8/27 APS Work Session—Elementary Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through the last few pages I agree that the Swap was a distraction while the SA boundary process was going on but it was a distraction for APS. They didn't just show up to a couple PTA meetings at ASFS and Key while on break from their concentrated efforts into fixing the SA boundaries. At least one staff member spent a lot of time last summer preparing those August memos for the SB and the public when the Swap was announced versus working on SA boundaries. And even though the SB/APS didn't have any official public engagement over the Swap during the SA boundary process, they absolutely spent time engaging with and responding to the Key folks (who brought in reporters and threaten to sue, etc.). So the Swap was distracting because APS and the SB dragged themselves into a fight with Key right before starting SA boundary process, which we all know was a complete disaster. No one should think that announcing the Swap before the SA boundary process was some sort of brilliant move on the SB/APS' part.

And now where are we? Key dug its heels in that it did not want to move to ASFS, so it's safe to assume it will not want to move to another location. Maybe if the SB/APS had approached Key offline and gotten their input upfront about location, etc., things could have progressed more smoothly. But here we are with immersion not wanting to leave Key and an area that desperately needs more neighborhood seats. If immersion doesn't move, APS will likely split the Key/ASFS zone between 4 schools--- which will be a disaster (although somewhat of just deserts for those who live in the area and lobbied for the Swap--I know folks will say no one supported the Swap but there were many at ASFS who absolutely wanted their preferred location (Key) and their beloved "science" school (ASFS)). It will be interesting to see how the BS/APS now tries to fix ALL the boundaries, move option schools AND deal with high school boundaries at the same time.

Completely agree.

For high school, I like how BK at the work session said "what if we don't tweak boundaries and just let more transfers into W-L?" Regardless of whether that is a good idea or not, I think the SB and the staff will be trying to find more "creative" solutions in order to avoid boundary changes as much as they can.

How’s that going to work? It won’t, unless they set aside transfers just from Wakefield, where the crowding will hit hard.

I think they may just try something like that. They are looking for any way to avoid the pain of boundary changes, despite all the times in the work session they patted themselves on the back saying "we're getting good at this."

They are going to have to move immersion from Key or take a carving knife to the boundaries in Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Lyon Village. Neither scenario is going to be pretty.

Which is probably why they're looking for an easy out for high school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

If they don't move immersion- they should really jettison continguity as a requirement. Otherwise- they are going to have to do something like- Long Branch boundary picking up a few Rosslyn units, and dumping anything North of Pershing.
Ashlawn tail flipping so its the Wilson to Pershing-and staying solely South of Wilson- hopefully getting a lot of Rosslyn.
McKinley jettisons all units North of 66- and takes the Ashlawn tail- possibly dips into Key.
Reed picks up a lot of the Mckinley boundary- the only Tuckahoe unit it takes is the one it is actually located in
Tuckahoe and Nottingham remain largely intact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish APS would release a dataset so that interested parents could tinker with drawing boundaries. There are a lot of smart people in Arlington. It would be interesting to see actual data-based solutions from community members that create boundaries and show the demographics at schools. This is all interesting speculation, but without the data, none of us can really figure out what might work. I am confident better solutions exist, and I also think APS is undermanned right now to find them. Let the community work on this.

FYI, they released data (a lot incorrect) in the South Arlington boundary process. A lot of smart people analyzed the data (and corrected the incorrect data) and presented the best options based on their stated criteria/data. They basically said “well, we look at the data and criteria but ultimately, we do what we want.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they don't move immersion- they should really jettison continguity as a requirement. Otherwise- they are going to have to do something like- Long Branch boundary picking up a few Rosslyn units, and dumping anything North of Pershing.
Ashlawn tail flipping so its the Wilson to Pershing-and staying solely South of Wilson- hopefully getting a lot of Rosslyn.
McKinley jettisons all units North of 66- and takes the Ashlawn tail- possibly dips into Key.
Reed picks up a lot of the Mckinley boundary- the only Tuckahoe unit it takes is the one it is actually located in
Tuckahoe and Nottingham remain largely intact.

