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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

In addition to moving the two Henry PUs? What does "dramatic difference" look like? 70%? 65% What's our goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

In addition to moving the two Henry PUs? What does "dramatic difference" look like? 70%? 65% What's our goal?

The goal should be not to leave any one school too overcrowded or too high poverty, if reasonable/possible to do so, without creating crazy boundaries with long bus routes and without putting walkers onto buses. This is map doesn't satisfy any of those goals. I think of you can get the fr/l rate down closer to 70% within the Drew boundary, it has legs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

In addition to moving the two Henry PUs? What does "dramatic difference" look like? 70%? 65% What's our goal?

The goal should be not to leave any one school too overcrowded or too high poverty, if reasonable/possible to do so, without creating crazy boundaries with long bus routes and without putting walkers onto buses. This is map doesn't satisfy any of those goals. I think of you can get the fr/l rate down closer to 70% within the Drew boundary, it has legs.

I don't have an answer yet; but 70% is just not good enough. That does nothing to encourage the new families being directed to Drew, especially when all of them will be coming from schools that are currently significantly lower than 70%. That's everyone's fears come true. SOMEthing is gonna have to give here regarding the "pretty looking maps."

Despite the Columbia Forest island that would be created, can someone with the mindset for this sort of thing help me see what the numbers would look like if Claremont was redistricted to Drew, along with the two Henry PUs that are central to many comments? and would there still be room for some of those Fairlington kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, it wasn't a Safeway, it was a Presbyterian Church. Have you ever been on Columbia Pike? But yes, will will have lots and lots of kids. And no, if the kids move out, then the family will need less space and move to a smaller unit (and pay less). So these units will still have turnover. That's not changing. These are family units intended for people with kids.

Since when? It was a Safeway when I was a child in the 80s. It was remade into a school for troubled kids in the 90s. Was it a church in the 70s?

PP was confused, which is understandable considering HOW MANY new CAFs are being built while not a single solitary unit of market rate AH is being torn down along Columbia Pike. Arlington Mill was a Safeway. Not housing. Gilliam Place was a church, not housing. Columbia Hills was a parking lot, and it will now be housing.

Anyway, back to the point, how can APS do the best job with what they have inherited, which is concentrated poverty and residential segregation. I think they have to try to do a slightly better job with the Drew/Fleet/Barcroft/Abingdon boundary. I could see pulling from across 4MR if it was doing something for diversity, because it doesn't really make sense in any other context. But it doesn't seem to really be doing that, either. The PUs from Abingdon are further away and won't do anything on the diversity end. I think they have gotten it right for Oakridge and Hoffman-Boston, or as right as they could given the constraints. I think the middle Pike area needs some work. Alcova to Fleet, taking Gilliam, Henry PUs S of the Pike to Drew, and Abingdon PUs that were slated for Drew up to Barcroft. I don't believe their fr/l numbers take Gilliam into account, since those kids aren't living there yet. There is no way that the school will be at 40/50% fr/l with three large CAFs zoned to it. They only project seats, not future fr/l rates. They aren't doing Barcroft any favors with the current map, either.

Yes! You get it. APS is underestimating a FRL percentages with these charts by projecting 2019 enrollment increases for CAFs without adding those students as recipients of FRL. The Actual FRL numbers for schools with new CAFs in their boundaries—like Barcroft—are gonna go through the roof! Can’t tell if they are being deliberately obtuse or are just inept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, it wasn't a Safeway, it was a Presbyterian Church. Have you ever been on Columbia Pike? But yes, will will have lots and lots of kids. And no, if the kids move out, then the family will need less space and move to a smaller unit (and pay less). So these units will still have turnover. That's not changing. These are family units intended for people with kids.

Since when? It was a Safeway when I was a child in the 80s. It was remade into a school for troubled kids in the 90s. Was it a church in the 70s?

PP was confused, which is understandable considering HOW MANY new CAFs are being built while not a single solitary unit of market rate AH is being torn down along Columbia Pike. Arlington Mill was a Safeway. Not housing. Gilliam Place was a church, not housing. Columbia Hills was a parking lot, and it will now be housing.

Anyway, back to the point, how can APS do the best job with what they have inherited, which is concentrated poverty and residential segregation. I think they have to try to do a slightly better job with the Drew/Fleet/Barcroft/Abingdon boundary. I could see pulling from across 4MR if it was doing something for diversity, because it doesn't really make sense in any other context. But it doesn't seem to really be doing that, either. The PUs from Abingdon are further away and won't do anything on the diversity end. I think they have gotten it right for Oakridge and Hoffman-Boston, or as right as they could given the constraints. I think the middle Pike area needs some work. Alcova to Fleet, taking Gilliam, Henry PUs S of the Pike to Drew, and Abingdon PUs that were slated for Drew up to Barcroft. I don't believe their fr/l numbers take Gilliam into account, since those kids aren't living there yet. There is no way that the school will be at 40/50% fr/l with three large CAFs zoned to it. They only project seats, not future fr/l rates. They aren't doing Barcroft any favors with the current map, either.

