APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is ABSURD to propose an option (1F) that retains the Williamsburg island. I thought they said that they were prioritizing contiguous boundaries. This island was eliminated in the high school boundary change last year. Why, on Earth, would they retain it for middle school? And if we're going to leave that island, why not just create more. What is so special about that area?

Yeah, I thought we couldn't have islands any more? Isn't that what they just said? What is with this option?

If we can have islands let's make one where it can really balance out the demographics better - as I suggested J plus island.

We can't have islands, that's the stupid part. Why are they giving us an option to discuss as a community that has no chance of being accepted? The only options the board will even entertain are B, D, H, and J. How can we tweak those options to make them more palatable to the community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need efficiency and relief of overcrowding. I can't deal with the people who whine that "my kids won't be able to go to school with all the same kids from their previous school" - if you pull your kids and go to private, they still won't know anyone. And even in the maps where they break up schools, there will be some kids that travel together. That's not a factor that's worth tying maps up in knots. If you look at the alignment map, you have kids not able to go to the school across the street from their house -- kind of like the stupidity of Science Focus' boundary now.

+1

Except for one in MS, my kids are in college now. We live in a Taylor planning unit but they went to Science Focus (as the PP noted re stupidity of some boundaries, we live two blocks from Science Focus). After Science Focus they went to Swanson and then W-L. At every stage of their schooling they continued with a few friends while others went to different middle schools and high schools, including a few privates. Along the way my kids met classmates they had known from sports, from church, from summer camps, from scouts, etc. By the time they were in HS they had friends all over Arlington. Alignment really is not that important in a county the size of Arlington.

Okay, so which of these options do you like, and what is your highest priority? Genuinely curious.

Other than having Williamsburg at a mere 4% economically disadvantaged, I like 1H. My highest priority is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need efficiency and relief of overcrowding. I can't deal with the people who whine that "my kids won't be able to go to school with all the same kids from their previous school" - if you pull your kids and go to private, they still won't know anyone. And even in the maps where they break up schools, there will be some kids that travel together. That's not a factor that's worth tying maps up in knots. If you look at the alignment map, you have kids not able to go to the school across the street from their house -- kind of like the stupidity of Science Focus' boundary now.

+1

Except for one in MS, my kids are in college now. We live in a Taylor planning unit but they went to Science Focus (as the PP noted re stupidity of some boundaries, we live two blocks from Science Focus). After Science Focus they went to Swanson and then W-L. At every stage of their schooling they continued with a few friends while others went to different middle schools and high schools, including a few privates. Along the way my kids met classmates they had known from sports, from church, from summer camps, from scouts, etc. By the time they were in HS they had friends all over Arlington. Alignment really is not that important in a county the size of Arlington.

Okay, so which of these options do you like, and what is your highest priority? Genuinely curious.

Other than having Williamsburg at a mere 4% economically disadvantaged, I like 1H. My highest priority is irrelevant.

I liked H until I saw the #s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

PP above. Sorry I meant to say that's why H plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this. It does not create any new islands. In J, Kenmore is already way below capacity, while in H, Kenmore isn't BUT Williamsburg is not only ridiculously at low capacity (96% and 93%) and have only 4% FARMS. To the Williamsburg community even if take some by extending the island, there's no way you would be the MS to absorb (let's say 9% FARMS to bring Kenmore and Jefferson down to 40%). My guess is the FARMS rate would go up by a few percentage points. I would be interested in APS crunching those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

J increases Kenmore's fr/l rate by 6 percentage points and Gunston's by 7 percentage points (not just 6 or 7 percent, for those of you who can do math).

To accept J, but with some islands carved out, is to say that we value diversity but only if it's the poor kids who have to get less sleep and travel farther far from their homes. This is a non-starter. What else have you got?

[Anonymous]

These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.

A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

J increases Kenmore's fr/l rate by 6 percentage points and Gunston's by 7 percentage points (not just 6 or 7 percent, for those of you who can do math).

