APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "alignment' map would improve the demographic mix at Kenmore, but it would just shift it to Jefferson. "Proximity" I would only exacerbate the demographic mix at kenmore, The "demographic" map would balance out the county nicely, but there is no way parents near Swanson will go to for that. It doesn't look like the remaining two will do too much to Kenmore.

So, parents in the Alignment map, unless you want Jefferson to be a title I school, best speak out against that option.

Thoughts on the J map WRT demographics?
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

[Anonymous]

It doesn't look like the J map does much at all for demographics. If I'm reading it right, it basically keeps the existing boundaries in the south of the county, no?

[Anonymous]

Was anyone at the meeting last night? Did they have numbers (population, % free and reduced lunch) on these blended maps?

[Anonymous]

Regarding the maps that have the Kenmore zone reaching north of Wilson over by Swanson, would those students be in the walk zone for Swanson, or are they cut off by 66? I don't know that area well. Just wondering whether walkability, which I get is a nice thing to have, is a real drawback with these maps that otherwise would seem to improve the demographics at Kenmore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liking scenario J - any issues I'm not aware of?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

Alignment. There's a handful of PU's that got moved to Yorktown in the HS boundary process last year, so they would go: Ashlawn, Kenmore, then Yorktown in this scenario. They'd the only Kenmore PU's that would go to Yorktown, and they're already the only Ashlawn PU's going to Yorktown. This neighborhood won't get to be aligned at any point in K-12 under this scenario. I don't think that's right.

Interesting. Looks like those PUs are very close to Kenmore. Seems a shame to send them to Swanson. I'm wondering what those PUs prefer.

What? They are sending them to Kenmore, not Swanson. The issue is they're now the only Ashlawn PU's at Yorktown, and in this scenario they'd be the only Kenmore PU's at Yorktown, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't look like the J map does much at all for demographics. If I'm reading it right, it basically keeps the existing boundaries in the south of the county, no?

I think demographics are tough to address without bussing, which I think most parents would not want. The "demographics" map is tough because you don't want to move PUs right next to Swanson down to Kenmore. The PUs in Lyon Park & around the Pentagon could move to the new school, but does that cause overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liking scenario J - any issues I'm not aware of?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

Alignment. There's a handful of PU's that got moved to Yorktown in the HS boundary process last year, so they would go: Ashlawn, Kenmore, then Yorktown in this scenario. They'd the only Kenmore PU's that would go to Yorktown, and they're already the only Ashlawn PU's going to Yorktown. This neighborhood won't get to be aligned at any point in K-12 under this scenario. I don't think that's right.

Interesting. Looks like those PUs are very close to Kenmore. Seems a shame to send them to Swanson. I'm wondering what those PUs prefer.

What? They are sending them to Kenmore, not Swanson. The issue is they're now the only Ashlawn PU's at Yorktown, and in this scenario they'd be the only Kenmore PU's at Yorktown, too.

Right, but the other option is to put them at Swanson to have better "alignment".

Unless you mean move them back to W-L?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the maps that have the Kenmore zone reaching north of Wilson over by Swanson, would those students be in the walk zone for Swanson, or are they cut off by 66? I don't know that area well. Just wondering whether walkability, which I get is a nice thing to have, is a real drawback with these maps that otherwise would seem to improve the demographics at Kenmore.

No one in that area is cut off by 66. The roads have bridges that go over the highway so lots of kids walk to/from school, over 66, every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't look like the J map does much at all for demographics. If I'm reading it right, it basically keeps the existing boundaries in the south of the county, no?

I think demographics are tough to address without bussing, which I think most parents would not want. The "demographics" map is tough because you don't want to move PUs right next to Swanson down to Kenmore. The PUs in Lyon Park & around the Pentagon could move to the new school, but does that cause overcrowding?

