Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montessori may not move next year or 2020 but by 2023 it will have too. The career center is happening. Seats are going there for H.S. regardless of how it’s developed. hSchools need 3000 + seats. Demand for Montessori is down, it may bump slightly with the Fleet move but not enough to justify it taking the only realistic space for more H School seats and a 4th Comprehensive High School. There are lots of moving pieces and it’s not just elementary boundaries that are being debated and drawn right now.

It's never going to be a comprehensive HS. Stop trying to make Fetch happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

What about moving it to Carlin Springs? Serious question. Isn't that still a 'walking' field trip to Long Branch nature center?

Other problem that no one seems to be addressing is that the Campbell building is tiny! To reach a capacity similar to what Carlin Springs has you would have to cover the field space with trailers!!

Given that this would largely be moving the Carlin Springs neighborhood to Campbell- Carlin Springs currently has a population of about 600. Campbell's 'optimization' suggests it can go to 628.

Incidentally- given the lack of space to expand is what is sinking Campbell is an option site. The Staff thinks option sites need to be able to go to 750.

This. Campbell can go to 628 students per APS and Carlin Springs to 928 - per APS!!

But there aren't 900 kids wanting to go to Campbell, are there? There aren't even 750, and I think they stated they considered growing this program up to around 650, not 750. Or did they change that?

No, there aren’t. Of the 5 option programs the demand is the second lowest. If you eliminated the people fleeing Carlin Springs attendance zone (180?) it would be even less...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Campbell would lose 60 percent of its student or more if moved that far north. No longer title I. No nature center curriculum. It would be a total waste of a school. I have a kid there and without the wetland and nature center the curriculum would be trashed. Aps might as well eliminate the program if they move it. I would pull my kid because it would have no value as an option school. I know others would too, and not just the majority of low income families. The wealthier families chose the school for a reason.

What about moving it to Carlin Springs? Serious question. Isn't that still a 'walking' field trip to Long Branch nature center?

Other problem that no one seems to be addressing is that the Campbell building is tiny! To reach a capacity similar to what Carlin Springs has you would have to cover the field space with trailers!!

Given that this would largely be moving the Carlin Springs neighborhood to Campbell- Carlin Springs currently has a population of about 600. Campbell's 'optimization' suggests it can go to 628.

Incidentally- given the lack of space to expand is what is sinking Campbell is an option site. The Staff thinks option sites need to be able to go to 750.

This. Campbell can go to 628 students per APS and Carlin Springs to 928 - per APS!!

But there aren't 900 kids wanting to go to Campbell, are there? There aren't even 750, and I think they stated they considered growing this program up to around 650, not 750. Or did they change that?

There are like 56 and 52 kids per grade in the upper grades at Campbell right now I believe. So while APS has made it a requirement that all option sites can grow to 750, the demand is just not there for Campbell (and Montessori).

No, there aren’t. Of the 5 option programs the demand is the second lowest. If you eliminated the people fleeing Carlin Springs attendance zone (180?) it would be even less...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I found interesting in the data is that they published the # of applications for the option schools this year (I don't know if they usually publish it, but I hadn't seen it before). They'll be updating it soon with engender more information to show how many families apply to more than one school or just one school, as a way to gauge true demand for any one program.

I don't understand why this is the first year they have done this analysis and had centralized applications! Makes no sense to do it any other way.

Engender = even. Gah.

Anonymous wrote:One thing I found interesting in the data is that they published the # of applications for the option schools this year (I don't know if they usually publish it, but I hadn't seen it before). They'll be updating it soon with engender more information to show how many families apply to more than one school or just one school, as a way to gauge true demand for any one program.

I don't understand why this is the first year they have done this analysis and had centralized applications! Makes no sense to do it any other way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:600 kids are not walking to Reed. Fake News. Look at report. 310 kids are walking to Reed. 415 are riding a bus. That's 7 buses. Not that walkable friends.

1/23/2018 report shows 601 students currently enrolled in APS who are exclusively walkable to Reed. Which report are you looking at?

Anonymous wrote:Elementary Location Data Table.
APS Engage under Elementary Planning Initiative/ Location Review.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

DP. Let's cut the retirees a little bit of a break. When I go into those community centers, I see plenty of seniors using the exercise facilities there, I remember seeing so many of them working in the art studios at Lee when my kids took classes there, etc. There may be some exceptions and efficiencies that can be created, but for those who are aging in Arlington (who are just as important as those of us with young kids), research has shown that having low-cost and accessible social/community outlets is a huge factor in maintaining health and well-being. I'm not interested in being thrown under the bus when I'm 70, so let's not do it to them either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

That is not in the school board’s hands. Until school proponents rise up in numbers and resolve equal to or bigger than that of the anti-school proponents, the county isn’t going to hand over any community centers. I once served as a quadrant rep for my neighborhood’s civic association. That experience was EYE OPENING. The retiree contingent was determined, driven, and organized. They were holding on to what they had, and every meeting was largely an exercise in locating and securing further properties with historic designations so that they couldn’t be altered.

Meanwhile parents of young kids quibble over the few schools we do have rather than mobilizing to shift priorities at the county level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the thing about Campbell and ATS- a lot of there 'hidden' appeal is that they are small. A lot of other words are used to describe this-- warm, nurturing, principal knows everyone, every class does a play that everyone watches, individualized instruction- etc. But what it boils down to is a small school allows for things like this. But in both cases that is not their spoken focus. The spoken focus of Campbell is 'expeditionary.' The spoken focus of ATS is 'traditional.' I think the mood of the staff right now, and to a lesser extent the SB- is that its not fair to have a tiny program that very few can get into. We need to make these programs available to meet demand. So, if they have an appeal beyond their size, lets grow them. If the appeal is that they are protected from overcrowding, etc- that's not fair.

I think this is true for any ES. Let’s not build 750-seat mega elementary schools. That’s not good for any student.

Unfortunately Arlington’s population outstrips available APS land for more schools. The schools have to be big at this point.

Not if we take back the old schools - community centers. We have options, even if we don't choose to use them.

Anonymous wrote:600 kids are not walking to Reed. Fake News. Look at report. 310 kids are walking to Reed. 415 are riding a bus. That's 7 buses. Not that walkable friends.