No. contiguity is one of the considerations because everyone on the Rosslyn island hated going past closer schools to get to the "neighborhood" middle and high schools at Williamsburg and Yorktown. Making a new elementary level Rosslyn island when kids need aftercare is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't move immersion- they should really jettison continguity as a requirement. Otherwise- they are going to have to do something like- Long Branch boundary picking up a few Rosslyn units, and dumping anything North of Pershing.
Ashlawn tail flipping so its the Wilson to Pershing-and staying solely South of Wilson- hopefully getting a lot of Rosslyn.
McKinley jettisons all units North of 66- and takes the Ashlawn tail- possibly dips into Key.
Reed picks up a lot of the Mckinley boundary- the only Tuckahoe unit it takes is the one it is actually located in
Tuckahoe and Nottingham remain largely intact.

No. contiguity is one of the considerations because everyone on the Rosslyn island hated going past closer schools to get to the "neighborhood" middle and high schools at Williamsburg and Yorktown. Making a new elementary level Rosslyn island when kids need aftercare is unacceptable.

My point is that if you live in say- 24071, getting to Ashlawn is not going to seem any closer just b/c 460131 and 46030 are being shipped up there too. We are going to be looking at boundaries that are 'planning until wide' and long if we don't move immersion. So that makes continguity an overrated factor- just making the map look pretty?

[Anonymous]

Any guesses what will happen with Glebe and Taylor boundaries? Have a kid currently at Taylor, looking at buying a house in Glebe or Taylor in the spring. Hate to change schools after house purchase and then potentially again when boundaries are redrawn, but our timing is what it is.

Am guessing that south of 29 currently zoned for Taylor will move to ASFS. Do you think Glebe boundaries will remain relatively stable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And now where are we? Key dug its heels in that it did not want to move to ASFS, so it's safe to assume it will not want to move to another location. Maybe if the SB/APS had approached Key offline and gotten their input upfront about location, etc., things could have progressed more smoothly. But here we are with immersion not wanting to leave Key and an area that desperately needs more neighborhood seats. .

I think this is a bit of revisionist history. APS tried to engage the Key community during the location review process a few years ago. They asked what the concerns were, published data regarding where spanish speakers were clustered- etc. But Key dug in its heels at that point, wouldn't engage, took a 'h@@ no we won't go' approach, and tried to argue that they should be exempt from the location review process- despite the fact that everyone else was on the list.
It was in response to the location review behavior that caused Murphy to come out with a 'this is my decision, your moving' approach.
It became very clear to me based on how Key parents were acting- that alot of them had in fact picked Key based on location- not immersion- but liked what they had, and were not going to listen to any other options. They choose to go down the conspiracy- someone is trying to steal our school- approach rather than a rational discussion of what is best for the future of immersion education in APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they don't move immersion- they should really jettison continguity as a requirement. Otherwise- they are going to have to do something like- Long Branch boundary picking up a few Rosslyn units, and dumping anything North of Pershing.
Ashlawn tail flipping so its the Wilson to Pershing-and staying solely South of Wilson- hopefully getting a lot of Rosslyn.
McKinley jettisons all units North of 66- and takes the Ashlawn tail- possibly dips into Key.
Reed picks up a lot of the Mckinley boundary- the only Tuckahoe unit it takes is the one it is actually located in
Tuckahoe and Nottingham remain largely intact.

No. contiguity is one of the considerations because everyone on the Rosslyn island hated going past closer schools to get to the "neighborhood" middle and high schools at Williamsburg and Yorktown. Making a new elementary level Rosslyn island when kids need aftercare is unacceptable.

My point is that if you live in say- 24071, getting to Ashlawn is not going to seem any closer just b/c 460131 and 46030 are being shipped up there too. We are going to be looking at boundaries that are 'planning until wide' and long if we don't move immersion. So that makes continguity an overrated factor- just making the map look pretty?

As a person who lives near 24071, I would say it makes a huge difference to me whether my kid's school is 1 mile away (Key), 2 miles away (ASFS or Long Branch) or 3 or more miles away (Taylor, Ashlawn?!, etc). If they can't work up the cajones to move immersion then everyone should have to shift slightly further, not just shipping a few unlucky units 3-5 miles away as an island.

[Anonymous]

The writing is on the wall that immersion will move south. PM for some reason rubber stamped the swap, but there was general agreement at last week’s work session that the swap is officially off, and CJ took a strong position that the program needs to be moved to a location convenient to many more Spanish speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses what will happen with Glebe and Taylor boundaries? Have a kid currently at Taylor, looking at buying a house in Glebe or Taylor in the spring. Hate to change schools after house purchase and then potentially again when boundaries are redrawn, but our timing is what it is.

