Revisions to APS Boundaries Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Former W-L zoned neighborhoods along Military Rd, Lorcom Ln, Nelly Custis, etc, were rezoned to Yorktown five years ago to remove the “island,” i.e., to make a contiguous attendance area for Yorktown.

Anything is possible with future boundary changes, if they are comprehensive. All of Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Clarendon used to go to W-L. I wouldn’t rule out those Metro adjacent urban neighborhoods being rezoned back.

Also it’s entirely possible that that urban Yorktown zone could grow to include Lyon Village, the neighborhoods north of Langston Blvd, etc., like Cherrydale, Maywood, and the area of apartments by MOMs organic, still zoned to W-L.

I’m afraid no one knows the answer to your question but we can all make educated guesses based on precedent.

I think all of the kids zoned to Innovation and Hamm should end up at Yorktown for high school. But who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Former W-L zoned neighborhoods along Military Rd, Lorcom Ln, Nelly Custis, etc, were rezoned to Yorktown five years ago to remove the “island,” i.e., to make a contiguous attendance area for Yorktown.

Anything is possible with future boundary changes, if they are comprehensive. All of Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Clarendon used to go to W-L. I wouldn’t rule out those Metro adjacent urban neighborhoods being rezoned back.

Also it’s entirely possible that that urban Yorktown zone could grow to include Lyon Village, the neighborhoods north of Langston Blvd, etc., like Cherrydale, Maywood, and the area of apartments by MOMs organic, still zoned to W-L.

I’m afraid no one knows the answer to your question but we can all make educated guesses based on precedent.

I think all of the kids zoned to Innovation and Hamm should end up at Yorktown for high school. But who knows.

Innovation in its entirety could very well get rezoned to Yorktown, if Yorktown keeps its Rosslyn through Clarendon neighborhoods. That would make sense from an alignment standpoint but would score low on proximity/walkability.
However, a lot of walkable neighborhoods to W-L are currently zoned to Yorktown.

W-L is a desirable school (in terms of reputation) so I don’t think families in Lyon Village and Clarendon would mind which high school they’re zoned to (W-L v Yorktown), but if precedent is any guide, alignment problems are what upset most neighborhoods. Alignment may even trump proximity in terms of a neighborhood’s priorities, even if it may mean a bus ride to a school further away like Yorktown.

But like you said, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Former W-L zoned neighborhoods along Military Rd, Lorcom Ln, Nelly Custis, etc, were rezoned to Yorktown five years ago to remove the “island,” i.e., to make a contiguous attendance area for Yorktown.

Anything is possible with future boundary changes, if they are comprehensive. All of Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Clarendon used to go to W-L. I wouldn’t rule out those Metro adjacent urban neighborhoods being rezoned back.

Also it’s entirely possible that that urban Yorktown zone could grow to include Lyon Village, the neighborhoods north of Langston Blvd, etc., like Cherrydale, Maywood, and the area of apartments by MOMs organic, still zoned to W-L.

I’m afraid no one knows the answer to your question but we can all make educated guesses based on precedent.

I think all of the kids zoned to Innovation and Hamm should end up at Yorktown for high school. But who knows.

Innovation in its entirety could very well get rezoned to Yorktown, if Yorktown keeps its Rosslyn through Clarendon neighborhoods. That would make sense from an alignment standpoint but would score low on proximity/walkability.
However, a lot of walkable neighborhoods to W-L are currently zoned to Yorktown.

W-L is a desirable school (in terms of reputation) so I don’t think families in Lyon Village and Clarendon would mind which high school they’re zoned to (W-L v Yorktown), but if precedent is any guide, alignment problems are what upset most neighborhoods. Alignment may even trump proximity in terms of a neighborhood’s priorities, even if it may mean a bus ride to a school further away like Yorktown.

But like you said, who knows.

I agree with all of this. There is something unsettling about shipping only the Rosslyn island up to Yorktown for the diversity factor. Innovation is a brand new neighborhood school and it feels kind of choppy. They need to keep those planning units together.

[Anonymous]

It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

This. I was somewhat engaged in one process and staff didn’t even add up the PU numbers right.

[Anonymous]

Since demographic (race or ethnicity) data will no longer be provided or accounted for, it’s on the affected neighborhoods to watch for any boundary moves that may unintentionally segregate by race/ethnicity. Proposals or policy that concern race can be very controversial, especially given the current legal climate, so it’s understandable APS is moving away from using that data. And ethnic diversity may not be a value everyone shares equally.

Socioeconomic data will still be used in boundary moves. So that data should be publicly available, and may in fact serve as an imperfect proxy for race/ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

This. I was somewhat engaged in one process and staff didn’t even add up the PU numbers right.

m


They have a whole step in the process where they ask parents to review the PU data and flag issues etc. That seems appropriate. Parents feeling entitled to pretty much decide the boundaries through screaming and yelling after everyone agrees on data. Not so much.

[Anonymous]

The process as it is and has been for years prior to these proposed changes was too long and drawn out and horribly divisive for the community with bad outcomes. APS trying to do something different, anything different, is a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

This was also my reaction. I have low confidence that APS staff can put forward a reasonable plan that doesn't have major errors. Every single plan they've put forward has glaring errors, like a single planning unit that has a separate feeder pattern than the rest of a school for no reason at all. Or completely forgetting to consider school capacity when assigning PUs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

This was also my reaction. I have low confidence that APS staff can put forward a reasonable plan that doesn't have major errors. Every single plan they've put forward has glaring errors, like a single planning unit that has a separate feeder pattern than the rest of a school for no reason at all. Or completely forgetting to consider school capacity when assigning PUs.

That’s why it’s up to the neighborhoods to correct staff who don’t know the neighborhoods and often leave a number of planning units here and there unresolved.

Just like how there’s 10-15 homes adjacent to Bon Air park that were strangely moved to Yorktown from W-L. Either the surrounding neighborhood should’ve moved to Yorktown or those 15 homes should have stayed at W-L.

Or the Woodbury Park low income apartments that are now isolated at TJ for middle school then Yorktown for high school. The community used to be Williamsburg / Yorktown. Before that it was Swanson /W-L.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's easy to say in theory less community engagement is better. But have you ever been really involved? Dug into the data and found huge mistakes that staff completely missed? Have you ever had to try to walk staff and school board members through this?

So in theory I could be in favor of less community engagement but not until they hire competent staff who can do their jobs and get it right without parents checking their work.

This. I was somewhat engaged in one process and staff didn’t even add up the PU numbers right.

Yes, this. I was attentive to a recent process, and there were not only errors in the calculations, but also attempts by staff to use the numbers in multiple contradictory ways to prove whatever point served them in the moment. It was concerning and unsettling (both the errors themselves and the staff's defensiveness and unwillingness to acknowledge them), and I was glad there were other parents from my neighborhood and school who were engaged enough to catch and raise the issues.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting people won’t have a chance to review data or APS won’t be transparent. Is that what the policy says? Not my read.

It says (to me) they can listen less to parents who are advocating strongly out of self interest only, which happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

The only thing the boundary processes over the last decade have revealed to me is how incredibly bad at their jobs APS staff actually are.