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

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's enough that Wakefield has less FARMS zoned to it, it needs more SFH's with middle class families. Arlington Forest would be a great asset to Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's enough that Wakefield has less FARMS zoned to it, it needs more SFH's with middle class families. Arlington Forest would be a great asset to Wakefield.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure what this is

[Anonymous]

^^^ I didn't post it, but it's a map of an all-green boundary adjustment, as opposed to one that still has some yellow. One of the issues raised by the Arlington Forest parents last night was that the current draft proposals didn't actually achieve the right balance of numbers of students because Wakefield would still be somewhat underenrolled. The above map is also logical in terms of proximity from the perspective of where Wakefield is located (obviously less so for Yorktown). Another point that was raised last night was that proximity was cited by APS as the #1 priority for most parents. Unfortunately, the above map has the side effect of crushing Wakefield demographically.

[Anonymous]

Why put W-L so far under capacity?

Make Wakefield the least-crowded school, and then when parents complain about trailers, they can be told that transferring to Wakefield is an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why put W-L so far under capacity?

Make Wakefield the least-crowded school, and then when parents complain about trailers, they can be told that transferring to Wakefield is an option.

Because WL is going to end up having to share its campus/space with whatever school/academy ends up in the EdCenter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put W-L so far under capacity?

Make Wakefield the least-crowded school, and then when parents complain about trailers, they can be told that transferring to Wakefield is an option.

Because WL is going to end up having to share its campus/space with whatever school/academy ends up in the EdCenter.

You can get a deal in south Arlington and an underenrolled school that doesn't share its campus with some new fangled trendy program. Come on down!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I didn't post it, but it's a map of an all-green boundary adjustment, as opposed to one that still has some yellow. One of the issues raised by the Arlington Forest parents last night was that the current draft proposals didn't actually achieve the right balance of numbers of students because Wakefield would still be somewhat underenrolled. The above map is also logical in terms of proximity from the perspective of where Wakefield is located (obviously less so for Yorktown). Another point that was raised last night was that proximity was cited by APS as the #1 priority for most parents. Unfortunately, the above map has the side effect of crushing Wakefield demographically.

Exactly, which is why this map is a complete nonstarter, as was pointed out when it was first posted.

I take serious issue with the characterization of proximity as the "#1" priority for most parents. This was announced immediately after the statement that the planning department suspected that some people were attempting to "vote" early and often by submitting the exact same planning unit suggestions over and over and over. If that's true, then the they really have no idea what the #1 priority among individuals who submitted maps, never mind among parents county-wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I didn't post it, but it's a map of an all-green boundary adjustment, as opposed to one that still has some yellow. One of the issues raised by the Arlington Forest parents last night was that the current draft proposals didn't actually achieve the right balance of numbers of students because Wakefield would still be somewhat underenrolled. The above map is also logical in terms of proximity from the perspective of where Wakefield is located (obviously less so for Yorktown). Another point that was raised last night was that proximity was cited by APS as the #1 priority for most parents. Unfortunately, the above map has the side effect of crushing Wakefield demographically.

Exactly, which is why this map is a complete nonstarter, as was pointed out when it was first posted.

I take serious issue with the characterization of proximity as the "#1" priority for most parents. This was announced immediately after the statement that the planning department suspected that some people were attempting to "vote" early and often by submitting the exact same planning unit suggestions over and over and over. If that's true, then the they really have no idea what the #1 priority among individuals who submitted maps, never mind among parents county-wide.

I'm the immediate PP and I agree, although I admit I submitted more than one map myself (not 500+ though). I was mostly just trying to relay the Arlington Forest folks' viewpoints. It's also probably way more of a priority for parents who have the potential of a walk zone. Many don't have realistic walk options to anywhere. But fundamentally, the real point is this is why we do stuff like this in representative fashion, instead of simply by referendum. I'm hoping county representatives continue to keep that in mind.

[Anonymous]

They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/

Oh man. There were some parents last night who were adamant that the numbers were off. Looks like they were right. Just, lol at this whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/

At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.

As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.

Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.

UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I didn't post it, but it's a map of an all-green boundary adjustment, as opposed to one that still has some yellow. One of the issues raised by the Arlington Forest parents last night was that the current draft proposals didn't actually achieve the right balance of numbers of students because Wakefield would still be somewhat underenrolled. The above map is also logical in terms of proximity from the perspective of where Wakefield is located (obviously less so for Yorktown). Another point that was raised last night was that proximity was cited by APS as the #1 priority for most parents. Unfortunately, the above map has the side effect of crushing Wakefield demographically.

Exactly, which is why this map is a complete nonstarter, as was pointed out when it was first posted.

I take serious issue with the characterization of proximity as the "#1" priority for most parents. This was announced immediately after the statement that the planning department suspected that some people were attempting to "vote" early and often by submitting the exact same planning unit suggestions over and over and over. If that's true, then the they really have no idea what the #1 priority among individuals who submitted maps, never mind among parents county-wide.

I'm the immediate PP and I agree, although I admit I submitted more than one map myself (not 500+ though). I was mostly just trying to relay the Arlington Forest folks' viewpoints. It's also probably way more of a priority for parents who have the potential of a walk zone. Many don't have realistic walk options to anywhere. But fundamentally, the real point is this is why we do stuff like this in representative fashion, instead of simply by referendum. I'm hoping county representatives continue to keep that in mind.

I'm a new PP and I can tell you that I submitted two entries (for our household, my husband said I should do one for him), and I indicated that proximity was a factor for me. That's why I sent Arlington Forest PU's to Wakefield rather than some others, like the ones at the east pike, because they are CLOSER. And they are closer than sending a bunch of PU's on the West Pike up to Yorktown. So, if they are only using the terms and not comparing them against the other info provided in the comments section, than they missed why I think Arlington Forest meets the proximity qualification.

And yeah, nice try there with the bogus submissions "vote early and vote often" dude from the ArlNow comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/

Oh man. There were some parents last night who were adamant that the numbers were off. Looks like they were right. Just, lol at this whole thing.

I'm not sure which day I am more looking forward to, November 9th or December 13th. Some things just need to end!