APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

They did elevate crowding at Oakridge but the kids are going to Hoffman Boston instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

Ah okay. Thanks. And also -- please take this without snark or any sort of tone -- this must be where the idea came from that APS committed that Henry could stay together, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop blaming Henry for the concentration of poverty in S Arlington. This is exactly what N Arlington wants. Fleet is not going to take N Arlington PUs and the PUs south of the Pike are not all expensive homes. Some are apartments, some are condos, some are duplexes, and many of the single family homes are rentals. Yes there are some MC homes with kids but let’s not pretend it’s all lily white and UMC SFHs with kids. The area is very diverse economically and it has its share of FARMS and homelessness. Henry did not pull the ladder up. It just wants to keep its school.

It’s the entire counties job to balance diversity that is where the blame lies. A handful of MC kids will not balance a 90% plus poverty rate at Drew.

I tried to point some of this out earlier also, as someone who actually lives in that neighborhood. It’s strange that we are suddenly THE thing that is going to take Drew out of high FARMs. I don’t get it, to be honest.

I tried to do some rough, back of the envelope calculations, and making assumptions in favor of the Drew parents on this Board (e.g., that all ED kids would be replaced by non-ED kids), it seems like moving those south-of-Columbia Pike Henry PUs to Drew would decrease Drew's poverty rate by about 10-15 percent.

I agree with the Drew parents that pulling in Columbia Heights is wrong on many levels, but I agree with Henry parents that tearing apart a school community is not the way to "improve" Drew. For example, when Montessori made its own PTA, they were assuming that Oakridge parents were coming to "save" Drew. But, it's my understanding that Nauck CA has worked hard over the past 2 years to prevent that from happening.

Let's not assume Montessori assumed anything. Montessori was going to establish its PTA regardless of who came or didn't come. That's just a stupid remark. It's not like Montessori was ever going to say, "oh, wait a minute! since Oakridge isn't taking our place, we'll stay."

And "tearing apart a school community" is just exaggerated drama and hysteria. Boundaries have to change. When boundaries change, some people actually get moved from one school to another school. What's APS supposed to do? Leave Drew sitting with 450 empty seats? Just wait for more students to come into the neighborhood and fill those seats when they do? Let Fleet, the largest elementary school in the system, be overcapacity in a year and leaving no room for enrollment growth from its zoned boundary?

Did anyone see the Washington Post article yesterday about Montgomery County schools making diversity its primary factor in new boundaries? Why? because the SCHOOL SYSTEM is actually trying to DO SOMETHING to mitigate the impacts of the COUNTY'S housing patterns and REDUCE SEGREGATION in its schools. THAT's progressive policy. THAT's political courage. THAT's elected leaders (the majority who voted for it) making decisions and doing their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

We voted on building at TJ and Montessri moving, not on what the boundaries of each neighborhood school would be (Fleet included). I think they let go of the idea of moving Oakridge to Drew because it would mean moving The Berkley, making Oakridge significantly less diverse and making the economic situation at Drew even more dire. Oakridge still get relief by moving those PUs to Hoffman Boston. I need to crunch some numbers, but I think there is a better way that is more contiguous/proximate and better for Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

Ah okay. Thanks. And also -- please take this without snark or any sort of tone -- this must be where the idea came from that APS committed that Henry could stay together, right?

IIRC there was a concern that Henry could be split up but there were no committments made at that time to the PH community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop blaming Henry for the concentration of poverty in S Arlington. This is exactly what N Arlington wants. Fleet is not going to take N Arlington PUs and the PUs south of the Pike are not all expensive homes. Some are apartments, some are condos, some are duplexes, and many of the single family homes are rentals. Yes there are some MC homes with kids but let’s not pretend it’s all lily white and UMC SFHs with kids. The area is very diverse economically and it has its share of FARMS and homelessness. Henry did not pull the ladder up. It just wants to keep its school.

It’s the entire counties job to balance diversity that is where the blame lies. A handful of MC kids will not balance a 90% plus poverty rate at Drew.

I tried to point some of this out earlier also, as someone who actually lives in that neighborhood. It’s strange that we are suddenly THE thing that is going to take Drew out of high FARMs. I don’t get it, to be honest.

