APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Drew parent here. I don't think we need to go all VIVA SALA given the current predicament. Whether or not North Arlington wants poor students in their schools, the current reality as I accept it is that *no one* wants to be bused far away and we can't afford it anyway. The choice that I and the Henry parent have a dispute over is between keeping a school community basically entirely intact, or shaving some of that community off to go to Drew and help its FARMS rate. North Arlington can't solve that problem for us given circumstances as they currently exist.

I think you are overestimating the effect that those planning units would have. They are not “wealthy” and have few SFHs (lots of apts and condos).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

Not meaningfully lower, if it is. Look at the graded programs sol scores from the 2014 arlnow article. Sol scores correlate strongly with farms rates. They were lower, much lower than carlin springs, and that was before carlin turned into a cram factory. There is every reason to believe the actually enrolled Drew graded program is 80 percent farms or higher.

Last year's enrolled FARMS rate at Randolph was 80% of the resident FARMS rate in the table. If the same factor held for Drew, that would suggest the enrolled FARMS rate for the graded program was around 68%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Drew parent here. I don't think we need to go all VIVA SALA given the current predicament. Whether or not North Arlington wants poor students in their schools, the current reality as I accept it is that *no one* wants to be bused far away and we can't afford it anyway. The choice that I and the Henry parent have a dispute over is between keeping a school community basically entirely intact, or shaving some of that community off to go to Drew and help its FARMS rate. North Arlington can't solve that problem for us given circumstances as they currently exist.

I think you are overestimating the effect that those planning units would have. They are not “wealthy” and have few SFHs (lots of apts and condos).

I did the math based on the numbers they gave us and those units are roughly 1/3 fr/l with about 150 kids. Drew is roughly 80-85%. Based on those numbers, and not accounting for transfers or opting out or any other unknowns, those units would help. Happy to be shown to be wrong, if I am. If there's truly nothing to be done, I can accept that. I am not presently persuaded that's true though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

But moving that 1/2 of Alcova Heights to Fleet and redistricting those units South of Columbia Pike would have only made Fleet richer and whiter, right?

I'm not PP but who cares? Honestly, I am sick of crocodile tears over the lily whiteness of some of the northern schools. You buy into Yorktown or similar, you are obviously just not that concerned about diversity. That's fine. You do you, I'm no county-wide busing proponent. But if, working within the parameters APS has said are important like maximizing walkers and minimizing alignment disruption, you can make a proposal that would alleviate severe concentration of poverty within a historically challenged school and you choose not to do that? I can't understand it.

Specifically with regard to Fleet, I wouldn't really call it rich and white. It's still around 1/4 to 1/3 low income. That's a pretty decent balance from whichever way you're looking at the issue.

I'm PP and don't follow you. The east side of Alcova Heights is higher income compared to the west side of Alcova Heights. Thus, moving all the higher income units from Barcroft to Fleet, and moving the lower income units (South of Columbia Pike) from Henry to other schools would make Henry/Fleet LOSE diversity. I don't follow what you are saying about crocodile tears. I have two kids at Patrick Henry, and want the entire community to go to Fleet.

Right, I get that. What I was trying to convey is that I don't care if Henry/Fleet loses diversity because, to me, a relatively affluent zone concerned about losing some of its diversity is far outweighed by the needs of a concentrated poor zone looking for some relief. Your south-of-pike units that provide you with "diversity" would be a veritable oasis of low-poverty to Drew. And, while I can understand that it's nice to have a consistent and stable school community, I also believe that desire should be outweighed by providing relief to Drew. And yes, my family is in the Drew zone, so that's where I'm coming from.

This is PP who wrote that I didn't follow you. (Someone else has responded below.) Anyway, I wanted to thank you for responding because I understand your position now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

No, the current statistic includes those students. They've already been accounted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Drew parent here. I don't think we need to go all VIVA SALA given the current predicament. Whether or not North Arlington wants poor students in their schools, the current reality as I accept it is that *no one* wants to be bused far away and we can't afford it anyway. The choice that I and the Henry parent have a dispute over is between keeping a school community basically entirely intact, or shaving some of that community off to go to Drew and help its FARMS rate. North Arlington can't solve that problem for us given circumstances as they currently exist.

I think you are overestimating the effect that those planning units would have. They are not “wealthy” and have few SFHs (lots of apts and condos).

I did the math based on the numbers they gave us and those units are roughly 1/3 fr/l with about 150 kids. Drew is roughly 80-85%. Based on those numbers, and not accounting for transfers or opting out or any other unknowns, those units would help. Happy to be shown to be wrong, if I am. If there's truly nothing to be done, I can accept that. I am not presently persuaded that's true though.

You can use the pdf on the engage site that has PU level data, including counts of farms, to create your own scenarios, using a planning unit map for reference. The helpful thing about it is that it excludes option students who go to claremont, etc, but not Hoffman, for example. I've tried a few scenarios over the last couple weeks and there isn't a realistic one that puts Drew under 68% farms ... and all my scenarios included the PUs south of the pike that are zoned Henry. So, I'm not surprised to see a farms rate of 83 in a scenario that doesn't have them. This is a conservative estimate, not a maximum, imho. Once MC parents see this sky high rate, they are going to bolt and send it higher. No one should go to a school that is so lopsidedly disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

No, the current statistic includes those students. They've already been accounted for.

