APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Option 1F seems like the fairest option for everyone. A little bit of Swanson is re-zoned to Kenmore. A little bit of Williamsburg is re-zoned to Swanson. It's the only option where Williamsburg has a more-than-single-digit share of FARMS, and redistributes FARMs across all middle schools. I would be on board with it.

[Anonymous]

I can't tolerate 1F. No islands. We got rid of the islands for high school. Why keep them for middle school? Why is that community special?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't tolerate 1F. No islands. We got rid of the islands for high school. Why keep them for middle school? Why is that community special?

Well, they would need to be bussed to Stratford anyway. I don't see the issue. Do you dispute that it would be the fairest distribution? Looks like your only issue is that kids would be bussed to one school instead of another. No walking issues for the island.

[Anonymous]

Why that island? Why are we allowing children of wealthy urbanites in Roslyn (by and large) to be bussed to Williamsburg. It's absurd. Why not another island instead? The distribution would be fair if we bussed far north Jamestown or Taylor kids to Kenmore too. They have to take a bus either way too. Is anyone proposing that? It's absurd to have contiguity as a factor and to preserve this island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why that island? Why are we allowing children of wealthy urbanites in Roslyn (by and large) to be bussed to Williamsburg. It's absurd. Why not another island instead? The distribution would be fair if we bussed far north Jamestown or Taylor kids to Kenmore too. They have to take a bus either way too. Is anyone proposing that? It's absurd to have contiguity as a factor and to preserve this island.

Sure, I'd be on board with another island (I don't live in the current island). I'm just looking at the final distributions, and 1F is undoubtedly the fairest. It would make sense to do another island that doesn't involve separating walking-distance kids from their neighborhood school, if the numbers worked out.

[Anonymous]

Equally absurd to have proximity and efficiency and start busing Swanson kids to Kenmore.

[Anonymous]

I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

[Anonymous]

11:56 - I am with you on this. Have you sent this perspective to APS? It would be helpful for them to see this dilemma and your response so thoughtfully presented. I am hoping we can see a map that combines F and H to put the FARMS between 10 and 45%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:56 - I am with you on this. Have you sent this perspective to APS? It would be helpful for them to see this dilemma and your response so thoughtfully presented. I am hoping we can see a map that combines F and H to put the FARMS between 10 and 45%.

I'm working on a draft to APS because I'm hoping to get some of my neighbors to join my email. But yes, I intend to contact APS.

[Anonymous]

Make it without islands and I'm on board too!

[Anonymous]

If there is any sort of group organizing to support demographic distribution, I'd love to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Well, like I said, I personally am okay with the 40s. But is your position that we should deliberately sacrifice one school for the good of the rest of the schools? I can't support that. I don't believe in utilitarian zealotry when it comes to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Well, like I said, I personally am okay with the 40s. But is your position that we should deliberately sacrifice one school for the good of the rest of the schools? I can't support that. I don't believe in utilitarian zealotry when it comes to schools.

Yeah, better to make them all suck. I'm sure the parents from those two other schools will be really happy. How about making a separate island up north and bussing those kids to Kenmore, while using the rest of the 1F plan. There, I fixed your problem for you. Easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Well, like I said, I personally am okay with the 40s. But is your position that we should deliberately sacrifice one school for the good of the rest of the schools? I can't support that. I don't believe in utilitarian zealotry when it comes to schools.

OK -- I have a real solution to the problem of 1F. What could happen is to ADD planning unit 1410 to the list of people going to Kenmore. 1410 is not close-in to Swanson, so you're not doing the stupid thing of putting kids on a bus when they could've walked 2 blocks to school. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I bet that would be a pretty sound solution. Just saying.