Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your missing the point. People were staying to attend Henry. These are some of the children that you/ they are hoping will help balance the FRL rates at Drew. Of course there is the potential that the market will dip slightly for those townhomes now if no longer zoned Henry. These children will now move North or to Fairfax.

Let me show you all the tears I cry for the families who thought they were getting a bargain buying into Henry and now might get rezoned to Drew. And then you can show me all the tears those families have cried over the idea that Fleet could someday fall below 20% FARMS while they're enrolled there.

I don't get this. Are we really saying that Arlington should have such a divide between rich and poor and we want schools to suffer as a result? Isn't it a good thing that young families who aren't propped up by trust funds have the ability to get a foothold in Arlington instead of being forced out?

If we keep following this logic we get to one of two things. There aren't any young kids in Arlington, other than super rich or super poor kids. OR you have an incredible unstable house of cards for properties that people can't really afford. The missing middle affects everyone, to pretend it doesn't is ridiculous.

One is stopped families from buying moderately priced condos. You still don’t buy a school with your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your missing the point. People were staying to attend Henry. These are some of the children that you/ they are hoping will help balance the FRL rates at Drew. Of course there is the potential that the market will dip slightly for those townhomes now if no longer zoned Henry. These children will now move North or to Fairfax.

Let me show you all the tears I cry for the families who thought they were getting a bargain buying into Henry and now might get rezoned to Drew. And then you can show me all the tears those families have cried over the idea that Fleet could someday fall below 20% FARMS while they're enrolled there.

I don't get this. Are we really saying that Arlington should have such a divide between rich and poor and we want schools to suffer as a result? Isn't it a good thing that young families who aren't propped up by trust funds have the ability to get a foothold in Arlington instead of being forced out?

If we keep following this logic we get to one of two things. There aren't any young kids in Arlington, other than super rich or super poor kids. OR you have an incredible unstable house of cards for properties that people can't really afford. The missing middle affects everyone, to pretend it doesn't is ridiculous.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure it's what you'd like me to be saying because it would be easier to dismiss me, but I'm not. I think it's good that middle class families can get a foothold in Arlington, but I don't have a whole lot of concern when those families freak out about having to mix with people who have less than them rather than exclusively with people who have more. No one is forcing them out, if they move it's because they are choosing it.

+1

Really. Not a good enough reason for drawing or not drawing a boundary in a certain way. The MC in Arlington is being decimated by increasing costs and income stagnation, end of story. Nothing about how we draw a boundary is going to change that trend, which is national and being exacerbated by tax policies. If you like where you live, just stay, even if you are rezoned. Make a pact with at least five other families in your neighborhood to do the same. Then work your tails off at promoting your school. At least you have an awesome principal. And probably the generosity of the Arlington Community, to help get your PTA off to a good start. Seriously, you'd be amazed what you can do with a small core group of very committed and involved parents, receptive administrators, and a modest PTA budget. Will you have a koi pond? Probably not, but it's not going to mean that your child won't learn and thrive and be the person they were always meant to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your missing the point. People were staying to attend Henry. These are some of the children that you/ they are hoping will help balance the FRL rates at Drew. Of course there is the potential that the market will dip slightly for those townhomes now if no longer zoned Henry. These children will now move North or to Fairfax.

Let me show you all the tears I cry for the families who thought they were getting a bargain buying into Henry and now might get rezoned to Drew. And then you can show me all the tears those families have cried over the idea that Fleet could someday fall below 20% FARMS while they're enrolled there.

I don't get this. Are we really saying that Arlington should have such a divide between rich and poor and we want schools to suffer as a result? Isn't it a good thing that young families who aren't propped up by trust funds have the ability to get a foothold in Arlington instead of being forced out?

If we keep following this logic we get to one of two things. There aren't any young kids in Arlington, other than super rich or super poor kids. OR you have an incredible unstable house of cards for properties that people can't really afford. The missing middle affects everyone, to pretend it doesn't is ridiculous.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure it's what you'd like me to be saying because it would be easier to dismiss me, but I'm not. I think it's good that middle class families can get a foothold in Arlington, but I don't have a whole lot of concern when those families freak out about having to mix with people who have less than them rather than exclusively with people who have more. No one is forcing them out, if they move it's because they are choosing it.

+1

Really. Not a good enough reason for drawing or not drawing a boundary in a certain way. The MC in Arlington is being decimated by increasing costs and income stagnation, end of story. Nothing about how we draw a boundary is going to change that trend, which is national and being exacerbated by tax policies. If you like where you live, just stay, even if you are rezoned. Make a pact with at least five other families in your neighborhood to do the same. Then work your tails off at promoting your school. At least you have an awesome principal. And probably the generosity of the Arlington Community, to help get your PTA off to a good start. Seriously, you'd be amazed what you can do with a small core group of very committed and involved parents, receptive administrators, and a modest PTA budget. Will you have a koi pond? Probably not, but it's not going to mean that your child won't learn and thrive and be the person they were always meant to be.

