APS Boundary tool--anyone get it to work yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q: Is APS trying to make Wakefield and Yorktown more diverse by relocating certain planning units?

A: Demographics is one of six criteria to be considered but the reason for this refinement process is to address overcrowding at Washington-Lee and balance the enrollment among the three comprehensive high schools.

I have been looking at the numbers around the planning units surrounding Wakefield and WL. Even if we select the ones that people have been pushing for, it looks like the huge numbers are in the final year 2020. I'm guessing this cohort (currently 11 years old) may be a huge population? (One of my coworkers had mentioned a cohort born before my kid 2010 required additional K classes to be added.)

Anyway, if APS means what it says about addressing overcapacity first and taking into account all 6 criteria, I am less convinced all of the western planning units by the Pike are sacrosanct. Obviously, this is not the comprehensive boundary change that will start in 2020 for the freshmen entering HS in 2022 (and I for one, support revisiting the Yorktown Island and perhaps creating a replacement one in the west), and the families with kids who will be in HS 2017-2021 will be most impacted, but it doesn't seem to make sense to have so many students will at WL with the suggestions of many on this board. It will be interesting to see which what the SB ultimately does.

If those units get moved to Wakefield in this process, they will never be moved back or to another HS in the future, because it's too disruptive. The whole thing hinges on this: if they move the west pike planning units to Wakefield, they are going to destabilize one of the three comprehensive high schools. Will they do it? Maybe. They've shown themselves to be completely incompetent in many other ways. But this process needs to be looked at holistically. Pushing the FARMs rate to 65%, not including the economically disadvantaged kids who will be generated from the hundreds of new units of affordable housing underway in the Wakefield boundary, at a school that is poised to demographically equalize (on its own, without some intervention by APS), would just be stupid. Let's move the fewest number of students that we can now without totally altering the demographics of two schools, so that the fewest number of students are affected by the changes. Give Wakefield Arlington Forest and give YHS some of the eastern Pike. And everybody else is status quo. W-L will still be slightly larger than the other two schools until the 1300 seats come online somewhere and the boundaries shift again. And Wakefield will be smaller temporarily, as it should be, with the number of disadvantaged students it's responsible for educating. We can relieve some overcrowding at W-L without totally altering the balance of demographics or forcing many more walkers onto buses. Reasonable compromise, no? Better than screwing Wakefield just to get W-L to exactly 100% capacity and not a student more.

[Anonymous]

Let's start with the idea of moving the southern most Western Pike units to Wakefield, and then bridge the Yorktown island. These very simple changes fix the capacity problems. They are completely consistent with 5 out of 6 criteria, but demographic diversity gets worse.

Any of the many alternatives that improve demographics harms the other criteria, since there are no more demographic minorities near Yorktown or W-L (the schools, not the current borders) that can be absorbed.

APS has already taken three explicit measures to increase demographic diversity:
1) The Yorktown island,
2) The Western Pike into W-L, and
3) The Eastern Pike into W-L (4828 and surrounding) and northern central pike to Wakefield (4690 and surrounding).

All three of these already violate the other criteria by being non-contiguous, disrupting walk zones, being farther away, etc.

So, bottom line, there are 6 criteria, but it's basically demographics vs. all the rest, and our current situation strikes a balance between them all.

The problem is that demographics are not just unbalanced across the county but getting worse. As this happens, balancing of demographics will incur an increasing penalty on the other criteria, putting a downward pressure on the education experience across the county that balances the gains from diversity.

Although I sympathize with those in Wakefield who don't want higher FARMs rates, I also sympathize with those from W-L and Yorktown who like their status quo. The question at the county level is whether moving FARMs around can increase the overall quality of the schools or if doing so helps one (Wakefield) at the expense of the others.

There is a lot of research touting the benefits to low income students of being around higher income students. The scant research on the effects to the higher income students suggests that they suffer as a result. So, this feels like a zero-sum game of who can most effectively push out the low income students.

If we had a better socio-economic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Unfortunately, we don't, and the school board has the challenge of dealing with the existing demographic distribution.

