Holding APS Leadership, Staff and School Board Accountable for the Boundary Mess

[Anonymous]

I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

[Anonymous]

If they started this process with Fleet as a new school pulling from everywhere we wouldn’t be where we are. But they wanted Fleet built without as much resistance so they lied and said it was a bigger school for PH and now were in this clusterf*ck. I really don’t blame the Henry parents for being livid. And I don’t blame SF for thinking it’s obvious it should be Henry PUs. The SB was disengenous through out and this is a problem of their own making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they started this process with Fleet as a new school pulling from everywhere we wouldn’t be where we are. But they wanted Fleet built without as much resistance so they lied and said it was a bigger school for PH and now were in this clusterf*ck. I really don’t blame the Henry parents for being livid. And I don’t blame SF for thinking it’s obvious it should be Henry PUs. The SB was disengenous through out and this is a problem of their own making.

Fleet’s walk zone is a umc enclave. The problem is where the school
Sited.
But we had our hands tied from the beginning.
Can’t ask the county for land or former schools or money
County builds approx 800 more units of affordable housing in the same 2-3 neighborhoods.

We didn’t show up for the AHMP
We weren’t well represented on the working group looking at future sites ( vhc, buck)
We didn’t vote for Vihstad

River Farm Cooperative school in Alexandria is approx 20 from CH, Douglas Park, and Nauck. We should all give it a look or consider starting a legit south Arlington elementary co op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Map 1 has an easy explanation but it’s not something anyone wants to say out loud: if you concentrate the poverty at a handful of schools then the rest will be considered “good” and the transfer rates will go down. Sacrifice Barcroft, Randolph, Carlin Springs, and Drew so that the rest are acceptable to the middle class.

You're not wrong but we are already doing that and it's why Henry and Oakridge were so crowded and why this whole process started in the first place.

The "rest" are two schools: Henry and Oakridge. Families flocked to those schools over the last ten years because they were the least poor of SA schools. That got momentum and the result was that both schools FRL rates fell by over 30 points. That led to those schools getting really crowded, because once the rate started going down people really wanted to catch that train.

Meanwhile, the CB built more and more subsidized housing in the other SA schools zones, making their FRLs even higher, and barring any redevelopment of Barcroft Apts. That only made Henry and Oakridge even more desirable, since it was now clear that Barcroft, Randolph, carlin, had no way to lower their frl rates via gentrification and UMC buy in the way that Henry and Oakridge had.

Enter this boundary process, which reveals that at the moment- sa is not overcrowded. Claremont, Oakridge and Henry are. And why? Because the other schools, the rest, are segregated, high poverty, and undesirable to a large potion of the SA MC and UMC. Our segregation is the root cause of overcrowding, not our "success" as a school district in general.

Yup, and what Map 1 did was relieve the crowding in Henry and Oakridge and set up Abingdon and Hoffman Boston to join them as desirable schools with FRL rates in the 30s. I would guess that was the reasoning behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

Yes. I'm one of the people who was pushing for this, but it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for several schools period, in particular Randolph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

Yes. I'm one of the people who was pushing for this, but it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for several schools period, in particular Randolph.

Were you willing to personally give up the second item to make more progress toward the first?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they started this process with Fleet as a new school pulling from everywhere we wouldn’t be where we are. But they wanted Fleet built without as much resistance so they lied and said it was a bigger school for PH and now were in this clusterf*ck. I really don’t blame the Henry parents for being livid. And I don’t blame SF for thinking it’s obvious it should be Henry PUs. The SB was disengenous through out and this is a problem of their own making.

Fleet’s walk zone is a umc enclave. The problem is where the school
Sited.
But we had our hands tied from the beginning.
Can’t ask the county for land or former schools or money
County builds approx 800 more units of affordable housing in the same 2-3 neighborhoods.

We didn’t show up for the AHMP
We weren’t well represented on the working group looking at future sites ( vhc, buck)
We didn’t vote for Vihstad

River Farm Cooperative school in Alexandria is approx 20 from CH, Douglas Park, and Nauck. We should all give it a look or consider starting a legit south Arlington elementary co op.

