Drew Model Elementary: proposed boundaries (s/o from APS/SA thread specific to Drew)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I don't think that works. I only see 1 Eastern Barcroft planning unit that is not in the walkzone (37050) It has about 50 kids- 18 of which are FARMS.
So under that theory Barcroft could pick up about 1/3 of Columbia Heights. In terms of putting Columbia Heights at Randolph- randolph currently only has 2 non walkking PU's. 38050 and 38100. Its a total of about 33 kids- of which 31 are FARMS? (I think there is a DATA problem with 38050 b/c it reflects a higher number of FARMS students than total students). Either way if you figure out a way to move out those two units from Randoph- which would probably mean sending them to Drew, you still don't have any seats for Columbia Heights even split between Randolph and Barcroft.
Drew is getting Columbia Heights b/c of the walkzone issue. You are going to have to move at least one PU that is in a walkzone in order to send Columbia Heights anywhere other than Drew.

Are you guys confusing Columbia Heights and Columbia Forest? Unless I’m reading the proposed map incorrectly, Columbia Heights is staying Henry/Fleet and not going to Drew.

The "Columbia" with homes in the $800-900k range gets its way, and goes to Fleet. The "other Columbia" with much lower-income students gets bused two miles away - even though there are THREE other elementary schools closer to their homes. And they say there's no gerrymandering... What APS is doing here is just shameful

[Anonymous]

Please, write to the Staff and School Board with these thoughts. I understand that there are many constraints here, but the Drew map is visually absurd and even more so when you dig into details using such factors as alignment (some Drew now going to Kenmore as a 3rd MS) and proximity (the above point about busing past multiple other schools).

[Anonymous]

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I don't think that works. I only see 1 Eastern Barcroft planning unit that is not in the walkzone (37050) It has about 50 kids- 18 of which are FARMS.
So under that theory Barcroft could pick up about 1/3 of Columbia Heights. In terms of putting Columbia Heights at Randolph- randolph currently only has 2 non walkking PU's. 38050 and 38100. Its a total of about 33 kids- of which 31 are FARMS? (I think there is a DATA problem with 38050 b/c it reflects a higher number of FARMS students than total students). Either way if you figure out a way to move out those two units from Randoph- which would probably mean sending them to Drew, you still don't have any seats for Columbia Heights even split between Randolph and Barcroft.
Drew is getting Columbia Heights b/c of the walkzone issue. You are going to have to move at least one PU that is in a walkzone in order to send Columbia Heights anywhere other than Drew.

Are you guys confusing Columbia Heights and Columbia Forest? Unless I’m reading the proposed map incorrectly, Columbia Heights is staying Henry/Fleet and not going to Drew.

The "Columbia" with homes in the $800-900k range gets its way, and goes to Fleet. The "other Columbia" with much lower-income students gets bused two miles away - even though there are THREE other elementary schools closer to their homes. And they say there's no gerrymandering... What APS is doing here is just shameful

.

What 3 schools?

[Anonymous]

It is amusing to see all ways people are trying to get out of going to Drew. If you don't want to go to school with the poors you shouldn't have moved next to the poors. Time for a public service announcement.

The poors have “poor” habits that make them detrimental to the schools - indolence, criminality, violence, lack of intellectual curiosity. Even the poors themselves do not want to live near the poors. This has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is amusing to see all ways people are trying to get out of going to Drew. If you don't want to go to school with the poors you shouldn't have moved next to the poors. Time for a public service announcement.

The poors have “poor” habits that make them detrimental to the schools - indolence, criminality, violence, lack of intellectual curiosity. Even the poors themselves do not want to live near the poors. This has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end for obvious reasons.

I am the OP. I live in Nauck and I am not leaving. I'm not afraid of the poors. What this thread is about are the various ways in which APS's proposal is unfair to Drew using APS's own criteria. I'm trying to play the game by APS's rules. I don't want to impose busing on people who deliberately chose to live away from the poors or near the hiking trails or whatever. I understand that traffic has a meaningful effect on people's daily lives. I know that everyone, poor or not, wants a close-by neighborhood school that they can walk to. Taking all that into account, this proposal is unfair to Drew and there are specific things that could be done to mitigate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is amusing to see all ways people are trying to get out of going to Drew. If you don't want to go to school with the poors you shouldn't have moved next to the poors. Time for a public service announcement.

The poors have “poor” habits that make them detrimental to the schools - indolence, criminality, violence, lack of intellectual curiosity. Even the poors themselves do not want to live near the poors. This has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end for obvious reasons.