My thought is to do the smallest fix now to address overcrowding, but start thinking about 4 years from now for a comprehensive solution that includes a new high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's start with the idea of moving the southern most Western Pike units to Wakefield, and then bridge the Yorktown island. These very simple changes fix the capacity problems. They are completely consistent with 5 out of 6 criteria, but demographic diversity gets worse.

Any of the many alternatives that improve demographics harms the other criteria, since there are no more demographic minorities near Yorktown or W-L (the schools, not the current borders) that can be absorbed.

APS has already taken three explicit measures to increase demographic diversity:
1) The Yorktown island,
2) The Western Pike into W-L, and
3) The Eastern Pike into W-L (4828 and surrounding) and northern central pike to Wakefield (4690 and surrounding).

All three of these already violate the other criteria by being non-contiguous, disrupting walk zones, being farther away, etc.

So, bottom line, there are 6 criteria, but it's basically demographics vs. all the rest, and our current situation strikes a balance between them all.

The problem is that demographics are not just unbalanced across the county but getting worse. As this happens, balancing of demographics will incur an increasing penalty on the other criteria, putting a downward pressure on the education experience across the county that balances the gains from diversity.

Although I sympathize with those in Wakefield who don't want higher FARMs rates, I also sympathize with those from W-L and Yorktown who like their status quo. The question at the county level is whether moving FARMs around can increase the overall quality of the schools or if doing so helps one (Wakefield) at the expense of the others.

There is a lot of research touting the benefits to low income students of being around higher income students. The scant research on the effects to the higher income students suggests that they suffer as a result. So, this feels like a zero-sum game of who can most effectively push out the low income students.

If we had a better socio-economic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Unfortunately, we don't, and the school board has the challenge of dealing with the existing demographic distribution.

My thought is to do the smallest fix now to address overcrowding, but start thinking about 4 years from now for a comprehensive solution that includes a new high school.

I see we have a Yorktown parent in the mix, willing to take the wealthiest PU's with small numbers of kids to Yorktown and send the poorest and most populous to Wakefiled. It's the Nottingham parents who swift boated McKinley all over again.

But we're supposed to believe that at some magical point in the future, in the next process everything could change? Bull. Change requires ACTION, not waiting our turn. The socioeconomic balance between our neighborhoods can't ever change because of zoning, which is rooted in historic patterns of segregation. Your sleight of hand won't cut it this time. Either put your Trump sign up in your yard and be honest with yourself and others or DO SOMETHING that shows the values you profess are yours, even when they are not convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's start with the idea of moving the southern most Western Pike units to Wakefield, and then bridge the Yorktown island. These very simple changes fix the capacity problems. They are completely consistent with 5 out of 6 criteria, but demographic diversity gets worse.

Any of the many alternatives that improve demographics harms the other criteria, since there are no more demographic minorities near Yorktown or W-L (the schools, not the current borders) that can be absorbed.

APS has already taken three explicit measures to increase demographic diversity:
1) The Yorktown island,
2) The Western Pike into W-L, and
3) The Eastern Pike into W-L (4828 and surrounding) and northern central pike to Wakefield (4690 and surrounding).

All three of these already violate the other criteria by being non-contiguous, disrupting walk zones, being farther away, etc.

So, bottom line, there are 6 criteria, but it's basically demographics vs. all the rest, and our current situation strikes a balance between them all.

The problem is that demographics are not just unbalanced across the county but getting worse. As this happens, balancing of demographics will incur an increasing penalty on the other criteria, putting a downward pressure on the education experience across the county that balances the gains from diversity.

Although I sympathize with those in Wakefield who don't want higher FARMs rates, I also sympathize with those from W-L and Yorktown who like their status quo. The question at the county level is whether moving FARMs around can increase the overall quality of the schools or if doing so helps one (Wakefield) at the expense of the others.

There is a lot of research touting the benefits to low income students of being around higher income students. The scant research on the effects to the higher income students suggests that they suffer as a result. So, this feels like a zero-sum game of who can most effectively push out the low income students.

If we had a better socio-economic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Unfortunately, we don't, and the school board has the challenge of dealing with the existing demographic distribution.

My thought is to do the smallest fix now to address overcrowding, but start thinking about 4 years from now for a comprehensive solution that includes a new high school.