But here's the thing: if you do t go to Drew some other neighborhood has to. In this case, it's Columbia Forest. You can run the numbers yourself: both the pu at Henry south of the pike and Columbia Forest have about 200 students. The farms rate for those Henry units south of the pike is about 50% so yes, diverse. Also about half white/Asian.

What about Columbia Forest planning units? It's over 80% disadvantaged. The math here is difficult because in many units, aps says there are more disadvantaged students than there are total students. Likewise, APS figures show Columbia Forest has more black and Hispanic students than total students so it's safe to say it's more racially segregated than the Henry PUs as well.

Basically, when Henry said no, we won't go to Drew aps found a poorer, more minority neighborhood to go to Drew instead, one that definitely worsens Drew's farms rate by its inclusion. And does the students in Columbia Forest no favor either- busing them past two closer schools to attend what will likely be the poorest school in the system.

The problem and the reason for all of this to begin with is that schools like Abingdon are over crowded. Abingdon's boundaries are HUGE and cover a large area, in the past that worked because lost of parents picked immersion and other choice schools so it balanced out. Now that Claremont is not guaranteed admissions and has a wait list more kids are going to default to Abingdon. They needed to break up the Abingdon school zone and moving Columbia Forest was the best way to do it.

With Barcroft Park located where it is and Randolph being a school for only walkers that whole area is going to cut off and island someone and you are not bussing them any further than you were with Abingdon.

Not just Henry; but Arlington Ridge/Oakridge and every other MC PU. Unfortunately, the only "No" that matters is the School Board's and that's what they'll also say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

Ah okay. Thanks. And also -- please take this without snark or any sort of tone -- this must be where the idea came from that APS committed that Henry could stay together, right?

We didn't vote on what the subsequent boundaries would be. Discussions were had, but there was not a vote on how it would all shake out. Comments were made that were misconstrued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop blaming Henry for the concentration of poverty in S Arlington. This is exactly what N Arlington wants. Fleet is not going to take N Arlington PUs and the PUs south of the Pike are not all expensive homes. Some are apartments, some are condos, some are duplexes, and many of the single family homes are rentals. Yes there are some MC homes with kids but let’s not pretend it’s all lily white and UMC SFHs with kids. The area is very diverse economically and it has its share of FARMS and homelessness. Henry did not pull the ladder up. It just wants to keep its school.

It’s the entire counties job to balance diversity that is where the blame lies. A handful of MC kids will not balance a 90% plus poverty rate at Drew.

I tried to point some of this out earlier also, as someone who actually lives in that neighborhood. It’s strange that we are suddenly THE thing that is going to take Drew out of high FARMs. I don’t get it, to be honest.

But here's the thing: if you do t go to Drew some other neighborhood has to. In this case, it's Columbia Forest. You can run the numbers yourself: both the pu at Henry south of the pike and Columbia Forest have about 200 students. The farms rate for those Henry units south of the pike is about 50% so yes, diverse. Also about half white/Asian.

What about Columbia Forest planning units? It's over 80% disadvantaged. The math here is difficult because in many units, aps says there are more disadvantaged students than there are total students. Likewise, APS figures show Columbia Forest has more black and Hispanic students than total students so it's safe to say it's more racially segregated than the Henry PUs as well.

Basically, when Henry said no, we won't go to Drew aps found a poorer, more minority neighborhood to go to Drew instead, one that definitely worsens Drew's farms rate by its inclusion. And does the students in Columbia Forest no favor either- busing them past two closer schools to attend what will likely be the poorest school in the system.

The problem and the reason for all of this to begin with is that schools like Abingdon are over crowded. Abingdon's boundaries are HUGE and cover a large area, in the past that worked because lost of parents picked immersion and other choice schools so it balanced out. Now that Claremont is not guaranteed admissions and has a wait list more kids are going to default to Abingdon. They needed to break up the Abingdon school zone and moving Columbia Forest was the best way to do it.

With Barcroft Park located where it is and Randolph being a school for only walkers that whole area is going to cut off and island someone.

A good argument for moving immersion from claremont to a school that isn't in the middle of a large neighborhood of SFH.

Yes! Honestly I hate choice schools in general because they tend to make low income schools even lower because the families that choice to leave are more likely to be upper income. However if you are going to have them it would make more sense to have them located central, away from neighborhood and near another school that can be used as a neighborhood school. (Like Carlin Springs and Campbell) but that is not going to happen.

but turning Claremont into a neighborhood school would solve a lot of the Abingdon crowding issues.

