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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who think that social justice is the main factor that should be driving school boundaries should not just call others racist who prioritize other factors such as proximity, alignment and efficiency.

It was also interesting to hear from a dad last night who lives in the Yorktown Island. He mentioned that a lot of the socioeconomic diversity of those planning units had changed due to lower income residents being priced out, and he wondered why it should stay the same when his house was only a little more than 1 mile from WL. He said the kids who live there and don't do sports come home and then are isolated from the rest of their classmates at Yorktown. Obviously, he sees value in proximity and contiguity.

I was watching the 10/6 SB meeting the other night, where one N. Arlington mom whose daughter goes to Yorktown bemoaned the fact that her school wasn't diverse. Well, there is always the option of requesting a transfer to Wakefield. Why should other kids be bused across town just so that mom can feel less guilty about the fact that they chose to live in a mostly white school boundary? I think the African American SB member alluded to that when he made a comment at another prior SB meeting that not everyone wanted to be bused. (And before anyone cry racist b/c I don't know his name, I don't know the other SB members' names either. My kids have not started K yet.).

Finally, if you watched the meeting last night, you probably heard that there isn't priority over one factor. They asked everyone to provide their thoughts on how to rebalance the schools.

I live on the Yorktown island and would love to see it zoned over to W-L purely for proximity reasons. We're 10+ years out from high school, so maybe it will happen by the time we get there. A lot can change in 10 years, hopefully including a 4th high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my problem. I've tried this 100 different ways, and I cannot get the numbers "green" across all years without moving at least one of the 35xx units (the ones closest to Wakefield on Columbia Pike). Moving any other combination gets me either too few kids in 2017 or too many in 2020. This is because most PLs have very few kids who will move for the 2017 year except those very densely populated units.

Has anyone been able to do this? Make numbers green for every year and NOT move at least one of these units?

Merely trying to get the numbers to work for that option!

I had the same issue. I think I had to move the closest one to WL--it's 3506, I believe to make the numbers work.

Exactly. Regardless of anyone's views on whether these units should be moved, it simply isn't possible to avoid based on the limits they have in place for this exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To All of the posters stating they don't have a dog in this fight, that they don't have units in play...


That doesn't fly. This is an opportunity to get Buckingham and the western end of Columbia Pike moved away from WL. Of course that affects you, and your property values. Not saying that's everyone's agenda, but there are few regulars here that very much want that. I was having issues with the tool yesterday, and got busy doing other things. Does it show you what it does to the total demographics of the school after units are moved?

If someone lives in the upper most part of Arlington (so go to Yorktown and Williamsburg), their kids will very unlikely get moved to schools further south. How does that impact their property values if kids closer to Wakefield go to that school? What planning unit are you in?

If someone lives in Lyon village they have an opportunity to purge WL of some their least advantaged students.

Ok, sure. But my point was that not all people care or have an agenda. If my kids live closer to one HS, then wanting them to go there shouldn't be a basis for others to call "racism."

It's not racism, but it's obnoxious to say that people don't need to concern themselves about an approach that makes some schools that are already high poverty -- in an extremely wealthy county -- have an even higher concentration of poverty if, say, it means their kids might have to travel farther to high school. People are saying, in this thread, "diversity" isn't my highest priority. It's pretty sad that people think that raising their kids in a county with a history of explicit racial segregation don't seem to have any concern about it at all. They may not be actively racist but they are pretty shockingly obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To All of the posters stating they don't have a dog in this fight, that they don't have units in play...


That doesn't fly. This is an opportunity to get Buckingham and the western end of Columbia Pike moved away from WL. Of course that affects you, and your property values. Not saying that's everyone's agenda, but there are few regulars here that very much want that. I was having issues with the tool yesterday, and got busy doing other things. Does it show you what it does to the total demographics of the school after units are moved?

If someone lives in the upper most part of Arlington (so go to Yorktown and Williamsburg), their kids will very unlikely get moved to schools further south. How does that impact their property values if kids closer to Wakefield go to that school? What planning unit are you in?

If someone lives in Lyon village they have an opportunity to purge WL of some their least advantaged students.

Ok, sure. But my point was that not all people care or have an agenda. If my kids live closer to one HS, then wanting them to go there shouldn't be a basis for others to call "racism."

It's not racism, but it's obnoxious to say that people don't need to concern themselves about an approach that makes some schools that are already high poverty -- in an extremely wealthy county -- have an even higher concentration of poverty if, say, it means their kids might have to travel farther to high school. People are saying, in this thread, "diversity" isn't my highest priority. It's pretty sad that people think that raising their kids in a county with a history of explicit racial segregation don't seem to have any concern about it at all. They may not be actively racist but they are pretty shockingly obtuse.

Well then I hope you did your part and married a minority so your children won't participate in the system of white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To All of the posters stating they don't have a dog in this fight, that they don't have units in play...


That doesn't fly. This is an opportunity to get Buckingham and the western end of Columbia Pike moved away from WL. Of course that affects you, and your property values. Not saying that's everyone's agenda, but there are few regulars here that very much want that. I was having issues with the tool yesterday, and got busy doing other things. Does it show you what it does to the total demographics of the school after units are moved?

If someone lives in the upper most part of Arlington (so go to Yorktown and Williamsburg), their kids will very unlikely get moved to schools further south. How does that impact their property values if kids closer to Wakefield go to that school? What planning unit are you in?

If someone lives in Lyon village they have an opportunity to purge WL of some their least advantaged students.

Ok, sure. But my point was that not all people care or have an agenda. If my kids live closer to one HS, then wanting them to go there shouldn't be a basis for others to call "racism."