Bingo. Having the new school be as far away within the Henry zone as possible from the poorer students was the biggest problem. If geography is king, then we just made Fleet a better option for nort of 50 students than south of columbia pike students. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Map 1 has an easy explanation but it’s not something anyone wants to say out loud: if you concentrate the poverty at a handful of schools then the rest will be considered “good” and the transfer rates will go down. Sacrifice Barcroft, Randolph, Carlin Springs, and Drew so that the rest are acceptable to the middle class.

You're not wrong but we are already doing that and it's why Henry and Oakridge were so crowded and why this whole process started in the first place.

The "rest" are two schools: Henry and Oakridge. Families flocked to those schools over the last ten years because they were the least poor of SA schools. That got momentum and the result was that both schools FRL rates fell by over 30 points. That led to those schools getting really crowded, because once the rate started going down people really wanted to catch that train.

Meanwhile, the CB built more and more subsidized housing in the other SA schools zones, making their FRLs even higher, and barring any redevelopment of Barcroft Apts. That only made Henry and Oakridge even more desirable, since it was now clear that Barcroft, Randolph, carlin, had no way to lower their frl rates via gentrification and UMC buy in the way that Henry and Oakridge had.

Enter this boundary process, which reveals that at the moment- sa is not overcrowded. Claremont, Oakridge and Henry are. And why? Because the other schools, the rest, are segregated, high poverty, and undesirable to a large potion of the SA MC and UMC. Our segregation is the root cause of overcrowding, not our "success" as a school district in general.

Yup, and what Map 1 did was relieve the crowding in Henry and Oakridge and set up Abingdon and Hoffman Boston to join them as desirable schools with FRL rates in the 30s. I would guess that was the reasoning behind it.

I agree with this. Which is why I supported map 1. We need more acceptable schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they started this process with Fleet as a new school pulling from everywhere we wouldn’t be where we are. But they wanted Fleet built without as much resistance so they lied and said it was a bigger school for PH and now were in this clusterf*ck. I really don’t blame the Henry parents for being livid. And I don’t blame SF for thinking it’s obvious it should be Henry PUs. The SB was disengenous through out and this is a problem of their own making.

Fleet’s walk zone is a umc enclave. The problem is where the school
Sited.
But we had our hands tied from the beginning.
Can’t ask the county for land or former schools or money
County builds approx 800 more units of affordable housing in the same 2-3 neighborhoods.

We didn’t show up for the AHMP
We weren’t well represented on the working group looking at future sites ( vhc, buck)
We didn’t vote for Vihstad

River Farm Cooperative school in Alexandria is approx 20 from CH, Douglas Park, and Nauck. We should all give it a look or consider starting a legit south Arlington elementary co op.

Bingo. Having the new school be as far away within the Henry zone as possible from the poorer students was the biggest problem. If geography is king, then we just made Fleet a better option for nort of 50 students than south of columbia pike students. Amazing.

I’ve been posting that here for months.
Fleet would help north arl
Be very wealthy
Alcova won’t get zoned to it
CH will be moved to Drew
Randolph and Barcroft remain F’ed
We’ll all see that Drew shouldn’t have been promised a neighborhood school

Of course if the homeowners of Douglas park ( the large side ) had all Pushed to be rezoned to Drew, they would have had a shot at a good school with ok demographics. But they actually fought against their best self interests. They aren’t the brightest and aren’t particularly plugged in, so I’m not surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

Yes. I'm one of the people who was pushing for this, but it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for several schools period, in particular Randolph.

Were you willing to personally give up the second item to make more progress toward the first?

I'm neither CH/DP or SF. My personal views are that walkability should be respected with proximity a close second, because that is what everyone across the demographic spectrum wants. After that, demographic balancing should be a big priority. That doesn't leave much to work with in order to "fix" many South Arl schools.

