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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YOU NEED SOME PERSPECTIVE, STAT! You aren't bearing anything, Whiny McBabypants. Get over yourself. Somebody has to move. It makes sense to move a whole neighborhood together, to the school where half of the neighborhood already is. And it moves fewer students to Wakefield which is also good, because have you seen the projections? Holy cow. They should get fewer students now, because we all know we won't be doing this again in 5 years despite what some claim. You are part of a community. Act like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YOU NEED SOME PERSPECTIVE, STAT! You aren't bearing anything, Whiny McBabypants. Get over yourself. Somebody has to move. It makes sense to move a whole neighborhood together, to the school where half of the neighborhood already is. And it moves fewer students to Wakefield which is also good, because have you seen the projections? Holy cow. They should get fewer students now, because we all know we won't be doing this again in 5 years despite what some claim. You are part of a community. Act like it.

Amen. I've found many W-L parents to be insufferable hypocrites. If they think diversity is such a great thing there, surely they can handle reassignment to Wakefield, which has a nicer facility than Yorktown or W-L.

[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...

PP- Did you leave the DC area and move entirely? Or did you head to Fairfax? We've been asking this question too lately, although the close-in Fairfax schools seem to have the same issues with overcrowding. So I'm not sure where we would go that would still give us a reasonable commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our PU is in all three options so I guess we are off to Yorktown. Funny since we weren't in any of the original options.

Same here. I was surprised that we weren't in the original plans considering we're one of the most diverse PUs in North Arlington put on the table for this redistricting. So the fact that we're being moved does not come as a shock. Would have preferred my kid be able to walk to high school, but if they're really going to build 1300 seats right next to W-L, then maybe I should be glad to get away from that mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

PP- Did you leave the DC area and move entirely? Or did you head to Fairfax? We've been asking this question too lately, although the close-in Fairfax schools seem to have the same issues with overcrowding. So I'm not sure where we would go that would still give us a reasonable commute.

That's the thing--where do you go? There are threads about MoCo overcrowding too. I don't know if Arlington is so much worse than any other place. Until my job allows me to telecommute at least 50% of the time, I'm stuck here.

[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.

This, exactly.

[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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

PP- Did you leave the DC area and move entirely? Or did you head to Fairfax? We've been asking this question too lately, although the close-in Fairfax schools seem to have the same issues with overcrowding. So I'm not sure where we would go that would still give us a reasonable commute.

That's the thing--where do you go? There are threads about MoCo overcrowding too. I don't know if Arlington is so much worse than any other place. Until my job allows me to telecommute at least 50% of the time, I'm stuck here.

Please take this discussion to another thread. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.[/quote

You remind me of people who, when told that certain segments of the population should be paying more in taxes, say, "Go ahead and send the IRS some money if you think that's such a great idea."

Yay for individual action and all that, but there needs to be a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

Sure, but sending my one child to Wakefield is still going to mean we need to draw the boundaries so that ~199 other children accompany him. So I appreciate your suggestion but note that it solves less than 1 percent of the problem. Any other bright ideas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

Sure, but sending my one child to Wakefield is still going to mean we need to draw the boundaries so that ~199 other children accompany him. So I appreciate your suggestion but note that it solves less than 1 percent of the problem. Any other bright ideas?

Everyone needs to chill. I am not part of AF, but I understand why those parents are choosing to advocate for their kids. Just as all the S. Arlington parents strongly want AF to come join them. Just b/c they are advocating does not mean you should feel so free to insult them. Seriously, chill. If economically disadvantaged kids get the right to have Emma and others advocate for them to stay at WL, then why shouldn't the parents at AF be allowed to voice their opinions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

Sure, but sending my one child to Wakefield is still going to mean we need to draw the boundaries so that ~199 other children accompany him. So I appreciate your suggestion but note that it solves less than 1 percent of the problem. Any other bright ideas?

Everyone needs to chill. I am not part of AF, but I understand why those parents are choosing to advocate for their kids. Just as all the S. Arlington parents strongly want AF to come join them. Just b/c they are advocating does not mean you should feel so free to insult them. Seriously, chill. If economically disadvantaged kids get the right to have Emma and others advocate for them to stay at WL, then why shouldn't the parents at AF be allowed to voice their opinions?

Well, for me, it's because I don't believe that economically advantaged kids face the same issues that disadvantaged kids do, so I choose to advocate more for the latter than the former. But I'm not trying to insult anyone (I'm not the PP who used the word despicable above). I do find it *ridiculous* when someone responds to a supporter of any particular option that the supporter should do their part by sending her children to Wakefield. That is in no way a solution to this problem but instead is an attempt to silence people. IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

Sure, but sending my one child to Wakefield is still going to mean we need to draw the boundaries so that ~199 other children accompany him. So I appreciate your suggestion but note that it solves less than 1 percent of the problem. Any other bright ideas?

Everyone needs to chill. I am not part of AF, but I understand why those parents are choosing to advocate for their kids. Just as all the S. Arlington parents strongly want AF to come join them. Just b/c they are advocating does not mean you should feel so free to insult them. Seriously, chill. If economically disadvantaged kids get the right to have Emma and others advocate for them to stay at WL, then why shouldn't the parents at AF be allowed to voice their opinions?

Nobody has said they don't have the right to do this. They do. But like anything, the right to do it doesn't mean it will be well received. I mean, they have the right to insult the school that my children will attend, but they shouldn't be surprised if I bristle at it and judge them for their words and actions. Thankfully we live a country where the individual has the right to say and do a great many things, but that doesn't mean that one should do certain things or that when one does things that others find distasteful, there will be impunity from reaction. So voice away, but don't get your panties in a twist when I voice my displeasure at your behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MOVE.

Well since you feel so strongly about it, I certainly hope you are doing your part by sending any children you have to Wakefield.

Sure, but sending my one child to Wakefield is still going to mean we need to draw the boundaries so that ~199 other children accompany him. So I appreciate your suggestion but note that it solves less than 1 percent of the problem. Any other bright ideas?

Everyone needs to chill. I am not part of AF, but I understand why those parents are choosing to advocate for their kids. Just as all the S. Arlington parents strongly want AF to come join them. Just b/c they are advocating does not mean you should feel so free to insult them. Seriously, chill. If economically disadvantaged kids get the right to have Emma and others advocate for them to stay at WL, then why shouldn't the parents at AF be allowed to voice their opinions?

Nobody has said they don't have the right to do this. They do. But like anything, the right to do it doesn't mean it will be well received. I mean, they have the right to insult the school that my children will attend, but they shouldn't be surprised if I bristle at it and judge them for their words and actions. Thankfully we live a country where the individual has the right to say and do a great many things, but that doesn't mean that one should do certain things or that when one does things that others find distasteful, there will be impunity from reaction. So voice away, but don't get your panties in a twist when I voice my displeasure at your behavior.

Are you capable of having a normal conversation, voicing your disagreement without referring to underwear? Are you the PP who called others "whiny mcbabypants?" Seriously, you need to calm down. It's very hard to take you seriously when you speak this way.