choice.

IF we have to have option schools, they should also be in areas with the lowest enrollment, assuming there are other schools nearby that can pick up the slack. Building capacity matters, but total student body size has a significant impact on the school. Since neighborhood schools can't turn people away, they should, unfortunately, be the ones with greatest capacity (all those 700+ seat schools).

Again, I think option schools should go away, but I realize that argument is never going to get me anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to see 3 maps: Immersion moved to ATS, Carlin Springs and Barcroft. In the Immersion to ATS, move ATS to Barcrft and let’s see that map.

I'm still not getting how everyone cries "walkability" and you can't put a program in a highly walkable neighborhood school because we should be maximizing walkers and minimizing transportation costs, etc.; yet people keep pushing the idea of an option program at Barcroft - one of the most walkable schools.

Hypocrites.

I’d like to see 3 maps: Immersion moved to ATS, Carlin Springs and Barcroft. In the Immersion to ATS, move ATS to Barcrft and let’s see that map.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere describe the Immersion program at Claremont as "anemic." It's actually quite the opposite, with high demand, a wait list and a high majority of parents extremely satisfied with the school. And APS already did the "school within a school" concept for Immersion ...20 years ago. They're not going back to that model.

In high demand for English speakers only.

Get ready for immersion “school within a school,” because it’s coming to an IB program near you soon.

That will make it even harder to get the 50/50 enrollment at the current programs. Maybe it will encourage more UMC English-proficient families to not opt out of that neighborhood program; but at what cost to the existing option program? This is probably a lead-in to APS letting go of the 50/50 model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere describe the Immersion program at Claremont as "anemic." It's actually quite the opposite, with high demand, a wait list and a high majority of parents extremely satisfied with the school. And APS already did the "school within a school" concept for Immersion ...20 years ago. They're not going back to that model.

In high demand for English speakers only.

Get ready for immersion “school within a school,” because it’s coming to an IB program near you soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere describe the Immersion program at Claremont as "anemic." It's actually quite the opposite, with high demand, a wait list and a high majority of parents extremely satisfied with the school. And APS already did the "school within a school" concept for Immersion ...20 years ago. They're not going back to that model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

Current programs are not anemic. Give me a break.

The numbers don’t lie.

To be clear PP means anemic for native Spanish speakers.

Positively scratching my head over the delusional woman on AEM thinking there’s enough demand for a third Spanish immersion school. There’s not even enough demand from Spanish speakers for two.

I dare you to say that on AEM. You’re correct, of course, but somehow people will find a way to call you racist.

Which is why no one says it there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

Current programs are not anemic. Give me a break.

The numbers don’t lie.

To be clear PP means anemic for native Spanish speakers.

Positively scratching my head over the delusional woman on AEM thinking there’s enough demand for a third Spanish immersion school. There’s not even enough demand from Spanish speakers for two.

I dare you to say that on AEM. You’re correct, of course, but somehow people will find a way to call you racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

Current programs are not anemic. Give me a break.

The numbers don’t lie.

To be clear PP means anemic for native Spanish speakers.

Positively scratching my head over the delusional woman on AEM thinking there’s enough demand for a third Spanish immersion school. There’s not even enough demand from Spanish speakers for two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

The seat deficit in S Arlington is purely theoretical at this point. If you look at the current number of students (including preschoolers) vs building capacity there are hundreds of open seats right now. There are even more if you take Claremont and Campbell out (and another immersion program in S Arlington would take some of Claremont's students). This is completely ignoring the obvious fact that zones can cross 50. Sorry about the formatting on the table, I can't figure out how to insert it properly. The first number is capacity, the second is actual Sept 2019 numbers, the third is over/under.

Abingdon 725 751 -26
Barcroft 460 450 10
Campbell 436 447 -11
Carlin Springs 585 645 -60
Claremont 599 741 -142
Drew 674 442 232
Fleet 752 637 115
Hoffman Boston 566 518 48
Oakridge 674 623 51

Total Overage 217
Total Overage w/o Option 370

What about Randolph?

Oops, that's why I included my calculations! Randolph also has some open seats.

Abingdon 725 751 -26
Barcroft 460 450 10
Campbell 436 447 -11
Carlin Springs 585 645 -60
Claremont 599 741 -142
Drew 674 442 232
Fleet 752 637 115
Hoffman Boston 566 518 48
Oakridge 674 623 51
Randolph 484 461 23

Total Overage 240
Total Overage w/o Option 393

There’s a missing piece in your analysis, and that is, why are those schools under capacity. In Fleets case, it’s because it’s the largest school in the system and was opened this year and it’s makes sense to build capacity in. The other schools you name are under capacity, I think, because of their FRL rate. UMC see a FRL over 50 percent and it gives them pause, and in many cases avoid the school. You can see a sort of natural experiment in the years leading up to last years boundary process and fleets construction. For years, Henry and oakridge because ever more crowded as parents moved with their feet to those schools, which had declining frl rates that became increasingly appealing as they fell. Henry and oak ridge had frls in the 60s 12 years ago. Not anymore.

My point is, there may always be capacity at high FRL schools. Many SA schools simply cannot be balanced by SES without really extreme boundaries, and even the , parents may decide to go choice or private rather than attend.. Randolph, for example. If every kid living in a SFH in Douglas park attended, the frl rate would only go down 5 points. Other schools are in a similar circumstance. It’s kinda futile given our county housing policy and history of segregation dating to the 30s and 40s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ATS goes to McKinley, some of MCK will move to the ATE building bc it’s within the McK boundaries. Still, it’s the most logical.

The chances of McKinley becoming choice and ATS becoming neighborhood are nil. ATS would not have a good walk zone.

Totally agree. But what happens if they move immersion to S Arlington, Key becomes neighborhood and those are the only changes made. You’ve just mad the seat deficit in S Arlington worse to give Clarendon/wealthy folks a neighborhood school. Right then and there they’d have to commit to a new neighborhood school in SA.

Many more changes and moves are on the table.

Regarding immersion, they could go with one robust program rather than two anemic ones, and/or they could scrap the second full program and put immersion classrooms in some schools. The IB program is slated to have an immersion component. Maybe that plus one full program would be enough to exhaust the demand from Spanish speaking families.

Current programs are not anemic. Give me a break.

The numbers don’t lie.

To be clear PP means anemic for native Spanish speakers.

It’s not great when there are higher percentages of Spanish speakers at multiple neighborhood schools rather than in the only program designed to help them become bilingual and biliterate in both their first and second languages. APS wants the program to serve native Spanish speakers in at least equal share to English speakers. It’s not doing that right now. It’s probably a factor of location and the lottery. I think they need to tweak both and really get into the Spanish communities and make the case for this program. It’s a wonderful opportunity for long-term proficiency in two languages.