To accept J, but with some islands carved out, is to say that we value diversity but only if it's the poor kids who have to get less sleep and travel farther far from their homes. This is a non-starter. What else have you got?

Ok. Let's just go with H then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I think it's very important in elementary school to go to school with your neighbors. The kids make friends a few doors down or a short walk. They can run back and forth to each other's houses. Play dates aren't a major pain in the ass with having to pick a kid up on the other side of town sitting in rush hioir traffic on Lee highway.

Most of our neighborhood goest to the same school, but there is a large portion from all the way across town. I've had to really cut back on play dates with any of those kids because it's just too much of a pain. The kids in the neighborhood will get together a lot and in nights they have practices they can still have short play dates beforehand.

But now we're talking about MS. Shouldn't kids worlds be expanding at this point?

MS --I want the closest school to my house. More sleep. Shorter time getting to and from.

My kids have friends all over the County because of camps and sports.

Agree. Besides, it does expand in middle school because MS is larger with more neighborhoods feeding in than elementary schools. The closest neighborhoods to the schools makes the most sense.

People who were expressing alignment concerns earlier were saying that only like 20 kids per year from Kenmore are districted to then go to Yorktown. You say there's an expanded universe of people and friends in MS, which is true, but heck of alot of good that is if there will be less than 2 dozen potential familiar faces/people for continuity going into HS. The weird Kenmore-Yorktown island the Board made last year is really shitty for these kids, and don't tell me you wouldn't be bellyaching if your kid was sent to a HS where 99% of the kids would be new to him/her and he or she would effectively have to start all over again, even if your kid might, in fact, know people from "all over" because of sports, etc. Nobody is asking for perfect same es-ms-hs for everyone, people were understandably frustrated by the anomaly created last year for that small group of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

J increases Kenmore's fr/l rate by 6 percentage points and Gunston's by 7 percentage points (not just 6 or 7 percent, for those of you who can do math).

To accept J, but with some islands carved out, is to say that we value diversity but only if it's the poor kids who have to get less sleep and travel farther far from their homes. This is a non-starter. What else have you got?

DP here. I may be reading this wrong, but J appears to keep the same Kenmore boundary and only alter Gunston a little bit around the eastern Pike. Where can I look to see the increases in numbers of fr/l? Is it purely a function of projections of increased population, some of which will be fr/l?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ I think it's very important in elementary school to go to school with your neighbors. The kids make friends a few doors down or a short walk. They can run back and forth to each other's houses. Play dates aren't a major pain in the ass with having to pick a kid up on the other side of town sitting in rush hioir traffic on Lee highway.

Most of our neighborhood goest to the same school, but there is a large portion from all the way across town. I've had to really cut back on play dates with any of those kids because it's just too much of a pain. The kids in the neighborhood will get together a lot and in nights they have practices they can still have short play dates beforehand.

But now we're talking about MS. Shouldn't kids worlds be expanding at this point?

MS --I want the closest school to my house. More sleep. Shorter time getting to and from.

My kids have friends all over the County because of camps and sports.

Agree. Besides, it does expand in middle school because MS is larger with more neighborhoods feeding in than elementary schools. The closest neighborhoods to the schools makes the most sense.

People who were expressing alignment concerns earlier were saying that only like 20 kids per year from Kenmore are districted to then go to Yorktown. You say there's an expanded universe of people and friends in MS, which is true, but heck of alot of good that is if there will be less than 2 dozen potential familiar faces/people for continuity going into HS. The weird Kenmore-Yorktown island the Board made last year is really shitty for these kids, and don't tell me you wouldn't be bellyaching if your kid was sent to a HS where 99% of the kids would be new to him/her and he or she would effectively have to start all over again, even if your kid might, in fact, know people from "all over" because of sports, etc. Nobody is asking for perfect same es-ms-hs for everyone, people were understandably frustrated by the anomaly created last year for that small group of kids.