Am guessing that south of 29 currently zoned for Taylor will move to ASFS. Do you think Glebe boundaries will remain relatively stable?[/quotS

The only way to really guarentee attendance at a school is to move to the planning unit containing said school.
That being said- I would be really surprised if all south of 29 went to ASFS. If you assume immersion moves, there is a better chance of this happening but even so- Taylor doesn't need boundary relief- and they need to draw kids from Rosslyn.
If you assume immersion does not move- all boundaries will look radically different- I would say that ASFS will really only get it's planning unit- and will otherwise dip into the Key zone.
Glebe will probably split in 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses what will happen with Glebe and Taylor boundaries? Have a kid currently at Taylor, looking at buying a house in Glebe or Taylor in the spring. Hate to change schools after house purchase and then potentially again when boundaries are redrawn, but our timing is what it is.

Am guessing that south of 29 currently zoned for Taylor will move to ASFS. Do you think Glebe boundaries will remain relatively stable?[/quotS

The only way to really guarentee attendance at a school is to move to the planning unit containing said school.
That being said- I would be really surprised if all south of 29 went to ASFS. If you assume immersion moves, there is a better chance of this happening but even so- Taylor doesn't need boundary relief- and they need to draw kids from Rosslyn.
If you assume immersion does not move- all boundaries will look radically different- I would say that ASFS will really only get it's planning unit- and will otherwise dip into the Key zone.
Glebe will probably split in 3.

Thanks. How do you think Glebe will be split up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses what will happen with Glebe and Taylor boundaries? Have a kid currently at Taylor, looking at buying a house in Glebe or Taylor in the spring. Hate to change schools after house purchase and then potentially again when boundaries are redrawn, but our timing is what it is.

Am guessing that south of 29 currently zoned for Taylor will move to ASFS. Do you think Glebe boundaries will remain relatively stable?[/quotS

The only way to really guarentee attendance at a school is to move to the planning unit containing said school.
That being said- I would be really surprised if all south of 29 went to ASFS. If you assume immersion moves, there is a better chance of this happening but even so- Taylor doesn't need boundary relief- and they need to draw kids from Rosslyn.
If you assume immersion does not move- all boundaries will look radically different- I would say that ASFS will really only get it's planning unit- and will otherwise dip into the Key zone.
Glebe will probably split in 3.

Thanks. How do you think Glebe will be split up?

If we just moved to a select choice system, none of this would matter. Everyone could just live where they live, buy where they want and can afford, and attend schools among their top one to three preferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses what will happen with Glebe and Taylor boundaries? Have a kid currently at Taylor, looking at buying a house in Glebe or Taylor in the spring. Hate to change schools after house purchase and then potentially again when boundaries are redrawn, but our timing is what it is.

Am guessing that south of 29 currently zoned for Taylor will move to ASFS. Do you think Glebe boundaries will remain relatively stable?[/quotS

The only way to really guarentee attendance at a school is to move to the planning unit containing said school.
That being said- I would be really surprised if all south of 29 went to ASFS. If you assume immersion moves, there is a better chance of this happening but even so- Taylor doesn't need boundary relief- and they need to draw kids from Rosslyn.
If you assume immersion does not move- all boundaries will look radically different- I would say that ASFS will really only get it's planning unit- and will otherwise dip into the Key zone.
Glebe will probably split in 3.

Thanks. How do you think Glebe will be split up?

If we just moved to a select choice system, none of this would matter. Everyone could just live where they live, buy where they want and can afford, and attend schools among their top one to three preferred.

WTF? Busing would crush the budget. All of SA would try to go to NA... well st least the MC SA parents.

[Anonymous]

I think the the dearth of Spanish-speaker kindergarten apps to Key the last couple of years really undermined the argument that its current location is optimal. Even putting aside the neighborhood need for its current building, something needs to be done to increase interest from that community if APS insists on sticking to its current model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the the dearth of Spanish-speaker kindergarten apps to Key the last couple of years really undermined the argument that its current location is optimal. Even putting aside the neighborhood need for its current building, something needs to be done to increase interest from that community if APS insists on sticking to its current model.

+1 Given the wait list from English-speaking families will they at some point reassess the dual immersion approach? There are plenty of other immersion programs that don't require a balance of English speakers and speakers of the target language (e.g. French immersion and Chinese immersion elementary schools)