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

[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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

[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/

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.

why even bother with 'options' when they'll do whatever they want to do? just redraw all boundaries and give each school the same %s of overcrowding and walker vs bussers and FARMs vs non-FAMRs. it's not that hard with the data and tool they already have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

why even bother with 'options' when they'll do whatever they want to do? just redraw all boundaries and give each school the same %s of overcrowding and walker vs bussers and FARMs vs non-FAMRs. it's not that hard with the data and tool they already have.

Apparently, they think residents are going to have a pleasant conversation over tea about which options they prefer and then all will come to some agreement about what is best.

[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/

This is why I asked last night if this was a plan for just year one. Because anyone who actually used the tool could figure that units proposed weren't likely to get the job done. The map I submitted moved Arlington Forest to Wakefield AND several others to Wakefield as well, and I still couldn't get Wakefield out of yellow in the first year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.

[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/

This is why I asked last night if this was a plan for just year one. Because anyone who actually used the tool could figure that units proposed weren't likely to get the job done. The map I submitted moved Arlington Forest to Wakefield AND several others to Wakefield as well, and I still couldn't get Wakefield out of yellow in the first year.

Maybe this screw-up makes it easier. Instead of choosing between options 1, 2, and 3 for Wakefield, they can just announce that all those planning units will be moved. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.

You would think that after the HB fiasco they would have learned their lesson. All that "transparency" and "consensus building"--enormous waste of time and energy and, ultimately (given the decisions that were finally made), money.

DO YOUR JOB.

[Anonymous]

They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.

I agree. I have mixed emotions and general bemusement at how last night went down, but there was a genuinely sad moment when everyone was carping on Wakefield, both directly and indirectly, and a Wakefield rep spoke up to defend it. Fine, it has a higher % of low-income kids and a lower pass rate on some state tests, but come on. It's not a third-world prison camp.

[Anonymous]

I'm a south Arlington parent of a toddler. High school is many years away for my family, but I'm following the discussion. We are inbetween gen x and millenials and were never concerned with Wakefield. Is this a generational divide, or will we change our tune as we get closer to middle school? Do you think the younger middle class families moving into south Arlington will stick around for high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.

I agree. I have mixed emotions and general bemusement at how last night went down, but there was a genuinely sad moment when everyone was carping on Wakefield, both directly and indirectly, and a Wakefield rep spoke up to defend it. Fine, it has a higher % of low-income kids and a lower pass rate on some state tests, but come on. It's not a third-world prison camp.

I urge those of you who feel this way to email the school board and Linda Erdos to tell them. This is terribly demoralizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

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.

WHAT?!?!

Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.

I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.

This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."

I don't know. I've always felt that many Arlingtonians were really blasé about the quality of all three high schools. Many will say how great they all are, but now people are getting real. I don't like the incivility, but I do think it's about time people get on the level- especially our leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a south Arlington parent of a toddler. High school is many years away for my family, but I'm following the discussion. We are inbetween gen x and millenials and were never concerned with Wakefield. Is this a generational divide, or will we change our tune as we get closer to middle school? Do you think the younger middle class families moving into south Arlington will stick around for high school?

I'm an Arlington parent of high schoolers, married to an APS teacher. We know kids who are thriving at all 4 Arlington high schools (including HB). We know APS teachers at all 4 high schools. I don't know if you will change your tune, but honestly I don't think you should. There are terrific teachers and kids there.