APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Busing kids across county that could otherwise walk to school is a flagrant abuse of our tax dollars! If there is so much concern for demographics then open up the transfer policy to allow a percentage of minority students to select a more diverse school.

And the North Arlington parents who are all for the this social engineering can send their kids South, starting with elementary school. And the rest of our kids can WALK (and let's face it, they need to get off their devices and exercise more)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Busing kids across county that could otherwise walk to school is a flagrant abuse of our tax dollars! If there is so much concern for demographics then open up the transfer policy to allow a percentage of minority students to select a more diverse school.

And the North Arlington parents who are all for the this social engineering can send their kids South, starting with elementary school. And the rest of our kids can WALK (and let's face it, they need to get off their devices and exercise more)

I will enjoy reading the future wapo articles calling us out on our flagrantly racist attitudes. People like you make me hate it here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Busing kids across county that could otherwise walk to school is a flagrant abuse of our tax dollars! If there is so much concern for demographics then open up the transfer policy to allow a percentage of minority students to select a more diverse school.

And the North Arlington parents who are all for the this social engineering can send their kids South, starting with elementary school. And the rest of our kids can WALK (and let's face it, they need to get off their devices and exercise more)

Any other conservative tropes you want to throw out there? I think you forgot a few of your buzzwords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

[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.

Dominion Hills (the “L” streets from Wilson to Washington) is walking to Swanson currently. Patrick Henry is a Bridge over 66 with wide sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

I guess if the parents in those PUs aren't happy with the current proposals they should chime in. Is that really an issue for them? Would they want to change to Swanson or change to W-L? If not, they won't have alignment. It's not clear if that's a big deal to them or not.

[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.

Is the Board just deaf to this issue? I don't understand what seems to be a willful screw these kids attitude.... Will raising this issue in this MS redistricting process help anything if enough people make noise? I guess I feel like unlike people who are like I don't want to go to X school because it isn't as good or I don't like it, for this weird little block it is a legitimate alignment/messed up school path where the care isn't where they get sent, it is just making sure the kids aren't loners in that path/weird flight of the bumblebee they've created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

I guess if the parents in those PUs aren't happy with the current proposals they should chime in. Is that really an issue for them? Would they want to change to Swanson or change to W-L? If not, they won't have alignment. It's not clear if that's a big deal to them or not.

They did chime in in the HS boundary redrawing, and it didn't work. Something like only 20 kids per year will move from Kenmore to Yorktown - so basically this entire PU will have kids who have to start HS "new" with basically no friends from MS. High school is crappy enough to transition to for a kid, I think this alignment (without any correction) is just cruel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

I guess if the parents in those PUs aren't happy with the current proposals they should chime in. Is that really an issue for them? Would they want to change to Swanson or change to W-L? If not, they won't have alignment. It's not clear if that's a big deal to them or not.

Are you kidding me with this? You think only the kids who breathe the rarefied air of upper North Arlington care whether their kids get to have alignment? They were upset about the move to Yorktown and spoke at SB meeting and sent mass emails to no avail. That's over and done with. Now how do we not make the same mistake again? There are a scenarios presented for the MS boundary, such as B, and to a lesser extent H and F, that don't preclude continuity for this community. Since "B" is called alignment, I think alignment is preserved for most across Arlington. I'm guessing you really don't like H and/or F and that's why you think it's more reasonable that this group could just ask to have the HS boundary redone rather than advocate for an outcome that is on the table.

[Anonymous]

So FFx, Moco, Howard -- which won't have all this nonsense of distant learning and 4000 kid schools and fragmented alignment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

I guess if the parents in those PUs aren't happy with the current proposals they should chime in. Is that really an issue for them? Would they want to change to Swanson or change to W-L? If not, they won't have alignment. It's not clear if that's a big deal to them or not.

Are you kidding me with this? You think only the kids who breathe the rarefied air of upper North Arlington care whether their kids get to have alignment? They were upset about the move to Yorktown and spoke at SB meeting and sent mass emails to no avail. That's over and done with. Now how do we not make the same mistake again? There are a scenarios presented for the MS boundary, such as B, and to a lesser extent H and F, that don't preclude continuity for this community. Since "B" is called alignment, I think alignment is preserved for most across Arlington. I'm guessing you really don't like H and/or F and that's why you think it's more reasonable that this group could just ask to have the HS boundary redone rather than advocate for an outcome that is on the table.

Let's see - I don't like H because there are walkable Swanson kids who would be moved to Kenmore. Just like I don't like A which puts walkable Kenmore kids at Swanson. But I personally value walkability and would prioritize it over other factors. Since I don't live there I would defer to the people in those PUs and support what they want. That's why I asked - I didn't know what they prefer. If they'd rather go with H then I'll support that.

It's pretty similar to J, which was the first one to jump out at me because it promotes proximity and efficiency. If the people are negatively affected WRT walkability are OK with it then so am I.

Same with the Rosslyn island in F. It doesn't look ideal to me but if people in that island want to keep it then I'd support them.


FWIW - our PU isn't affected by any of the scenarios so no skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

^ and I don't live in "upper North Arlington"

[Anonymous]

How is alignment even a factor when we will have 2 new ES schools opening in the next few years? Since those boundaries haven't been established yet, how do we even know which planning units will be outliers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But I don't think A is being considered. I think only B, D, F, H, and J are being presented for community discussion.

You are correct. A is not currently on the table.

I guess if the parents in those PUs aren't happy with the current proposals they should chime in. Is that really an issue for them? Would they want to change to Swanson or change to W-L? If not, they won't have alignment. It's not clear if that's a big deal to them or not.

Are you kidding me with this? You think only the kids who breathe the rarefied air of upper North Arlington care whether their kids get to have alignment? They were upset about the move to Yorktown and spoke at SB meeting and sent mass emails to no avail. That's over and done with. Now how do we not make the same mistake again? There are a scenarios presented for the MS boundary, such as B, and to a lesser extent H and F, that don't preclude continuity for this community. Since "B" is called alignment, I think alignment is preserved for most across Arlington. I'm guessing you really don't like H and/or F and that's why you think it's more reasonable that this group could just ask to have the HS boundary redone rather than advocate for an outcome that is on the table.

Ha! I really like you, above poster!

The thing I wonder though is whether continuing to speak up now will actually get results, given the failure to do so before. Now mind you, I'm not saying oh, let's give up, I actually think the last results mean the community should redouble its efforts to be heard. I just hope people aren't discouraged by the last process and don't speak up (which then could allow the Board to be ignorant and say "hey, they didn't care!" and give more weight to all of the other bellyaching against the approaches that would actually help alignment for this area).