It's correct that the students in the Drew zone who transferred to HB are included in the resident FARMS statistics, but I'm talking about something a little different. While the enrolled FARMS rate in the graded program probably wasn't as high the resident FARMS rate they provided in the table (because of all of the FARMS students who transfer out via VPI), it would have been bumped up by the students who transferred from Drew to HB if those students are disproportionately non-FARMS. The net effect of the the boundary changes, once transfers from Drew to HB are discontinued, will likely be an enrolled FARMS rate that is lower the historical FARMS rate of the graded program (and meaningfully lower than the resident FARMS rate) because you'll still have VPI transfers out, but fewer non-FARMS transfers out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

No, the current statistic includes those students. They've already been accounted for.

It's correct that the students in the Drew zone who transferred to HB are included in the resident FARMS statistics, but I'm talking about something a little different. While the enrolled FARMS rate in the graded program probably wasn't as high the resident FARMS rate they provided in the table (because of all of the FARMS students who transfer out via VPI), it would have been bumped up by the students who transferred from Drew to HB if those students are disproportionately non-FARMS. The net effect of the the boundary changes, once transfers from Drew to HB are discontinued, will likely be an enrolled FARMS rate that is lower the historical FARMS rate of the graded program (and meaningfully lower than the resident FARMS rate) because you'll still have VPI transfers out, but fewer non-FARMS transfers out.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but take a look at this table. Its currently enrolled students by planning unit, excluding option schools (hb is not an option school. That means you can derive a pretty good actual, not resident farms rate figure for any combination of PUs you choose. As I said, I've done that, and I'm confident there isn't some cache of uncounted, non farms students out there.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DRAFT-Planning-Unit-Level-Enrollment-Estimates-2019-to-2021-for-Web.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

No, the current statistic includes those students. They've already been accounted for.

It's correct that the students in the Drew zone who transferred to HB are included in the resident FARMS statistics, but I'm talking about something a little different. While the enrolled FARMS rate in the graded program probably wasn't as high the resident FARMS rate they provided in the table (because of all of the FARMS students who transfer out via VPI), it would have been bumped up by the students who transferred from Drew to HB if those students are disproportionately non-FARMS. The net effect of the the boundary changes, once transfers from Drew to HB are discontinued, will likely be an enrolled FARMS rate that is lower the historical FARMS rate of the graded program (and meaningfully lower than the resident FARMS rate) because you'll still have VPI transfers out, but fewer non-FARMS transfers out.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but take a look at this table. Its currently enrolled students by planning unit, excluding option schools (hb is not an option school. That means you can derive a pretty good actual, not resident farms rate figure for any combination of PUs you choose. As I said, I've done that, and I'm confident there isn't some cache of uncounted, non farms students out there.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DRAFT-Planning-Unit-Level-Enrollment-Estimates-2019-to-2021-for-Web.pdf

I think the data APS has provided is too crappy to calculate anything concrete from it. Some places they're excluding option students, other places they're not (and it's not always clear which is the case, especially if you're trying to cross-reference data from different tables); they give ED statistics from last year but put them against population forecasts for next year and beyond; and using two different data tables with no stated differences will give you different figures for the same statistic. I won't be surprised if it comes out in the meeting that things have been mislabeled, they don't mean what they purport to mean, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

Without that neighborhood at Drew the farms rate will be over 80 percent, easily. That's why they didn't publish it in these documents. Itll be higher than carlin springs and they just don't care. Nauck wanted its own elementary and now APS is going to give it to them.

They posted the FARMS rates in the school-level data doc. Drew's FARMS rate will go down from 85% to 83%. So they can brag about reducing one of the above-average FARMS rates schools. (Which, btw, is disingenuous because Drew's current FARMS rate is much *lower* due to the Montessori program being co-located. So one could easily look at this as blowing out Drew's FARMS levels by quite a lot.)

Also worth mentioning that this is the first time they ever published the farms rate for the non-montessori portion. They've been hiding the truth for years and now they expect credit for "improving" it? NFW.

That's actually not the case. See the post above (or page before, I don't remember), laying out enrolled FARMS rate vs. resident FARMS rate. 85%/83% are the resident FARMS rates, not enrolled FARMS rates. Drew, like Randolph, sends a lot of kids to option schools via VPI, so enrolled FARMS rate is lower than resident FARMS rate.

But, Drew also sent a lot of kids to Hoffman-Boston due to the old Nauck civic ass'n option. I assume they're eliminating that, so more kids might be coming back to Drew than would otherwise be the case based on transfers alone?

The Hoffman-Boston students will be coming back. I don't have data on the demographics of who transfers from Drew to HB, but during discussions here it has been asserted that since Drew is the default for those students who are eligible, the transfers from Drew to HB tend to be disproportionately non-FARMS who want to get out of Drew. If that's true, returning those students to Drew should, if anything, improve the FARMS rate at Drew rather than make it worse.

No, the current statistic includes those students. They've already been accounted for.

