Anonymous wrote:Immersion to Carlin Springs and/or Barcroft. That is where the Spanish speakers are. And they have incredible numbers transferring out. Breaks up pockets of generational poverty.

Carlin Springs for sure. But Barrett rather than Barcroft; or ATS rather than Barcroft. It isn't right to leave the entire SW quadrant without a neighborhood school and Barcroft physically cannot handle the buses and cars and "event parking" an option school brings. Barrett's land is more open and is where a large Spanish-speaking population lives as well as within easy reach of the English-speaking families both north and south of 50 - but particularly north. That would help with the enrollments in the NW and help move more diversity northward for those in the CS and Barrett attendance zones who do not choose immersion.

Immersion to Carlin Springs and/or Barcroft. That is where the Spanish speakers are. And they have incredible numbers transferring out. Breaks up pockets of generational poverty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

You’re Not implying that a different school would make more sense, are you?

I think a number would make sense. But I don’t see which school you more to NW. If you move ATS, it runs the risk of becoming less diverse. If you move immersion, you risk have few native speakers. Capacity-wise, it has appeal.

You can't move immersion to NW because it would kill Spanish-speaking enrollment, and the staff has already said this. The only school you could move to NW would be ATS, and yes, then you would see declining minority/FARMS enrollment. Every possible solution involves trade-offs so this isn't a deal-killer on its face, but there should at least be a community discussion of our values and if we're okay effectively removing ATS as an option for many low-income families by putting it in a less-accessible location.

In a functioning world, the CB and SB would get together and build a school at the central library. But, I digress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

You’re Not implying that a different school would make more sense, are you?

I think a number would make sense. But I don’t see which school you more to NW. If you move ATS, it runs the risk of becoming less diverse. If you move immersion, you risk have few native speakers. Capacity-wise, it has appeal.

You can't move immersion to NW because it would kill Spanish-speaking enrollment, and the staff has already said this. The only school you could move to NW would be ATS, and yes, then you would see declining minority/FARMS enrollment. Every possible solution involves trade-offs so this isn't a deal-killer on its face, but there should at least be a community discussion of our values and if we're okay effectively removing ATS as an option for many low-income families by putting it in a less-accessible location.

Anonymous wrote:Option schools have to be in someone’s neighborhood. This is going to be an ongoing problem if APS acquiesces to neighborhood pressure when the neighbors decide they want a particular school. There is a compelling argument that option schools should be easily accessible via public transportation. The solution for needing more seats in the Rosslyn corridor is not to displace the oldest immersion school in the county. It’s to create more seats in the proper part of the county.

With what money? They already approved Reed. And voted to make it a neighborhood school, and voted to accept the rising construction budget. They cannot just build another school in the NE quadrant. Cannot. It's moving. If it's a terrible decision to move it to ASFS, you better figure out what the better location would be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

Current enrollment is a poor way of assessing schools because boundaries can be adjusted to make the enrollment numbers work. It's better to look at factors that can't be changed, or that would be very difficult/costly to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

You’re Not implying that a different school would make more sense, are you?

I think a number would make sense. But I don’t see which school you more to NW. If you move ATS, it runs the risk of becoming less diverse. If you move immersion, you risk have few native speakers. Capacity-wise, it has appeal.

Anonymous wrote:Option schools have to be in someone’s neighborhood. This is going to be an ongoing problem if APS acquiesces to neighborhood pressure when the neighbors decide they want a particular school. There is a compelling argument that option schools should be easily accessible via public transportation. The solution for needing more seats in the Rosslyn corridor is not to displace the oldest immersion school in the county. It’s to create more seats in the proper part of the county.

Option schools make everything about planning more difficult. Can’t estimate FARMs rates, can’t estimate attendance, take away walkable schools (except for ATS, I guess). Other than immersion, they need to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

You’re Not implying that a different school would make more sense, are you?

Anonymous wrote:There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

You mean the school who pulled a whopping 50 Kindergarteners this year?

Option schools have to be in someone’s neighborhood. This is going to be an ongoing problem if APS acquiesces to neighborhood pressure when the neighbors decide they want a particular school. There is a compelling argument that option schools should be easily accessible via public transportation. The solution for needing more seats in the Rosslyn corridor is not to displace the oldest immersion school in the county. It’s to create more seats in the proper part of the county.

Anonymous wrote:No hope for changing Reed to the option school it should be. Because you've never seen anything quite like the entitled community in Westover. Unparallelled.

Sure. Anyone who has followed any of the epic school boundary fights, north and south, knows that there is no shortage of extreme entitlement in our fair county. It’s the true Arlington Way. Westover is no anomaly.

There are good arguments for moving an option program to NW and good arguments for which school it should be, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you point to Reed.

Anonymous wrote:No hope for changing Reed to the option school it should be. Because you've never seen anything quite like the entitled community in Westover. Unparallelled.

Oh, the irony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I do. However, those unintended consequences outweigh the benefits of that decision. And herein lies the problem, the staff and the SB are not planning well, or rather, are planning for a predetermined outcome and trying to make their “data” fit that outcome.

The change to the lottery was what was fair and what was right. It was only a matter of time before everyone was shut out of that lottery, too. It's not like the school has infinite space.

Yes, but why stuff a 700 plus student body into a substantially smaller ASFS building?

Honest question— if they moved the immersion program to reed (which is bigger), would everyone be ok with reverting key back to a neighborhood school?
Or what if they started a new immersion program at Carlin springs or Ashlawn (have it be collocated with a neighborhood school)? Is the issue with the swap that there is no other workable location for the key immersion program other than key, or is it that the program will shrink?
No one wants immersion to die, but the arguments the key community make it hard to figure out what the issue is and if there is an alternative that they would be ok with.

The problem is that Key parents find the location very convenient and don’t want to give that up. That is why a site like Carlin Springs that has room to grow and is close to a large population of economically disadvantaged native Spanish speakers is unacceptable.

This- what is good for the program does not necessarily line up with what is good for the current families. It is very hard to have a rational discussion about this with Key people b/c there are several highly emotional people who live very close by in smaller living quarters than they would like because they thought they were guaranteeing their kids immersion. So first APS removed their guarantee and they felt cheated, then they are talking about moving the school- and they are loosing it.
Also- a lot of the same people who are adamant against moving Key were pushing to have MS moved from Gunston to Kenmore. So they really have to dismiss Carlin Springs and pretend its not an option b/c how can the location they thought would be so great for MS immersion be totally unacceptable for elementary immersion???