If I got to make the decision, I would have sent SF to Drew because it is not in a walk zone, is pretty close to Drew, and would help balance FR/L rates with Abingdon having another shot at balance in 2020 if Columbia Hills swamps it. I also think it makes more sense generally to fill far-south seats and move empty seats north to where the greater need is (I understand that north of 50 going into Fleet is a third rail issue, but IMO people just need to get over that). But this pie in the sky discussion about how to fix Randolph is not productive given current realities. The only way to "fix" that west Pike area like that is to eliminate option schools and allow neighborhoods to gentrify. Arlington currently makes different choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

Yes. I'm one of the people who was pushing for this, but it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for several schools period, in particular Randolph.

Were you willing to personally give up the second item to make more progress toward the first?

I'm neither CH/DP or SF. My personal views are that walkability should be respected with proximity a close second, because that is what everyone across the demographic spectrum wants. After that, demographic balancing should be a big priority. That doesn't leave much to work with in order to "fix" many South Arl schools.

If I got to make the decision, I would have sent SF to Drew because it is not in a walk zone, is pretty close to Drew, and would help balance FR/L rates with Abingdon having another shot at balance in 2020 if Columbia Hills swamps it. I also think it makes more sense generally to fill far-south seats and move empty seats north to where the greater need is (I understand that north of 50 going into Fleet is a third rail issue, but IMO people just need to get over that). But this pie in the sky discussion about how to fix Randolph is not productive given current realities. The only way to "fix" that west Pike area like that is to eliminate option schools and allow neighborhoods to gentrify. Arlington currently makes different choices.

None of that can be blamed on APS or the school board, though, because those patterns are due to county board housing policy decisions that the school board and APS leadership have to live with and make the best of with limited resources.

[Anonymous]

Can't wait to see what they do with North Arlington

[Anonymous]

Isn't part of the problem that two other schools also were insisting on big restrictions? Drew HAD to be a neighborhood school, and Randolph HAD to stay as is? The whole thing was going to be a mess when you started with all of these constraints AND were trying to solve major problems. I also love that Montessori was never asked to maybe consider doing something else in the whole process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't part of the problem that two other schools also were insisting on big restrictions? Drew HAD to be a neighborhood school, and Randolph HAD to stay as is? The whole thing was going to be a mess when you started with all of these constraints AND were trying to solve major problems. I also love that Montessori was never asked to maybe consider doing something else in the whole process.

Sort of.
The Randolph APARTMENT WALKERS were off limits. The neighborhood homeowners could have asked to be sent to Drew. It’s right next door, and has way fewer cafs zones to it.
Drew could have had workable demographics and DP homeowners could have had a better zoned school.
No one is that forward thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t say there aren’t parts of this process that were mishandled, but I think one of the biggest problems was unrealistic expectations on the part of South Arlington residents. So many people seemed to expect that the process would 1) fix the demographic issues in all of the affected schools while 2) not changing their zoning to a school with lower historical performance. Neither of those expectations were reasonable, especially since they are in direct conflict for many people.

Yes. I'm one of the people who was pushing for this, but it's unrealistic. It's unrealistic for several schools period, in particular Randolph.

Were you willing to personally give up the second item to make more progress toward the first?

I'm neither CH/DP or SF. My personal views are that walkability should be respected with proximity a close second, because that is what everyone across the demographic spectrum wants. After that, demographic balancing should be a big priority. That doesn't leave much to work with in order to "fix" many South Arl schools.

If I got to make the decision, I would have sent SF to Drew because it is not in a walk zone, is pretty close to Drew, and would help balance FR/L rates with Abingdon having another shot at balance in 2020 if Columbia Hills swamps it. I also think it makes more sense generally to fill far-south seats and move empty seats north to where the greater need is (I understand that north of 50 going into Fleet is a third rail issue, but IMO people just need to get over that). But this pie in the sky discussion about how to fix Randolph is not productive given current realities. The only way to "fix" that west Pike area like that is to eliminate option schools and allow neighborhoods to gentrify. Arlington currently makes different choices.

None of that can be blamed on APS or the school board, though, because those patterns are due to county board housing policy decisions that the school board and APS leadership have to live with and make the best of with limited resources.

I completely agree with you. I meant for that point to come across in noting current realities. My view is that APS and the Board should do the best they can with what they have to work with, which isn't much. I don't agree they even met that goal here though, with respect to Drew.