PP here, I agree with you it's going to be tough to balance the desire for walkability with demographic balance. I posted the question about about whether Swanson is walkable for those units to the south of 66. I assume so, just don't know the area. I have no dog in this fight because we are Gunston all the way, but I'm guessing this process won't do much for Kenmore and that's too bad. It's tough to fight the basics of county demographics and geography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the maps that have the Kenmore zone reaching north of Wilson over by Swanson, would those students be in the walk zone for Swanson, or are they cut off by 66? I don't know that area well. Just wondering whether walkability, which I get is a nice thing to have, is a real drawback with these maps that otherwise would seem to improve the demographics at Kenmore.

No one in that area is cut off by 66. The roads have bridges that go over the highway so lots of kids walk to/from school, over 66, every day.

Right, figured as much. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "alignment' map would improve the demographic mix at Kenmore, but it would just shift it to Jefferson. "Proximity" I would only exacerbate the demographic mix at kenmore, The "demographic" map would balance out the county nicely, but there is no way parents near Swanson will go to for that. It doesn't look like the remaining two will do too much to Kenmore.

So, parents in the Alignment map, unless you want Jefferson to be a title I school, best speak out against that option.

Thoughts on the J map WRT demographics?
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

Yeah, J basically keeps the boundaries the same across south Arlington.

I disagree that the Alignment map would turn Jefferson into a Title 1 school. You'd lose N of 50, but the neighborhoods you'd gain to the west aren't very high fr/l (mostly SFHs). Arlington Mill and everything west of it still goes Kenmore.

[Anonymous]

This is a minor vent but these maps are hard to compare when they don't include the same boundaries (i.e., the MIDDLE SCHOOL boundaries) on each one or give each one a title. Honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a minor vent but these maps are hard to compare when they don't include the same boundaries (i.e., the MIDDLE SCHOOL boundaries) on each one or give each one a title. Honestly.

Yes, for the next iteration they could use titles, MS/HS boundaries, and the data summary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liking scenario J - any issues I'm not aware of?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

Alignment. There's a handful of PU's that got moved to Yorktown in the HS boundary process last year, so they would go: Ashlawn, Kenmore, then Yorktown in this scenario. They'd the only Kenmore PU's that would go to Yorktown, and they're already the only Ashlawn PU's going to Yorktown. This neighborhood won't get to be aligned at any point in K-12 under this scenario. I don't think that's right.

Interesting. Looks like those PUs are very close to Kenmore. Seems a shame to send them to Swanson. I'm wondering what those PUs prefer.

What? They are sending them to Kenmore, not Swanson. The issue is they're now the only Ashlawn PU's at Yorktown, and in this scenario they'd be the only Kenmore PU's at Yorktown, too.

Also, to clarify, these hvae been Kenmore PU's for forever, this is not new. The thing that changed is that these PU's were sent to Yorktown in the last HS boundary revision. Unless they move some other Yorktown and/or Ashlawn PU's to Kenmore, this neighborhood has no alignment from ES to MS nor from MS to HS. There is no scenario presented that move these PU's out of Kenmore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liking scenario J - any issues I'm not aware of?

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_J_Draft5.pdf

Alignment. There's a handful of PU's that got moved to Yorktown in the HS boundary process last year, so they would go: Ashlawn, Kenmore, then Yorktown in this scenario. They'd the only Kenmore PU's that would go to Yorktown, and they're already the only Ashlawn PU's going to Yorktown. This neighborhood won't get to be aligned at any point in K-12 under this scenario. I don't think that's right.

Interesting. Looks like those PUs are very close to Kenmore. Seems a shame to send them to Swanson. I'm wondering what those PUs prefer.

What? They are sending them to Kenmore, not Swanson. The issue is they're now the only Ashlawn PU's at Yorktown, and in this scenario they'd be the only Kenmore PU's at Yorktown, too.

Also, to clarify, these hvae been Kenmore PU's for forever, this is not new. The thing that changed is that these PU's were sent to Yorktown in the last HS boundary revision. Unless they move some other Yorktown and/or Ashlawn PU's to Kenmore, this neighborhood has no alignment from ES to MS nor from MS to HS. There is no scenario presented that move these PU's out of Kenmore.

Doesn't this one push them to Swanson? Unless you're talking about other PUs?
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Scenario_A_Draft5.pdf