No kid at Yorktown is going to "suffer" if there are 100 more low-income students there. That is just complete BS.

[Anonymous]

An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So... this?

Q: Why isn’t academic excellence a factor in the refinement process?

A: All three APS high schools are equally competitive, ranking among the top public school systems in the region for the past 15 years.

How the hell would that questioner like academic excellence to be a factor in the process? Dipshit.

[Anonymous]

To 12:00, you can keep your status quo. It affects me not at all if you prefer lily-white schools with low poverty, or if you are enamored of the nice balance W-L has achieved. I chose differently for my children and I'm comfortable with my decision. However, I'd like to keep MY status quo as a Wakefield parent, which means not undercutting naturally occurring improvement by continually cramming all the FARMS kids into the same district, so that other kids can have the option to walk 30 min to and from school.

And yes, if we had a better socioeconomic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Some of us are actively trying to encourage that by living where we live. Current certain policies and proposals seem to be at odds with that would-be solution. Also, if I had wings I'd be a fucking bird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

The only diversity I care about is income diversity. It is educational malpractice to deliberately concentrate the county's low-income students in one high school.

--W-L parent in a planning unit that (for this round anyway) is staying at W-L.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 12:00, you can keep your status quo. It affects me not at all if you prefer lily-white schools with low poverty, or if you are enamored of the nice balance W-L has achieved. I chose differently for my children and I'm comfortable with my decision. However, I'd like to keep MY status quo as a Wakefield parent, which means not undercutting naturally occurring improvement by continually cramming all the FARMS kids into the same district, so that other kids can have the option to walk 30 min to and from school.

And yes, if we had a better socioeconomic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Some of us are actively trying to encourage that by living where we live. Current certain policies and proposals seem to be at odds with that would-be solution. Also, if I had wings I'd be a fucking bird.

This x1000.

Status quo is a concept that applies to everyone, not just the person doing the talking. Preserving status quo means no one gets moved, not just that *you* don't get moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 12:00, you can keep your status quo. It affects me not at all if you prefer lily-white schools with low poverty, or if you are enamored of the nice balance W-L has achieved. I chose differently for my children and I'm comfortable with my decision. However, I'd like to keep MY status quo as a Wakefield parent, which means not undercutting naturally occurring improvement by continually cramming all the FARMS kids into the same district, so that other kids can have the option to walk 30 min to and from school.

And yes, if we had a better socioeconomic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Some of us are actively trying to encourage that by living where we live. Current certain policies and proposals seem to be at odds with that would-be solution. Also, if I had wings I'd be a fucking bird.

This x1000.

Status quo is a concept that applies to everyone, not just the person doing the talking. Preserving status quo means no one gets moved, not just that *you* don't get moved.

Thank you Pp's!

Lots of snide little remarks on this thread, " you knew what you bought when you moved to south Arlington" etc etc...
Yes, we did know. We bought in a school that was 45% poverty ( not majority), not 65%. What about our status quo? If the SB engages in poor practices, we will be selling and moving inbounds to WL or Yorktown. I'm not here to play games with my kid's education.
I'm not certain we will even wait if it creeps up to 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This is more of a talk about the perils of tokenism, rather than an excuse to allow the segregation of schools. In fact, the argument would more be that the action taken would be to desegregate schools and try to create more equal institutions so that elite spaces become more diverse as a result, rather than forcing the diversity when its arguably too late.

In other words, because a black person wrote a piece saying that diversity in panels hasn't produced any results, doesn't mean we are all excused from any effort. Rather that white people didn't get the point in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This is more of a talk about the perils of tokenism, rather than an excuse to allow the segregation of schools. In fact, the argument would more be that the action taken would be to desegregate schools and try to create more equal institutions so that elite spaces become more diverse as a result, rather than forcing the diversity when its arguably too late.

