APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I disagree. Scenarios that leave one school both with low farms levels and highly under-enrolled seem ridiculous, when we're given the chance to fix these issues.


PP here. I appreciate your point, and I'm pro-diversity and pro-doing something about the demographics. However, there are legitimate countervailing factors, not least of which is that many families, including in both the north and south, don't want to take a long bus ride to a school very far away (understanding that "very far" is a relative term in Arlington). I don't think all of that is racist subterfuge. People are allowed to make choices about where they live and are allowed to prefer neighborhood schools. People are allowed to not prioritize diversity, whatever that means, when it comes to their own families. I personally don't live in the Williamsburg zone on purpose and I'm not going to force my penchant for diversity down everyone's throats when there are legitimately held preferences on the other side. If there are reasonable ways to achieve some fairness, taking the county's housing/AH history as an unfortunate given, then that's what I personally am in favor of.


So how can we reasonably do this? Do any of the scenarios come close?


Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.

H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.


What school are you zoned for?

They are either zoned for Kenmore or Williamsburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it do any good to send an email or express viewpoints, or is there realistically already a plan in place? Right now I'm 3/4 mile away from Swanson, yet my kids will need to be bussed all the way to Kenmore under many of these proposed plans. I understand bussing kids around if they're relatively equal distances away from two schools, but this makes no sense. Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else? When I grew up, you went to the schools that were closest to where you actually lived; this is crazy.

If you are 3/4 of a mile from Swanson- I suggest that before you complain about being 'bussed all the way to Kenmore" you put your address and Kenmore's address into Google maps. The school's are less than 2 miles apart.

I did...

which planning unit is less than 3/4 of a mile to Swanson, and is proposed to be moved to Kenmore where it would be eligible for bus service (e.g. more than 1.5 miles). The way I read the map- all of the Swanson units moving to Kenmore are less than 1.5 miles from Kenmore and thus walkers to Kenmore as well.

Well then you read it wrong. Because my home is proposed to move to Kenmore in some of the scenarios, and it is 2 miles to Kenmore, less than a mile to Swanson. And yes, I know how to use Google maps. No, I won't give you my address.

We are in the same situation. And will fight to stay at Swanson because we are only a few blocks from it, not for any racial or income-based criterion that couldn't be furthest from my mind. But of course, that pretext is oh-so easy to use against us! And yes, if our house were the same distance to Kenmore, I couldn't care less which school my kids went to, and would send them there without a second thought. Again, I'm concerned about distance for children whose days already start earlier than mine. I do know that my kids would get a good education in any of Arlington's MS, I'm already aware of that, thank you very much. The issue is what's the closest to our address and how would the kids be able to get there, e.g. a reasonable walking option.

[Anonymous]

Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.

H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.



So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it do any good to send an email or express viewpoints, or is there realistically already a plan in place? Right now I'm 3/4 mile away from Swanson, yet my kids will need to be bussed all the way to Kenmore under many of these proposed plans. I understand bussing kids around if they're relatively equal distances away from two schools, but this makes no sense. Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else? When I grew up, you went to the schools that were closest to where you actually lived; this is crazy.

If you are 3/4 of a mile from Swanson- I suggest that before you complain about being 'bussed all the way to Kenmore" you put your address and Kenmore's address into Google maps. The school's are less than 2 miles apart.

I did...

which planning unit is less than 3/4 of a mile to Swanson, and is proposed to be moved to Kenmore where it would be eligible for bus service (e.g. more than 1.5 miles). The way I read the map- all of the Swanson units moving to Kenmore are less than 1.5 miles from Kenmore and thus walkers to Kenmore as well.

Well then you read it wrong. Because my home is proposed to move to Kenmore in some of the scenarios, and it is 2 miles to Kenmore, less than a mile to Swanson. And yes, I know how to use Google maps. No, I won't give you my address.

We are in the same situation. And will fight to stay at Swanson because we are only a few blocks from it, not for any racial or income-based criterion that couldn't be furthest from my mind. But of course, that pretext is oh-so easy to use against us! And yes, if our house were the same distance to Kenmore, I couldn't care less which school my kids went to, and would send them there without a second thought. Again, I'm concerned about distance for children whose days already start earlier than mine. I do know that my kids would get a good education in any of Arlington's MS, I'm already aware of that, thank you very much. The issue is what's the closest to our address and how would the kids be able to get there, e.g. a reasonable walking option.