Yes! You get it. APS is underestimating a FRL percentages with these charts by projecting 2019 enrollment increases for CAFs without adding those students as recipients of FRL. The Actual FRL numbers for schools with new CAFs in their boundaries—like Barcroft—are gonna go through the roof! Can’t tell if they are being deliberately obtuse or are just inept.

Deliberate. The school board is mostly county board hopefuls. To make upcoming CAFs an issue for debate would really piss off the sitting board members, for whom most, AH is an article of faith as well as business as usual. It really is fully integrated into the county's business, not only as a political priority but also, just so many people are employed in some way indirectly or directly by AH. It's also how the board barters with other developers as well, for things like density exceptions. It's an everybody wins situation unless you are a member of Arlington's "missing middle", then you get what we have today, which is a highly segregated, and getting worse school system that the CB will not acknowledge is a problem or has anything to do with their AH policies. Before I steer this thread off topic, read Alan Ehrenhalts piece in Governing magazine about the matter. Nicely sums it up in a calm, nonpartisan way.

http://www.governing.com/columns/assessments/gov-affordable-housing.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

That may seem to make sense from maps but not in practice—many of the kids you reference above walk to school despite it not being a walk zone (it is only not a walk zone because of the 395 overpass, but perfectly safe to walk). Splitting Fairlington is not a good option in terms of proximity and the neighborhood’s relationship to Abingdon, particularly with their participation in the new addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had a way of overlaying the demographics and the proximity maps on top of each other. I think they intentionally find the stupidest map they can create for demographics just to make people see how ridiculous boundaries would be if we consider diversity.

Someone who has a better visualization ability than I do: what would things look like if we concocted a mash-up of proximity and diversity?

You don't need a mapping program or spatial analysis to do this. Low income students are highly, highly concentrated in specific planning units. Basically, the Pike west of Glebe needs to be cracked across as many schools as possible so that SFH have a prayer of kinda balancing out AH at each school. Unfortunately it's a matter of busing apartment dwellers out because, I'm pretty sure, they vastly outnumber kids in SFH. It's a little different t than busing in the 70s and 80, because Nauck is largely a neighborhood of SFH and duplexes, then and now. We could have bused white kids in but that was a political no go, then as now too. Can't really bus kids into Randolph and Barcroft and Drew and carlin that aren't already zoned there, there just aren't enough.

There are more than 100 UMC kids in the Fairlington unit across 395. It is already a bused unit- so not a walk zone issue. Move it to drew making room for Columbia Forest at Abingdon. It would make a dramatic difference.

+1

In addition to moving the two Henry PUs? What does "dramatic difference" look like? 70%? 65% What's our goal?

The goal should be not to leave any one school too overcrowded or too high poverty, if reasonable/possible to do so, without creating crazy boundaries with long bus routes and without putting walkers onto buses. This is map doesn't satisfy any of those goals. I think of you can get the fr/l rate down closer to 70% within the Drew boundary, it has legs.

I don't have an answer yet; but 70% is just not good enough. That does nothing to encourage the new families being directed to Drew, especially when all of them will be coming from schools that are currently significantly lower than 70%. That's everyone's fears come true. SOMEthing is gonna have to give here regarding the "pretty looking maps."

Despite the Columbia Forest island that would be created, can someone with the mindset for this sort of thing help me see what the numbers would look like if Claremont was redistricted to Drew, along with the two Henry PUs that are central to many comments? and would there still be room for some of those Fairlington kids?

So, I haven't done the numbers with all of Claremont zoned Drew along with the Henry PUs, but zoning all of Columbia Heights plus one additional Claremont PU put Drew down to around 56% fr/l and still under capacity. The problem actually isn't getting Drew's fr/l numbers down. That can be done pretty easily by just moving Columbia Heights. The problem is how to chop up Columbia Forest without Drew but also without continuing to overcrowd Abingdon and Barcroft and/or crushing Randolph's fr/l numbers even more (not to mention, alignment problems b/c Randolph is currently all Jefferson).