But they also pull out the VPI kids. Every single option school has two VPI classes who are guaranteed spots for K. If you compare the resident vs. actual fr/l numbers at the poorest schools, the kids choosing to attend schools outside of their neighborhoods are helping to balance the poverty levels. The best thing would be to put the option schools in places that have no other way to balance, even better if it's to a school where there aren't that many walkers, as a result of geography/uncrossable roads.

This really does not make that substantial a difference. Not all VPI students stay at the choice school. Many revert back to their neighborhood school because it's closer to their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But they also pull out the VPI kids. Every single option school has two VPI classes who are guaranteed spots for K. If you compare the resident vs. actual fr/l numbers at the poorest schools, the kids choosing to attend schools outside of their neighborhoods are helping to balance the poverty levels. The best thing would be to put the option schools in places that have no other way to balance, even better if it's to a school where there aren't that many walkers, as a result of geography/uncrossable roads.

Sure but what is the Data on the number of those kids that stay on in K? I knew several that move back to their neighborhood school after VPI.

Yes it does help balance that out some but MORE upper income people are leaving disticts like Drew to go to Montessori and Immersion than there are VPI kids coming in.

But yes Claremont is a horrible location for a choice school because it IS in a walkable neighborhood and there really isn't another school close to the Columbia Forest and Claremont neighborhoods (Outside of Abingdon) Randolph is the next closest but it can't do busses. So kids are going to have to be bussed somewhere.

It's 100% at ATS and pretty close to that at Campbell. Not sure about the numbers for Immersion, but it's probably similar, other wise the poverty level at Randolph would be into the 90s, rather than "just" 70%. Montessori has no VPI kids, so that's absolutely a problem, one that could be fixed by changing the fee structure (making it free for a percentage of very low-income families and charging slightly more at the upper end of the sliding scale).

Most of those VPI kids at Campbell are already in the area; so it's like going to a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

The focus was Oakridge. It was always Oakridge because that is the school that had been the most crowded and significantly overcapacity and expected to grow to well over a thousand students by 2020-something. That's one reason Oakridge kept arguing for a new school location in 22206 - they didn't want to "split up their community" and sure as heck didn't want to bus their kids to Drew. If you went to the meetings, then you should have heard Oakridge's proposal and rationale that their K-5th graders couldn't cross 395 - even though they were offering to host preschoolers from the other side of 395 to come to them in order to fill the space of a new school until Oakridge's own numbers pushed them back out to their own side of 395.

The Hoffman Boston piece was merely the part of Nauck that is currently districted to HB - not Hoffman Boston in general. HB is well under-capacity K-5 and the school is half filled with preschool classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

They did elevate crowding at Oakridge but the kids are going to Hoffman Boston instead.

Didn't need to move Montessori to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^I wasn't in the SAWG but I did go to the meetings about what was going to happen at Drew. The parent and PTA communities from Abingdon, Henry, Hoffman-Boston, Oakridge, and I think Randolph too were all participating from the start, because those schools could potentially send students to Drew. I frankly do not understand how there could have been any sort of commitment to draw from only Hoffman-Boston and Oakridge, because doing so doesn't make geographical or numeric sense.

Oakridge isn't included at all In the current proposal. One of the reasons why the SAWG voted the way we did was to help alleviate Oakridge by creating room in Drew.

I appreciate that but it was included as a possible source for students when the Drew process started. Oakridge is getting relief via Hoffman Boston, no?

What was the SAWG vote you mean? I guess I don't follow.

We voted to build an elementary school on TJ lot. Patrick Henry would go to Fleet. Montessori would move into PH which would leave spots open for Oakridge. That was the reasoning behind the vote. The neighborhoods in the west were never considered. This is a complete surprise.

Ah okay. Thanks. And also -- please take this without snark or any sort of tone -- this must be where the idea came from that APS committed that Henry could stay together, right?

APS NEVER COMMITTED that Henry would all stay together. SB members assured them that they HEARD their desires. NO promises were made. Henry people seem to have taken "we hear you; we understand; we know you want to stay together; we dont want to tear communities apart" as a promise and guarantee that there would be no PUs districted away.