Anonymous wrote:About moving the immersion schools close to the spanish speakers. You all make an assumption (as does the county) that the immigrants who live in the county's lower income housing are spanish speakers. A larger percentage are not.

My kid was at Claremont and a larger percentage of the spanish speakers were middle or upper middle class. They are educated professionals. That is why both Key and Claremont may be 50% spanish speakers, but not 50% free and reduced lunch. At a PTA meeting with a SB member, it was made very clear that if the SB wants more lower income families, it needs to educate those families about the options and why dual immersion is good for them. Many immigrants DO NOT WANT IMMERSION. They want their kids to learn english asap.

Yes people seem to like making assumptions about immigrants.

1) Not all immigrants are Spanish speakers. We have a large non-Spanish speaking immigrant population in Arlington. No one cares about their existence.
2) Not all immigrants want their children to be in. Spanish immersion school. This can be either because they want their kid to learn English ASAP or they are interested in teaching their children a second language, but they want that language to be something other than Spanish.
3) Many immigrants in Arlington are upper middle class. Many of these immigrants are they same people who take their kids to language immersion schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, to reiterate, this isn't about creating more seats. It never was. Only construction creates new seats. It's about using the seats we have most efficiently.

And yet, there's zero attention on balancing DEMAND to help distribute students efficiently. this process is going to increase school segregation because our neighborhoods are segregated; walkability just maps that to the boundaries. That will in turn only make the "good" schools more in demand/crowded, the "bad" ones less in demand/underenrolled.

This process should have started with the stated goal of making every neighborhood school at least an acceptable choice for everyone zoned to it. That's my south Arlington showing. North Arlington doesn't want to integrate in a meaningful way; see Arlington forest, for example.

What is your point about Arlington Forest? I'm assuming you are talking about the part of the neighborhood which is north of 50 and sends kids to Barrett and Kenmore (which are 61% and 51% FARMS, respectively). If Arlington Forest was not in those districts imagine the numbers.... Those schools need more pockets like Arlington Forest to attend to balance them out. We don't know of any families in Arlington Forest advocating for the neighborhood to be redistricted - some families opt out of the neighborhood schools but most willingly send their kids to those schools - for most families they are accepts less . So what's your point? In what way is Arlington Forest not integrated?

North Arlington Forest will put up with Barrett and Kenmore because they then go to W-L. They fought tooth and nail to not be redistricted to Wakefield - property values and walkability. So, happy to leave their neighbors and dear friends from elementary school as long as they get to go to W-L .... when "it really matters."

This discussion is about elementary so I still don't get the point about lack of integration and why the W-L situation is being dredged up. There were vocal families to be sure, but many families also either didnt feel strongly either way or preferred a switch to Wakefield for reasons I'm sure most of DCUM wouldn't understand. And I don't get your point about leaving dear friends and neighbors - all of Barrett and much of Kenmore will go on to W-L.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, to reiterate, this isn't about creating more seats. It never was. Only construction creates new seats. It's about using the seats we have most efficiently.

And yet, there's zero attention on balancing DEMAND to help distribute students efficiently. this process is going to increase school segregation because our neighborhoods are segregated; walkability just maps that to the boundaries. That will in turn only make the "good" schools more in demand/crowded, the "bad" ones less in demand/underenrolled.

This process should have started with the stated goal of making every neighborhood school at least an acceptable choice for everyone zoned to it. That's my south Arlington showing. North Arlington doesn't want to integrate in a meaningful way; see Arlington forest, for example.

What is your point about Arlington Forest? I'm assuming you are talking about the part of the neighborhood which is north of 50 and sends kids to Barrett and Kenmore (which are 61% and 51% FARMS, respectively). If Arlington Forest was not in those districts imagine the numbers.... Those schools need more pockets like Arlington Forest to attend to balance them out. We don't know of any families in Arlington Forest advocating for the neighborhood to be redistricted - some families opt out of the neighborhood schools but most willingly send their kids to those schools - for most families they are accepts less . So what's your point? In what way is Arlington Forest not integrated?

North Arlington Forest will put up with Barrett and Kenmore because they then go to W-L. They fought tooth and nail to not be redistricted to Wakefield - property values and walkability. So, happy to leave their neighbors and dear friends from elementary school as long as they get to go to W-L .... when "it really matters."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but the westover parents will not be at Reed-- they will still be at McKinley-- so while your argument is magnanimous in nature-- it isn't logical.

I hope they are and with a bunch of trailers. I was at a birthday party yesterday with a bunch of McKinkey people who live in Westover, and they were laughing about how the icing on the cake of their new school was Nottingham getting screwed in the process. It was the ugliest, most petty thing I’ve personally witnessed in quite a while.

And how exactly does wishing a bunch of trailers on schoolkids make you any better? Sounds like you were among people just like yourself. At least they didn’t hide under cover of anonymity.

DP. It's telling you don't deny that's the sentiment around McKinley.

What are you talking about? I’m not a McKinley parent, so how would I know?

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham knows that they should stay neighborhood. They know Reed should be neighborhood. The school that can't justify it is Jamestown, but neither is strong enough to sway the SB.

They’re not strong enough and no one else is paying attention to see where their own interests lie. I was at a lunch today where people were talking about it, and the misinformation out there was incredible. People were asserting as fact that the staff has already recommended the Key/ASFS swap, that ATS is a highly walkable school and so will be made a neighborhood school, that Montessori is staying at Drew, that immersion doesn’t have a waitlist, that the locations are going to be chosen based on what will cause the least disruption to current boundaries, that APS is getting rid of trailers after Reed opens. It was mind blowing to listen to all of them, so confident that they know exactly what’s going on and that they won’t be affected other to have other people moved from their school so they’ll have less crowding.

Anonymous wrote:The soon to be reed community was asked to join committees because they successfully lobbied to get reed as a neighborhood school. The SB was very much considering reed as an option School. I have had 2 SB members confess to me that the decision on reed was premature.

They should put everything on the table - Reed, Fleet, Montessori, etc. and then make the decisions. I think most of the set asides would stay the same, but should still be considered.