It's correct that the students in the Drew zone who transferred to HB are included in the resident FARMS statistics, but I'm talking about something a little different. While the enrolled FARMS rate in the graded program probably wasn't as high the resident FARMS rate they provided in the table (because of all of the FARMS students who transfer out via VPI), it would have been bumped up by the students who transferred from Drew to HB if those students are disproportionately non-FARMS. The net effect of the the boundary changes, once transfers from Drew to HB are discontinued, will likely be an enrolled FARMS rate that is lower the historical FARMS rate of the graded program (and meaningfully lower than the resident FARMS rate) because you'll still have VPI transfers out, but fewer non-FARMS transfers out.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but take a look at this table. Its currently enrolled students by planning unit, excluding option schools (hb is not an option school. That means you can derive a pretty good actual, not resident farms rate figure for any combination of PUs you choose. As I said, I've done that, and I'm confident there isn't some cache of uncounted, non farms students out there.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DRAFT-Planning-Unit-Level-Enrollment-Estimates-2019-to-2021-for-Web.pdf

I wish they'd included the 2017 total numbers per unit to compare to the 2017 demographic numbers. A chart they put forth last spring of total enrollment by planning unit (including option students) gave a total resident population in the Drew zone of 378. According to the transfer report, 86 of those transferred to option schools other than Montessori, leaving 292 students that need to be accounted for across those units. Their 2019 projects excluding option students adds up to 149 students. So there's a difference of 143 students between 2017 actual and 2019 projected who represent some combination of resident students attending the Montessori rather than graded program and projected increases/decreases in planning unit population. But no clues as to which is which.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The presentation is up: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Sept.-26-Getting-Started-Community-Mtg-Presentation.pdf

And new information here: https://www.apsva.us/elementary-school-boundary-change/

Am I reading this right, they are going to make one proposal and that's it?

Also, see the school-level data document. They refer to Fleet as "Fleet (Henry)" meaning, I guess, that they are going to put all of current Henry at Fleet?

I think working from one proposed map (which presumably will be adjusted as the process goes on) rather than multiple maps may be a really good idea. In prior processes, having multiple maps they were choosing between really pit people against each other and created divisions by letting each group stake out the "best" map (which really was just the best for them). With one map, people can offer input and suggested changes to that map, but it's ultimate still a single map and not something some people can "vote" for over another proposal.

[Anonymous]

So the livestream of the community meeting was nothing more than someone reading aloud the presentation we could already read for ourselves online, and that's it, no further explanation of opportunity to hear questions and answers? That's garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

But moving that 1/2 of Alcova Heights to Fleet and redistricting those units South of Columbia Pike would have only made Fleet richer and whiter, right?

I'm not PP but who cares? Honestly, I am sick of crocodile tears over the lily whiteness of some of the northern schools. You buy into Yorktown or similar, you are obviously just not that concerned about diversity. That's fine. You do you, I'm no county-wide busing proponent. But if, working within the parameters APS has said are important like maximizing walkers and minimizing alignment disruption, you can make a proposal that would alleviate severe concentration of poverty within a historically challenged school and you choose not to do that? I can't understand it.

Specifically with regard to Fleet, I wouldn't really call it rich and white. It's still around 1/4 to 1/3 low income. That's a pretty decent balance from whichever way you're looking at the issue.

I'm PP and don't follow you. The east side of Alcova Heights is higher income compared to the west side of Alcova Heights. Thus, moving all the higher income units from Barcroft to Fleet, and moving the lower income units (South of Columbia Pike) from Henry to other schools would make Henry/Fleet LOSE diversity. I don't follow what you are saying about crocodile tears. I have two kids at Patrick Henry, and want the entire community to go to Fleet.

Right, I get that. What I was trying to convey is that I don't care if Henry/Fleet loses diversity because, to me, a relatively affluent zone concerned about losing some of its diversity is far outweighed by the needs of a concentrated poor zone looking for some relief. Your south-of-pike units that provide you with "diversity" would be a veritable oasis of low-poverty to Drew. And, while I can understand that it's nice to have a consistent and stable school community, I also believe that desire should be outweighed by providing relief to Drew. And yes, my family is in the Drew zone, so that's where I'm coming from.

And then what about Barcroft? If you pull half the SFHs currently zoned Barcroft, the only other adjacent PUs to backfill are low income. So you're raising the fr/l rate at Barcoft, which is already high. Taking just the few directly adjacent from Fleet is probably not a big deal, but if you take all or even half of Alcova, Barcroft goes up. And you've also split a neighborhood. Alignment is not a big deal, not bigger than the other factors. Let me know if you think this will not result in Barcroft raising above 70% and I've missed something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked they caved to the Henry families. Also surprised Alcova didnt get moved to Fleet. It seems like the county always caters to certain neighborhoods.

But moving that 1/2 of Alcova Heights to Fleet and redistricting those units South of Columbia Pike would have only made Fleet richer and whiter, right?

Alcova Heights washes itself out with the 2019 opening of Gilliam Place. if Gilliam produces as many kids as Arlington Mill did, that was over 60 elementary students who did not opt for a choice program. How many non-FRL kids come from Alcova?