It's not racism, but it's obnoxious to say that people don't need to concern themselves about an approach that makes some schools that are already high poverty -- in an extremely wealthy county -- have an even higher concentration of poverty if, say, it means their kids might have to travel farther to high school. People are saying, in this thread, "diversity" isn't my highest priority. It's pretty sad that people think that raising their kids in a county with a history of explicit racial segregation don't seem to have any concern about it at all. They may not be actively racist but they are pretty shockingly obtuse.

Can someone point me to public school districts where this issue has been resolved successfully? What about Wakefield is inferior to the other high schools? (Sincere question. My kids haven't started K yet.) Didn't they get a brand new building recently? WL looks pretty sad whenever I pass by it. Aren't the teachers across all 3 HSs considered excellent? It's not like the students at Wakefield get less access to resources, correct?

Commuting in the DC-metro area is a huge issue. Our family bought in Arlington (at a premium from the further out suburbs) so we wouldn't have to spend all day in traffic. My spouse and I switched our schedules (and also accepted more flexible jobs that don't pay as highly) so we could be home early enough to spend time with out young kids who go to be before 8 pm. As they get older, and they become busier (I hear from parents with older kids that they barely have enough time to do their sports practice and get their homework done) I still want to see them during the school week. So, sorry, diversity isn't my biggest issue. Signed, an Arlington resident who also happens to be a minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To All of the posters stating they don't have a dog in this fight, that they don't have units in play...


That doesn't fly. This is an opportunity to get Buckingham and the western end of Columbia Pike moved away from WL. Of course that affects you, and your property values. Not saying that's everyone's agenda, but there are few regulars here that very much want that. I was having issues with the tool yesterday, and got busy doing other things. Does it show you what it does to the total demographics of the school after units are moved?

If someone lives in the upper most part of Arlington (so go to Yorktown and Williamsburg), their kids will very unlikely get moved to schools further south. How does that impact their property values if kids closer to Wakefield go to that school? What planning unit are you in?

If someone lives in Lyon village they have an opportunity to purge WL of some their least advantaged students.

Ok, sure. But my point was that not all people care or have an agenda. If my kids live closer to one HS, then wanting them to go there shouldn't be a basis for others to call "racism."

It's not racism, but it's obnoxious to say that people don't need to concern themselves about an approach that makes some schools that are already high poverty -- in an extremely wealthy county -- have an even higher concentration of poverty if, say, it means their kids might have to travel farther to high school. People are saying, in this thread, "diversity" isn't my highest priority. It's pretty sad that people think that raising their kids in a county with a history of explicit racial segregation don't seem to have any concern about it at all. They may not be actively racist but they are pretty shockingly obtuse.

Well then I hope you did your part and married a minority so your children won't participate in the system of white privilege.

I'm not white and my children are biracial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

I agree with the PP above. We should be focusing our ire on the CB's poor decisions. There should be a requirement as part of the approval process that an impact analysis (of issues such as school overcrowding and distribution of poverty) be performed. How can we get this enacted? Would a referendum work?

[Anonymous]

If you are a family in a Yorktown planning unit who wishes for more economic and demographic diversity at our high school, please write to the Board, speak up at a boundary meeting or indicate this in the comment section of the planning tool. There are certainly ways to balance enrollment and achieve that goal. But the Board isn't going to do it without support from the community. Some Board members don't think families want this. Here's the email address: [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Wakefield is inferior because it has almost 50 percent free and reduced lunch. It is too high of a percentage for any one school. Those numbers don't give kids or teachers a fair shot at the same level of achievement. Look at SAT scores, SOLs, advanced SOL pass rates--for ANY demographic group, look at Merit Scholarships, look at percentages TAKING the SAT. The numbers are way off. The mere step of adding more affluent kids to that school will alter its educational environment for the better. Adding more poor kids will make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and Loudon County is a community that years ago took steps to economically integrate. The recently tried to undo that (last yea)r and the families on both sides went nuts. They said the integration was working. There was an article in the Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wakefield is inferior because it has almost 50 percent free and reduced lunch. It is too high of a percentage for any one school. Those numbers don't give kids or teachers a fair shot at the same level of achievement. Look at SAT scores, SOLs, advanced SOL pass rates--for ANY demographic group, look at Merit Scholarships, look at percentages TAKING the SAT. The numbers are way off. The mere step of adding more affluent kids to that school will alter its educational environment for the better. Adding more poor kids will make it worse.

This should also be directed at the CB. The approval of more high-density units in economically disadvantaged areas further exacerbates the situation. As the SB tries to navigate re-zoning in the increasingly populated schools, the CB comes in and approves more affordable housing units in those low-income areas.

[Anonymous]

So I took a look at the demographic info. Based on a quick scan, it looks like PUs 2315, 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, 3510, 3706, 4614, 4815, 4814, 4828 may have the most economically disadvantaged students. (I excluded others such as 1205 and 4603, for example, b/c they are inside the WL and not under consideration.)

How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.

TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I took a look at the demographic info. Based on a quick scan, it looks like PUs 2315, 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, 3510, 3706, 4614, 4815, 4814, 4828 may have the most economically disadvantaged students. (I excluded others such as 1205 and 4603, for example, b/c they are inside the WL and not under consideration.)

How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.

TIA.

I should add, I quickly scanned the PUs nears Yorktown and didn't see any economically disadvantaged PUs between there and WL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I took a look at the demographic info. Based on a quick scan, it looks like PUs 2315, 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, 3510, 3706, 4614, 4815, 4814, 4828 may have the most economically disadvantaged students. (I excluded others such as 1205 and 4603, for example, b/c they are inside the WL and not under consideration.)

How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.

TIA.

I should add, I quickly scanned the PUs nears Yorktown and didn't see any economically disadvantaged PUs between there and WL.

The only way to do it is by expanding the Yorktown island.