[Anonymous]

Just so we have some understanding here, Randolph has been at around 70% for years.
There has been no meaningful change to that school’s demographics in that time.
So if you think you are accomplishing anything by starting Drew at around 70%, the only thing you are accomplishing is guaranteeing it remains an underperforming school for the next couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so we have some understanding here, Randolph has been at around 70% for years.
There has been no meaningful change to that school’s demographics in that time.
So if you think you are accomplishing anything by starting Drew at around 70%, the only thing you are accomplishing is guaranteeing it remains an underperforming school for the next couple of decades.

Randolph is 92% fr/l in its boundary, but the actual school fr/l rate is in the 70s. If Drew were 70% fr/l in the boundary, what would its actual rate be? Can we guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we have some understanding here, Randolph has been at around 70% for years.
There has been no meaningful change to that school’s demographics in that time.
So if you think you are accomplishing anything by starting Drew at around 70%, the only thing you are accomplishing is guaranteeing it remains an underperforming school for the next couple of decades.

Randolph is 92% fr/l in its boundary, but the actual school fr/l rate is in the 70s. If Drew were 70% fr/l in the boundary, what would its actual rate be? Can we guess?

Unclear, because APS doesn't report statistics, like farms, by sending school in their transfer reports.

Randolph is a bit unique because it's a major source of native speakers at claremont; if half the school is native speakers, transfers to claremont are almost a quarter of that. We can only assume that Randolph's actual rate is lower because it sent 160 students to option schools in 2016-17. About half to claremont, 25 to montessori, the other 60 or so were scattered to various schools. People generally assume that it's UMC optioning out of high poverty neighborhood schools, but the fact that randolphs resident zone is 92% farms and it's actual rate is 20 pts lower is an indication that it's probably disproportionally poor kids who are opting out. Obviously, the native speaker/claremont connection is a big factor for that school.

Drew's zone sent far fewer kids to option schools (100 vs 160) and about 50 to claremont. But, it's not clear those are native speakers, poor kids or both. Nauck has a Latino population but it could be just as easily UMC anglos, whose departure would make Drew's 83% resident rate rise, not fall.

[Anonymous]

Here's a suggestion: make Claremont a neighborhood school and move immersion into Drew. Makes the most sense. It's environmentally and economically responsible plus it doesn't increase traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we have some understanding here, Randolph has been at around 70% for years.
There has been no meaningful change to that school’s demographics in that time.
So if you think you are accomplishing anything by starting Drew at around 70%, the only thing you are accomplishing is guaranteeing it remains an underperforming school for the next couple of decades.

Randolph is 92% fr/l in its boundary, but the actual school fr/l rate is in the 70s. If Drew were 70% fr/l in the boundary, what would its actual rate be? Can we guess?

Unclear, because APS doesn't report statistics, like farms, by sending school in their transfer reports.

Randolph is a bit unique because it's a major source of native speakers at claremont; if half the school is native speakers, transfers to claremont are almost a quarter of that. We can only assume that Randolph's actual rate is lower because it sent 160 students to option schools in 2016-17. About half to claremont, 25 to montessori, the other 60 or so were scattered to various schools. People generally assume that it's UMC optioning out of high poverty neighborhood schools, but the fact that randolphs resident zone is 92% farms and it's actual rate is 20 pts lower is an indication that it's probably disproportionally poor kids who are opting out. Obviously, the native speaker/claremont connection is a big factor for that school.

Drew's zone sent far fewer kids to option schools (100 vs 160) and about 50 to claremont. But, it's not clear those are native speakers, poor kids or both. Nauck has a Latino population but it could be just as easily UMC anglos, whose departure would make Drew's 83% resident rate rise, not fall.

This is making a strong argument for putting all immersion programs in south Arlington, and potentially creating a third. Everyone was losing their mind on prior threads re: making Barcroft or Carlin Springs immersion. Maybe they both need to be immersion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a suggestion: make Claremont a neighborhood school and move immersion into Drew. Makes the most sense. It's environmentally and economically responsible plus it doesn't increase traffic.

There's a lot of history regarding Drew's status a neighborhood vs choice school. It's been a choice school -- Montessori -- since 1971, when the county began busing all the AA kids out of Nauck. The Civic Assn is all old timers now but it's long been their mission to make a Drew a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a suggestion: make Claremont a neighborhood school and move immersion into Drew. Makes the most sense. It's environmentally and economically responsible plus it doesn't increase traffic.

There's a lot of history regarding Drew's status a neighborhood vs choice school. It's been a choice school -- Montessori -- since 1971, when the county began busing all the AA kids out of Nauck. The Civic Assn is all old timers now but it's long been their mission to make a Drew a neighborhood school.

They don't even represent the demographic of the current neighborhood. Not saying it should be one or the other, but I don't think the CA officers who don't even have kids in the schools should be calling the shots.