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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

If those farms rates aren’t under 50 don’t bother.
Seriously.
Look, at first I was like you. I thought lowering rates to 60 would be enough. It’s not.
We have schools that have hovered around or slightly over 60 for DECADES.
Push WALKALBE apartments to Randolph.
Get Barcorft and Drew to 47% or lower. We were given an invitation by Talento at the meeting. Give the middle class more neighborhood schools. We can’t all go to Henry. Don’t pull middle class out of Abingdon. That school is poised to have some meaningful middle class support.

I feel like you and I had this same discussion back on page 7 or so of this thread. I get what you're saying. But as between the current proposal and the above alternative, which does not achieve sub 50 but does achieve 60s, I will take the 60s. I do not see other viable options on the table and I am not going to advocate to further tank Randolph's FR/L rate, regardless of whether the speculation is that they want that outcome.

[Anonymous]

interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

If those farms rates aren’t under 50 don’t bother.
Seriously.
Look, at first I was like you. I thought lowering rates to 60 would be enough. It’s not.
We have schools that have hovered around or slightly over 60 for DECADES.
Push WALKALBE apartments to Randolph.
Get Barcorft and Drew to 47% or lower. We were given an invitation by Talento at the meeting. Give the middle class more neighborhood schools. We can’t all go to Henry. Don’t pull middle class out of Abingdon. That school is poised to have some meaningful middle class support.

I feel like you and I had this same discussion back on page 7 or so of this thread. I get what you're saying. But as between the current proposal and the above alternative, which does not achieve sub 50 but does achieve 60s, I will take the 60s. I do not see other viable options on the table and I am not going to advocate to further tank Randolph's FR/L rate, regardless of whether the speculation is that they want that outcome.

You aren’t understanding that those options don’t matter.
In the eleventh hour, staff will be instructed for yet another options.
It happens EVERY TIME. Don’t wed yourself to this map. It’s irrelevant and will be tossed out. There is plenty of time to advocate for a solution that is politically easy and expedient that actually caters to the south Arlington middle class. Which never happens!
Give up Randolph
Get everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

If those farms rates aren’t under 50 don’t bother.
Seriously.
Look, at first I was like you. I thought lowering rates to 60 would be enough. It’s not.
We have schools that have hovered around or slightly over 60 for DECADES.
Push WALKALBE apartments to Randolph.
Get Barcorft and Drew to 47% or lower. We were given an invitation by Talento at the meeting. Give the middle class more neighborhood schools. We can’t all go to Henry. Don’t pull middle class out of Abingdon. That school is poised to have some meaningful middle class support.

I feel like you and I had this same discussion back on page 7 or so of this thread. I get what you're saying. But as between the current proposal and the above alternative, which does not achieve sub 50 but does achieve 60s, I will take the 60s. I do not see other viable options on the table and I am not going to advocate to further tank Randolph's FR/L rate, regardless of whether the speculation is that they want that outcome.

If 92% FR/L is considered acceptable, then the board is essentially saying demographics don't matter for Randolph. In that case, it makes absolutely no difference whether it is 92% or 98% or 100%, and they might as well give the middle class families in SFHs Drew as a neighborhood option. Many will be happy with it and it will help Drew's numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Really. Because there was a survey last year and basically it said.

...
Randolph needs to do a better job of pulling their weeds/ better facility maintenance.

Tell the homeowners they will can take a bus to a diverse school 5 min away. Promise them good demographics and stronger home values.
You won’t get a fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

If those farms rates aren’t under 50 don’t bother.
Seriously.
Look, at first I was like you. I thought lowering rates to 60 would be enough. It’s not.
We have schools that have hovered around or slightly over 60 for DECADES.
Push WALKALBE apartments to Randolph.
Get Barcorft and Drew to 47% or lower. We were given an invitation by Talento at the meeting. Give the middle class more neighborhood schools. We can’t all go to Henry. Don’t pull middle class out of Abingdon. That school is poised to have some meaningful middle class support.

I feel like you and I had this same discussion back on page 7 or so of this thread. I get what you're saying. But as between the current proposal and the above alternative, which does not achieve sub 50 but does achieve 60s, I will take the 60s. I do not see other viable options on the table and I am not going to advocate to further tank Randolph's FR/L rate, regardless of whether the speculation is that they want that outcome.

If 92% FR/L is considered acceptable, then the board is essentially saying demographics don't matter for Randolph. In that case, it makes absolutely no difference whether it is 92% or 98% or 100%, and they might as well give the middle class families in SFHs Drew as a neighborhood option. Many will be happy with it and it will help Drew's numbers.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Really. Because there was a survey last year and basically it said.

...
Randolph needs to do a better job of pulling their weeds/ better facility maintenance.

Tell the homeowners they will can take a bus to a diverse school 5 min away. Promise them good demographics and stronger home values.
You won’t get a fight.

I'm guessing that survey your are "quoting" was the school site survey which is completed by the parents and staff actually at the school. The feedback for this boundary process, however, likely included responses from Douglas Park SFH-ers both at the school and not at the school. I'll also guess that most responders from the Randolph PUs were from Douglas Park, not Barcroft Apts. So, we had to cater to the Arlington Heights neighborhood - are we going to cater to Douglas Park, too, or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Really. Because there was a survey last year and basically it said.

...
Randolph needs to do a better job of pulling their weeds/ better facility maintenance.

Tell the homeowners they will can take a bus to a diverse school 5 min away. Promise them good demographics and stronger home values.
You won’t get a fight.

I'm guessing that survey your are "quoting" was the school site survey which is completed by the parents and staff actually at the school. The feedback for this boundary process, however, likely included responses from Douglas Park SFH-ers both at the school and not at the school. I'll also guess that most responders from the Randolph PUs were from Douglas Park, not Barcroft Apts. So, we had to cater to the Arlington Heights neighborhood - are we going to cater to Douglas Park, too, or not?

The Douglas Park neighborhood doesn’t send kids to Randolph in significant numbers. Catering to them would be giving them access to a diverse neighborhood school. You would likely get support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Do not assume Talento speaks for the entire Randolph community. Being happy with a school does not mean improvements aren't welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interestingly enough even though Talento basically said Randolph is a wonderful community that doesn't want to be disrupted- when you read the feedback posted from people who identify as being zoned Randolph as well as the staff slides from last night the biggest concern is lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Do not assume Talento speaks for the entire Randolph community. Being happy with a school does not mean improvements aren't welcome.

Improving Randolph will entail putting impoverished walkers on a bus. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

I'm waiting to hear the outrage about how Fairlington now has a petition to all stay together because THEY don't want to go to Drew. Where is the disdain? Did I come to the wrong board today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting to hear the outrage about how Fairlington now has a petition to all stay together because THEY don't want to go to Drew. Where is the disdain? Did I come to the wrong board today?

Is this serious or are you being facetious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting to hear the outrage about how Fairlington now has a petition to all stay together because THEY don't want to go to Drew. Where is the disdain? Did I come to the wrong board today?

It looks like you’re bringing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting to hear the outrage about how Fairlington now has a petition to all stay together because THEY don't want to go to Drew. Where is the disdain? Did I come to the wrong board today?

Is this serious or are you being facetious?

It’s on change.org
Has about 270 signatures already

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting to hear the outrage about how Fairlington now has a petition to all stay together because THEY don't want to go to Drew. Where is the disdain? Did I come to the wrong board today?

Is this serious or are you being facetious?

It’s on change.org
Has about 270 signatures already

I just saw it. Makes the Henry parents look downright reasonable.