APS Boundary tool--anyone get it to work yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

Well said.

No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

But if you want to argue about this after last Tuesday and show up in your orange shirts, you go right ahead. You already look like total assholes, so I guess you can't look any worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the

But if you want to argue about this after last Tuesday and show up in your orange shirts, you go right ahead. You already look like total assholes, so I guess you can't look any worse.

You are pretty funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion must have an orange shirt and live in AF.
Sorry, but I don't have an orange shirt or live in AF, and my children are not affected by any of these options. I'm not sure why you're spewing such vitriol against people who don't share the same opinion as you.

All of these numbers are subject to error anyway. These percentages are not real, they are plus or minus 1 or 2 or more percent. Who knows? They are assuming that not all of the siblings will choose sibling preference. That may or may not be true. They should go with the option that is the least controversial. If you think all of Wakefield's FARMS problems are gonna be solved by option 3, the ONLY option in your opinion, you are nuts.

But your hatred towards the AF advocates is truly stunning.

[Anonymous]

Np - sorry AF advocates, but you guys and your terrible attitudes have brought this animosity on yourselves. Totally shamelful that you are arguing to increase any poverty at Wakefield. Yes, we need to see Wakefield's overall FARMS number down at least 10%. Well, two percent now is a small step in the right direction. You guys are really acting despicably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Np - sorry AF advocates, but you guys and your terrible attitudes have brought this animosity on yourselves. Totally shamelful that you are arguing to increase any poverty at Wakefield. Yes, we need to see Wakefield's overall FARMS number down at least 10%. Well, two percent now is a small step in the right direction. You guys are really acting despicably.

I don't know what they said exactly, but I can't imagine it was "let's increase poverty at Wakefield!!" Wasn't it simply "we'd like to stay at Washington-Lee"? Why is it so horrible that they'd like their children to stay at WL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np - sorry AF advocates, but you guys and your terrible attitudes have brought this animosity on yourselves. Totally shamelful that you are arguing to increase any poverty at Wakefield. Yes, we need to see Wakefield's overall FARMS number down at least 10%. Well, two percent now is a small step in the right direction. You guys are really acting despicably.

I don't know what they said exactly, but I can't imagine it was "let's increase poverty at Wakefield!!" Wasn't it simply "we'd like to stay at Washington-Lee"? Why is it so horrible that they'd like their children to stay at WL?

That is the public face. And on it's face it's not despicable. But if the AF units aren't moved it will be other students, ones who don't have adults who can mobilize and lobby relentlessly. And that's why. Instead of adopting the spirit that this is a move that might be inconvenient, but it won't be the end of the world and we will accept it, the orange shirters decided they were going to die on this hill. Plenty of us are scared that we may be facing the actual end of the world, and perhaps having some perspective about being moved to Wakefiled not being the worst thing EVAR would have gone a long way. But still, there were orange shirts at the work session on Wednesday evening while I watched from home wondering what the hell kind of future my kids face and how I can help make our community stronger together. Different strokes I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

Well said.

No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

But if you want to argue about this after last Tuesday and show up in your orange shirts, you go right ahead. You already look like total assholes, so I guess you can't look any worse.

Don't wag your self-righteous finger at me - I wasn't wearing an orange t-shirt. I understand both sides of the argument and honestly think my kids would be fine at either school. I'm just tired of flawed logic, faulty data, and holier-than-thou vitriol from people who would say one thing but then do another if the tables were turned. The main goal of this activity is to move students out of W-L to relieve overcrowding. In addition to not substantially altering the demographics, the option 3 actually moves the smallest number of kids out of W-L.

If Arlington really wanted to balance the school's they would have stated that as a higher priority than one of an allegedly evenly weighted six, and put EVERYTHING, all planning units on the table with a stated goal of reducing FARMS to no more than 33% at each school which may require drastic boundary changes to achieve it. Oh, and provide data as to why this is a new policy for APS. Oh, and maybe it should also make that the policy in ALL the schools -- elementary and middle also. It's patently unfair for a narrow slice of families & kids to bear the brunt of the county's guilt on this issue.

[Anonymous]

I find it odd that people cling to Arlington. Is it the commute? If not, cash out and move. Trust me, you'll feel so much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

To me, the most appalling thing is not that a group of citizens are greedy and self-absorbed, bad as it is. The most appalling part is that the School Board, ever mindful of the feelings of the upper-middle class, will capitulate to the whining of the AF parents.

Stop calling me and asking for support and donations, Arlington County Democrats. Your opportunistic capitulations are why I send my money to actual progressives in other states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

To me, the most appalling thing is not that a group of citizens are greedy and self-absorbed, bad as it is. The most appalling part is that the School Board, ever mindful of the feelings of the upper-middle class, will capitulate to the whining of the AF parents.

Stop calling me and asking for support and donations, Arlington County Democrats. Your opportunistic capitulations are why I send my money to actual progressives in other states.

AMEN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people cling to Arlington. Is it the commute? If not, cash out and move. Trust me, you'll feel so much better.

Yes. Duh. It's absolutely the commute. The longer I live in Arlington, the less I like it. That commute though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people cling to Arlington. Is it the commute? If not, cash out and move. Trust me, you'll feel so much better.

Yes. Duh. It's absolutely the commute. The longer I live in Arlington, the less I like it. That commute though...

We are so glad we left. The services have not kept up with the population growth. Everything there was becoming a hassle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We are so glad we left. The services have not kept up with the population growth. Everything there was becoming a hassle.

Are you in touch with your old neighbors? Could you talk them into leaving, too, and selling their houses to people who won't be using the public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, what you're doing by bringing it down by a few percentage points rather than up is recognizing that the housing that is already under construction, and that which is planned, will cause that number up to go up in the future so why not try to bring it down now in anticipation so that you can keep it under 50%. I don't understand your logic. Because this move doesn't solve all problems and do all things, it should do nothing? Every boundary decision should be inching us closer to schools that more closely reflect the diversity of all of Arlington. Also, option 3 affects the fewest number of low income students. That's the best move as far as I'm concerned because it maintains stability for those families. You want your convenience and stability maintained, but you want it on the backs of others who have less political capital and who have less of everything. Just recognize that. Your convenience comes at a price, one that others will pay.

To me, the most appalling thing is not that a group of citizens are greedy and self-absorbed, bad as it is. The most appalling part is that the School Board, ever mindful of the feelings of the upper-middle class, will capitulate to the whining of the AF parents.

Stop calling me and asking for support and donations, Arlington County Democrats. Your opportunistic capitulations are why I send my money to actual progressives in other states.

AMEN!

Yes, add me to the rolls of progressives who won't support this BS one minute longer.