DP, but I think you'd want to advocate for either H (so there are more Kenmore-Yorktown kids), or B (then you at least have some continuity from ES to MS). I don't like B in it's current iteration, but think it could be improved. I like some aspects of H, but the Tuckahoe parents are dusting off their orange shirts as we speak, so it won't be selected.

[Anonymous]

H seems to reach the greatest redistribution; HOWEVER, how is Swanson and Stratford at 110 and 108% capacity while its adjacent neighbor is only at 93% (never mind the ridiculous 4% FARMS). Why not absorb some UMC kids from the other two schools so they can at least absorb some of the overpopulation at Stratford and Swason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

J increases Kenmore's fr/l rate by 6 percentage points and Gunston's by 7 percentage points (not just 6 or 7 percent, for those of you who can do math).

To accept J, but with some islands carved out, is to say that we value diversity but only if it's the poor kids who have to get less sleep and travel farther far from their homes. This is a non-starter. What else have you got?

DP here. I may be reading this wrong, but J appears to keep the same Kenmore boundary and only alter Gunston a little bit around the eastern Pike. Where can I look to see the increases in numbers of fr/l? Is it purely a function of projections of increased population, some of which will be fr/l?

That may be correct. I can't tell exactly without an overlay. But if it's a function of increased fr/l population with the current boundary, are you saying APS should not attempt to balance this out by adjusting boundaries?

Most recently available fr/l numbers are here (from October 2016): https://www.apsva.us/statistics/free-and-reduced-price-meals/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is ABSURD to propose an option (1F) that retains the Williamsburg island. I thought they said that they were prioritizing contiguous boundaries. This island was eliminated in the high school boundary change last year. Why, on Earth, would they retain it for middle school? And if we're going to leave that island, why not just create more. What is so special about that area?

Yeah, I thought we couldn't have islands any more? Isn't that what they just said? What is with this option?

If we can have islands let's make one where it can really balance out the demographics better - as I suggested J plus island.

We can't have islands, that's the stupid part. Why are they giving us an option to discuss as a community that has no chance of being accepted? The only options the board will even entertain are B, D, H, and J. How can we tweak those options to make them more palatable to the community?

Oh sweetie... no...
Here's how this works:
-We tie ourselves in knots over this info.
-A small group realizes they are getting the shaft and mobilizes ( they get all color coordinated).
-Everyone grabs their pitch forks and storms meetings
-There is like a 5 second window where APS has to maybe consider that not every school in the county is considered terrific (That window closes immediately)
-The school board sends staff back to the drawing board
-Staff produces 11th hour solution that solves nothing ( option Z)
-Board votes for option Z
- some community member does some basic math and discovers that option Z isn't even possible because all the numbers were wrong.


Then we all get collective amnesia and do it again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is ABSURD to propose an option (1F) that retains the Williamsburg island. I thought they said that they were prioritizing contiguous boundaries. This island was eliminated in the high school boundary change last year. Why, on Earth, would they retain it for middle school? And if we're going to leave that island, why not just create more. What is so special about that area?

Yeah, I thought we couldn't have islands any more? Isn't that what they just said? What is with this option?

If we can have islands let's make one where it can really balance out the demographics better - as I suggested J plus island.

We can't have islands, that's the stupid part. Why are they giving us an option to discuss as a community that has no chance of being accepted? The only options the board will even entertain are B, D, H, and J. How can we tweak those options to make them more palatable to the community?

Oh sweetie... no...
Here's how this works:
-We tie ourselves in knots over this info.
-A small group realizes they are getting the shaft and mobilizes ( they get all color coordinated).
-Everyone grabs their pitch forks and storms meetings
-There is like a 5 second window where APS has to maybe consider that not every school in the county is considered terrific (That window closes immediately)
-The school board sends staff back to the drawing board
-Staff produces 11th hour solution that solves nothing ( option Z)
-Board votes for option Z
- some community member does some basic math and discovers that option Z isn't even possible because all the numbers were wrong.


Then we all get collective amnesia and do it again!

+100 except for the collective amnesia part. I for one am still traumatized by the utter shit show that is the SB and APS admin.