I don't think the issue is "mixing" I know that's the simplification people are trying to jump on, but that's a small piece. We, outright, have deep inequality in schools in Arlington. Instead of addressing it wholesale the SB is drawing boundaries that put a small number of students from a high performing school to a low performing school. If we actually want to address this the numbers need to be higher. I'm not saying don't re-zone Henry families for Drew. I'm saying rezone more of them. Because that's how you're going to get that active PTA, improve the school, etc. If you do that, everyone benefits.

[Anonymous]

Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, these numbers are based on assumptions about option school attendees that everyone knows are false. Every parent at each of the 8 SA schools should be worried about this. They are assuming a standard percentage of option students from every school's attendance zone. That will likely result in some schools being way over enrolled (Fleet, for example) and others being way under enrolled (Barcroft, for example). A mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

The boundary thing is really what tips the balance. If you were to center drew around a community/geographic area the way they did with Randolph they'd have a better shot. But as it stands, these kids don't live near each other! They won't know each other from the playground on the weekends, or from their parents being friends, none of that. The boundary looks like shitty gerrymandering and there isn't any reason for it. Especially with the 2020 boundary discussions that put some of these areas back in the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

The boundary thing is really what tips the balance. If you were to center drew around a community/geographic area the way they did with Randolph they'd have a better shot. But as it stands, these kids don't live near each other! They won't know each other from the playground on the weekends, or from their parents being friends, none of that. The boundary looks like shitty gerrymandering and there isn't any reason for it. Especially with the 2020 boundary discussions that put some of these areas back in the mix.

Which is the *opposite* of what everyone has said matters to them. Doesn't matter to Drew, I guess? I live in the neighborhood and it is this aspect of it that is the most frustrating. We do not want or expect miracles. Just draw us a reasonable boundary around the closest planning units and we will make a go of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

Not everyone at Randolph doesn't care, and the latest presentation (in the slide on Randolph) reflects the fact that many people did voice concern with the overwhelming FRL numbers there. Additionally, given the number of people in the boundary who choice out, there are likely more (future) families who would attend the school if it were given a more rational FRL ratio.

But I agree, including the numbers of kids the zone who attend option schools is ridiculous - those kids are never going to attend the residential schools since they are already in option schools, so including them is nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

OK, I can buy that the boundaries matter. I think cohesive boundaries make sense, and clearly attempt A at Drew did not do that. But there are lots of ways to fix that. Or should be.

Future over-enrollment at Fleet is a big issue. That's a school that will have 0 space for a trailer. The kids barely get a playground. They can't screw it up, because there is no where for either Fleet or TJ to grow since they are packed in.

That's actually an argument to keep CH at Fleet, because they should be able to predict actual enrollment better since those kids all go to that school now, and opt-in rates should be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

Not everyone at Randolph feels this way. There are a number of non-FRL families who like the school but want to see more buy-in from the SFH parts of the neighborhood. That isn't going to happen with the FRL rate that the staff claims is unavoidable due to walk zones (as if walking were the only unalterable priority). I don't know what the solution is, but maybe it just has to be what someone suggested farther up or on one of the other threads: move some of the SFH planning units to Drew to boost their numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

Not everyone at Randolph feels this way. There are a number of non-FRL families who like the school but want to see more buy-in from the SFH parts of the neighborhood. That isn't going to happen with the FRL rate that the staff claims is unavoidable due to walk zones (as if walking were the only unalterable priority). I don't know what the solution is, but maybe it just has to be what someone suggested farther up or on one of the other threads: move some of the SFH planning units to Drew to boost their numbers.

Yeah, I don't know either. I keep taking APS at its word to try to maximize walkers, but that means there may never be a solution for Randolph in particular. The whole thing is depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

Not everyone at Randolph feels this way. There are a number of non-FRL families who like the school but want to see more buy-in from the SFH parts of the neighborhood. That isn't going to happen with the FRL rate that the staff claims is unavoidable due to walk zones (as if walking were the only unalterable priority). I don't know what the solution is, but maybe it just has to be what someone suggested farther up or on one of the other threads: move some of the SFH planning units to Drew to boost their numbers.

Yeah, I don't know either. I keep taking APS at its word to try to maximize walkers, but that means there may never be a solution for Randolph in particular. The whole thing is depressing.

In order to center everything around a school Randolph boundaries would have to shift too. The big problem is the one section of S Arlington that has no school "near it" because Claremont is choice. That's currently what is getting divided up in a haphazard manner and getting sent to Drew/Abingdon.

[Anonymous]

Shift Randolph’s boundary to include Barcroft apts ( al of them) Quebec apts, Oakland apts, and the new Gilliam place. Shift all of the Sfh’s to the new Drew.
Most of those kids are or will be on a bus to a choice school anyway. Put them all on the bus to Drew.
It concentrates most of the poverty into one school, but that is fine because they’ve made it clear to Talento that’s what they want. So it’s fine.
Put all of Douglas Park ( single family homes) and the PU’s south of the Pike currently at Henry, into Drew.

[Anonymous]

I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.