Does anyone think immersion should stay at Key? I do not, but I am also not an impartial observer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe we're already fighting about this. It's going to be a long year and a half.

Which is exactly why APS should only put out three options, allow a month for feedback, then just MOVE FORWARD. Stop with all this community input. Look at the numbers, figure out what makes the most sense county wide and SKIP all the crying at community meetings.

+1,000,000,000,000,000

I would be in favor of this if they had demonstrated they can do math with a high degree of confidence. The last process was so riddled with staff errors as to be a huge embarrassment.

In fairness to the Staff, there were a few actual errors, but many of the numbers people complained about were either projections, which are inherently guesswork, or interpretations/extrapolations about numbers. That's not the same thing.

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.

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).

Some would go to ashlawn

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).

APS please just make some hard choices with objective data and stop pandering to loud parent groups. Please just make choices, forget about this silly "community engagement" where communities are simply pitted against one another, and move forward. Don't drag this out over months and months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe we're already fighting about this. It's going to be a long year and a half.

Which is exactly why APS should only put out three options, allow a month for feedback, then just MOVE FORWARD. Stop with all this community input. Look at the numbers, figure out what makes the most sense county wide and SKIP all the crying at community meetings.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the past haven’t they put out a plan, called it only one idea, said they were open to community input and then just gone ahead with the Original plan in the end. I see what some are saying about trying to push buttons and Then doing an option school change. I guess I’m more cynical and think this is the plan that they will do either way and they are just calling It a “what if” for now. Whether or not you agree that it’s a good map, I feel like it’s a fine deal. I don’t appreciate APS acting like there’s a process when there isn’t one.

But they've usually always put out an option just based on balancing diversity and never enacted that one. They put out maps for pure discussion in every boundary change.

yeah I hear what you're saying but there is almost no way this would ever be a real map - some of the schools aren't even in the boundary. It's definitely making a point.

Having just gone through the South Arlington boundary change, I totally agree. There is absolutely no point in putting out these maps for community discussion and “input” that they totally ignore anyways. Just do what you’re going to do and stop pitting neighborhood against neighborhood like you did in the last boundary process. It’s ridiculous. Having said that, I’m gonna go grab my popcorn...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the past haven’t they put out a plan, called it only one idea, said they were open to community input and then just gone ahead with the Original plan in the end. I see what some are saying about trying to push buttons and Then doing an option school change. I guess I’m more cynical and think this is the plan that they will do either way and they are just calling It a “what if” for now. Whether or not you agree that it’s a good map, I feel like it’s a fine deal. I don’t appreciate APS acting like there’s a process when there isn’t one.

But they've usually always put out an option just based on balancing diversity and never enacted that one. They put out maps for pure discussion in every boundary change.

yeah I hear what you're saying but there is almost no way this would ever be a real map - some of the schools aren't even in the boundary. It's definitely making a point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice, I had been hoping they would release a map like this. BTW I like the people who want street names so they can decide whether or not they care.

Actually nevermind, looking at that map it looks like they're signaling it will be McKinley

And basically move McK to Reed? Interesting.

Does this work? Key to ATS, ATS to McK. Zone most of McK to Reed and overflow to Ashlawn, which would have space after losing the VA Sq/Ballston tail to ASFS. Balance Taylor/Neighborhood Key/ASFS with some major lines, balance everyone else with some fringe PU changes.

If they are making McKinley option, I bet it will be immersion. McKinley has a decent set of Spanish speakers nearby between the Westover apartments and the Patrick Henry apartments. Neither set is in the walk zone to McKinley (Westover might be actually- I'm not positive of that) but I don't think that they ATS site is so superior for immersion that it justifies moving two programs.

Patrick Henry apartments are not in Arlington. They are in Fairfax County.

Oops, I stand corrected. Part of it is Arlington but they go to Ashlawn not McK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice, I had been hoping they would release a map like this. BTW I like the people who want street names so they can decide whether or not they care.

Actually nevermind, looking at that map it looks like they're signaling it will be McKinley

And basically move McK to Reed? Interesting.

Does this work? Key to ATS, ATS to McK. Zone most of McK to Reed and overflow to Ashlawn, which would have space after losing the VA Sq/Ballston tail to ASFS. Balance Taylor/Neighborhood Key/ASFS with some major lines, balance everyone else with some fringe PU changes.

If they are making McKinley option, I bet it will be immersion. McKinley has a decent set of Spanish speakers nearby between the Westover apartments and the Patrick Henry apartments. Neither set is in the walk zone to McKinley (Westover might be actually- I'm not positive of that) but I don't think that they ATS site is so superior for immersion that it justifies moving two programs.

Patrick Henry apartments are not in Arlington. They are in Fairfax County.

Anonymous wrote:In the past haven’t they put out a plan, called it only one idea, said they were open to community input and then just gone ahead with the Original plan in the end. I see what some are saying about trying to push buttons and Then doing an option school change. I guess I’m more cynical and think this is the plan that they will do either way and they are just calling It a “what if” for now. Whether or not you agree that it’s a good map, I feel like it’s a fine deal. I don’t appreciate APS acting like there’s a process when there isn’t one.

But they've usually always put out an option just based on balancing diversity and never enacted that one. They put out maps for pure discussion in every boundary change.

Anonymous wrote:In the past haven’t they put out a plan, called it only one idea, said they were open to community input and then just gone ahead with the Original plan in the end. I see what some are saying about trying to push buttons and Then doing an option school change. I guess I’m more cynical and think this is the plan that they will do either way and they are just calling It a “what if” for now. Whether or not you agree that it’s a good map, I feel like it’s a fine deal. I don’t appreciate APS acting like there’s a process when there isn’t one.

Correction: * done deal

In the past haven’t they put out a plan, called it only one idea, said they were open to community input and then just gone ahead with the Original plan in the end. I see what some are saying about trying to push buttons and Then doing an option school change. I guess I’m more cynical and think this is the plan that they will do either way and they are just calling It a “what if” for now. Whether or not you agree that it’s a good map, I feel like it’s a fine deal. I don’t appreciate APS acting like there’s a process when there isn’t one.

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).