In other words, because a black person wrote a piece saying that diversity in panels hasn't produced any results, doesn't mean we are all excused from any effort. Rather that white people didn't get the point in the first place.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, but I am arguing that the time for talk is over. Let's act. This boundary process is the first step. Is that not how I am to interpret the article and put its message into practice? My child attends a diverse ES. If the most geographically logical units are moved around, it's entirely possible that the HS my child is bound for will become less diverse and I don't want that. The words that I think are applicable here are, "Maybe we will stop failing so badly at true diversity when we stop thinking that all we need to do is talk about it." How does that not apply to Arlington, when we throw around the words "diverse and inclusive" in pretty much every guiding principle and planning document, and then passively accept segregation in the public schools, because it's a result of a segregated geography?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This is more of a talk about the perils of tokenism, rather than an excuse to allow the segregation of schools. In fact, the argument would more be that the action taken would be to desegregate schools and try to create more equal institutions so that elite spaces become more diverse as a result, rather than forcing the diversity when its arguably too late.

In other words, because a black person wrote a piece saying that diversity in panels hasn't produced any results, doesn't mean we are all excused from any effort. Rather that white people didn't get the point in the first place.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, but I am arguing that the time for talk is over. Let's act. This boundary process is the first step. Is that not how I am to interpret the article and put its message into practice? My child attends a diverse ES. If the most geographically logical units are moved around, it's entirely possible that the HS my child is bound for will become less diverse and I don't want that. The words that I think are applicable here are, "Maybe we will stop failing so badly at true diversity when we stop thinking that all we need to do is talk about it." How does that not apply to Arlington, when we throw around the words "diverse and inclusive" in pretty much every guiding principle and planning document, and then passively accept segregation in the public schools, because it's a result of a segregated geography?

Don't kid yourself. People aren't passively buying houses in segregated neighborhoods. People are paying enormous premiums to buy houses in zip codes that feed into majority white elementary, middle and high schools. They are actively seeking segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This is more of a talk about the perils of tokenism, rather than an excuse to allow the segregation of schools. In fact, the argument would more be that the action taken would be to desegregate schools and try to create more equal institutions so that elite spaces become more diverse as a result, rather than forcing the diversity when its arguably too late.

In other words, because a black person wrote a piece saying that diversity in panels hasn't produced any results, doesn't mean we are all excused from any effort. Rather that white people didn't get the point in the first place.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, but I am arguing that the time for talk is over. Let's act. This boundary process is the first step. Is that not how I am to interpret the article and put its message into practice? My child attends a diverse ES. If the most geographically logical units are moved around, it's entirely possible that the HS my child is bound for will become less diverse and I don't want that. The words that I think are applicable here are, "Maybe we will stop failing so badly at true diversity when we stop thinking that all we need to do is talk about it." How does that not apply to Arlington, when we throw around the words "diverse and inclusive" in pretty much every guiding principle and planning document, and then passively accept segregation in the public schools, because it's a result of a segregated geography?

Don't kid yourself. People aren't passively buying houses in segregated neighborhoods. People are paying enormous premiums to buy houses in zip codes that feed into majority white elementary, middle and high schools. They are actively seeking segregation.

^^They can call it "test scores" or whatever they want, but in practice, its segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting perspective is offered here. I encourage everyone to read it. And think about. And then do something about it.

http://lithub.com/marlon-james-why-im-done-talking-about-diversity/

This is more of a talk about the perils of tokenism, rather than an excuse to allow the segregation of schools. In fact, the argument would more be that the action taken would be to desegregate schools and try to create more equal institutions so that elite spaces become more diverse as a result, rather than forcing the diversity when its arguably too late.

In other words, because a black person wrote a piece saying that diversity in panels hasn't produced any results, doesn't mean we are all excused from any effort. Rather that white people didn't get the point in the first place.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, but I am arguing that the time for talk is over. Let's act. This boundary process is the first step. Is that not how I am to interpret the article and put its message into practice? My child attends a diverse ES. If the most geographically logical units are moved around, it's entirely possible that the HS my child is bound for will become less diverse and I don't want that. The words that I think are applicable here are, "Maybe we will stop failing so badly at true diversity when we stop thinking that all we need to do is talk about it." How does that not apply to Arlington, when we throw around the words "diverse and inclusive" in pretty much every guiding principle and planning document, and then passively accept segregation in the public schools, because it's a result of a segregated geography?

Oh, then I guess we were actually on the same page! Right on.