Some people are going to be inconvenienced. It sucks, but we can't add more poor students to Kenmore. And we can't just shift them to TJ.
Take it up with the county board. This is their doing.

[Anonymous]

I think parents should protest this just as heavily as the Boomers protested the idea of taking away their Madison Community Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.

H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.

So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.

You can drive her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.

H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.

So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.

That's insane.

[Anonymous]

Ok. I need to some clarification.

Someone posted that FARM's rates are RISING?!?! in the southern part of the county. Is that really true?

Please explain how that is possible. I just read article whining about how affordable housing in Arlington has dramatically decreased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I disagree. Scenarios that leave one school both with low farms levels and highly under-enrolled seem ridiculous, when we're given the chance to fix these issues.


PP here. I appreciate your point, and I'm pro-diversity and pro-doing something about the demographics. However, there are legitimate countervailing factors, not least of which is that many families, including in both the north and south, don't want to take a long bus ride to a school very far away (understanding that "very far" is a relative term in Arlington). I don't think all of that is racist subterfuge. People are allowed to make choices about where they live and are allowed to prefer neighborhood schools. People are allowed to not prioritize diversity, whatever that means, when it comes to their own families. I personally don't live in the Williamsburg zone on purpose and I'm not going to force my penchant for diversity down everyone's throats when there are legitimately held preferences on the other side. If there are reasonable ways to achieve some fairness, taking the county's housing/AH history as an unfortunate given, then that's what I personally am in favor of.


So how can we reasonably do this? Do any of the scenarios come close?


Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.

H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.


What school are you zoned for?

Gunston under 4/5 scenarios. TJ under one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. I need to some clarification.

Someone posted that FARM's rates are RISING?!?! in the southern part of the county. Is that really true?

Please explain how that is possible. I just read article whining about how affordable housing in Arlington has dramatically decreased.

I posted that. IT IS SPECULATION. Not to shout at you! but I want to be clear I'm just speculating based on the fact that these maps show basically the same boundaries for Gunston/TJ but the FARMS rates seem to be rising under any scenario. Gunston is currently at 33.61% FARMS. There may be another explanation. I am just extrapolating from what I'm seeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???

Dp- is reading hard for you? I don't want to insult you if you have some sort of developmental delay...
The above post is obviously saying that we should do the best we can within reason. If that means that Williamsburg becomes under capacity, all white, and rich- so be it. The county has created some borderline insurmountable problems. We can only do so much. If there is a solution that solves most of our issues, but Williamsburg ends up not shouldering their fair share- so be it.
I'm not looking for a pound of flesh as a south Arlington parent. Just a reasonable plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???

I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???

Dp- is reading hard for you? I don't want to insult you if you have some sort of developmental delay...
The above post is obviously saying that we should do the best we can within reason. If that means that Williamsburg becomes under capacity, all white, and rich- so be it. The county has created some borderline insurmountable problems. We can only do so much. If there is a solution that solves most of our issues, but Williamsburg ends up not shouldering their fair share- so be it.
I'm not looking for a pound of flesh as a south Arlington parent. Just a reasonable plan.

Thanks PP. I'm the original PP, also a south arl parent, and just responded below. It sounds we'd agree with each other IRL. Except maybe for the developmental delay comment, that was kind of mean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. I need to some clarification.

Someone posted that FARM's rates are RISING?!?! in the southern part of the county. Is that really true?

Please explain how that is possible. I just read article whining about how affordable housing in Arlington has dramatically decreased.

YES IT'S TRUE, but of course you've heard the other talking point. Affordable housing has decreased overall, mostly in terms of market rate (which is more scattered throughout the county--and they consider raising of rents a "loss" of a unit), but has increased in terms of CAF's geared towards families. Those CAF's were built/preserved primarily along Columbia Pike because of the Neighborhoods Plan that was passed when the streetcar was coming and everyone was worried about gentrification pushing out all the lower income families. So the streetcar was cancelled, natch, families weren't pushed out as quickly as thought (some in Market Rate AH may be at some future point), and infill construction continues in a very small geographic area. The county's stated goal is to get back to the year 2000 in terms of number of "affordable units," but that means they can only get a few units here and there in areas that have already gentrified/developed or adopted Neighborhood Plans with zoning that make it too hard/expensive (East Falls Church, for example). And there you have it.