Yeah, they should move to wealthy neighborhoods and send their kids to Prep schools. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

We can't breakup Henry/Fleet. Did you see them at the SB meetings? The south-of-pike families will go Nuts and I suspect they are much louder than Columbia Forest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

I appreciate if you'd provide feedback in the survey along those lines. I'm saying things about that area that I think are true but only know my area. It's helpful to have others weigh in from different areas also affected by this process.

Also note, someone corrected me in this thread. Barcroft's fr/l rate wouldn't be in the 40s under any scenario. Under APS's projections, Barcroft could get into the high 50s, vs. the low 60s under the current trends. With my rough math based on the above, Barcroft would be more like the high 60s. Also, there are #s issues with regard to crowding. It is a difficult situation, no doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amusing to see all ways people are trying to get out of going to Drew. If you don't want to go to school with the poors you shouldn't have moved next to the poors. Time for a public service announcement.

The poors have “poor” habits that make them detrimental to the schools - indolence, criminality, violence, lack of intellectual curiosity. Even the poors themselves do not want to live near the poors. This has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end for obvious reasons.

I am the OP. I live in Nauck and I am not leaving. I'm not afraid of the poors. What this thread is about are the various ways in which APS's proposal is unfair to Drew using APS's own criteria. I'm trying to play the game by APS's rules. I don't want to impose busing on people who deliberately chose to live away from the poors or near the hiking trails or whatever. I understand that traffic has a meaningful effect on people's daily lives. I know that everyone, poor or not, wants a close-by neighborhood school that they can walk to. Taking all that into account, this proposal is unfair to Drew and there are specific things that could be done to mitigate it.

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

Each of you please send your comments and ideas to staff AND school board -- Staff will "compile" all the comments which will dilute the individual ones. SB needs to see every comment from every person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

We can't breakup Henry/Fleet. Did you see them at the SB meetings? The south-of-pike families will go Nuts and I suspect they are much louder than Columbia Forest.

Yes, we CAN. It isn't like we're decimating the school. A few PUs leave and a few others come in. It's not like what they've proposed for those Columbia Forest PUs -- taking them away from their current school and sending them to one only to go off to a different middle school. Moving those Henry units is not isolating them and it sure as heck isn't "breaking up the Henry community."

[Anonymous]

If you do that you are doing the same thing to those PUs they are Jefferson for middle school, not Gunston.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

I appreciate if you'd provide feedback in the survey along those lines. I'm saying things about that area that I think are true but only know my area. It's helpful to have others weigh in from different areas also affected by this process.

Also note, someone corrected me in this thread. Barcroft's fr/l rate wouldn't be in the 40s under any scenario. Under APS's projections, Barcroft could get into the high 50s, vs. the low 60s under the current trends. With my rough math based on the above, Barcroft would be more like the high 60s. Also, there are #s issues with regard to crowding. It is a difficult situation, no doubt.

That's why we can't keep addressing things with piece-meal solutions. Relocating option programs needs to be done in conjunction with these boundary changes. If you locate an immersion program at Carlin Springs, with the new Campbell and immersion admissions policy eliminating neighborhood guarantees, the wealthier families in Glencarlyn and Barcroft and Alcova have less options and boundaries have to shift due to the loss of Carlin Springs as a neighborhood school. Unfortunately, Reed not opening until 2021 limits the ability to do comprehensive boundaries; but boundaries could shift northward in a comprehensive process. And yes, people will have to go to a school that isn't the closest to their house. People already do that (us).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map. I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish. Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else. They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone. They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone. the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference. You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew. 36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS. 36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS. It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?) That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me.

I appreciate if you'd provide feedback in the survey along those lines. I'm saying things about that area that I think are true but only know my area. It's helpful to have others weigh in from different areas also affected by this process.

Also note, someone corrected me in this thread. Barcroft's fr/l rate wouldn't be in the 40s under any scenario. Under APS's projections, Barcroft could get into the high 50s, vs. the low 60s under the current trends. With my rough math based on the above, Barcroft would be more like the high 60s. Also, there are #s issues with regard to crowding. It is a difficult situation, no doubt.

I suspect they are eliminating the year-round calendar and anticipating more MC families staying at Barcroft, so they need to take efficiency into consideration, which is why they moved out some PUs. If they assign too many kids to the school, and they don't choice out in the same numbers, that will be a real problem. There are a lot of kids living in those PUs. If they enroll at the neighborhood school, there isn't room for the Columbia Forest PUs.