Holding APS Leadership, Staff and School Board Accountable for the Boundary Mess

[Anonymous]

This process makes me so sad. I think if there hadn’t been implied promises to Henry (real or not), then map 6.1.a was truly a solid attempt at sensibly filling Drew with the least amount of disruption systemwide. But as I’ve come to understand the Henry parents’ viewpoint, I really feel for them. Why break apart an existing performing school? It does appear they were sold a bill of goods, going back quite some time.

I liked the point made by one of the speakers last night asking for an explanation for the ludicrously gerrymandered Map 1. Reid tried to get an answer out of the planners, and even asked APS staff directly to walk through their thinking behind the flow of one map to the other over the course of the process. The lead planner, Laura S, looked absolutely stricken at that moment. She even snapped back at Reid and said “You should have given me the questions in advance!” He retorted, “I thought I did.”

In view of that exchange, and in view of the SB copiously praising the planners to the absolute confusion of any outside observer with at least a third grade education, I am starting to smell a cover up. We’re the SB members deeply involved behind the scenes at each stage in developing the maps? Were the planners ordered to draw these silly maps which they did holding their nose along the way? Why else would the SB praise them so profusely? Alternately the SB is covering for Patrick Murphy pulling the strings behind the scenes, which doesn’t seem likely.

Anyone else? The vote last night doesn’t end the most important question in my view — Who drew the first map and why?

I’m also deeply disappointed in local news reporting on this issue, especially from the Washington Post, which seemed to completely ignore Drew’s complex history. I would like to see our elected officials, and Patrick Murphy, held professionally accountable for this mess. Without real journalism, it’s harder.

I deeply believe there needs to be accountability for this failed process. Does anyone else agree? How do we demand it?

[Anonymous]

My own personal theory from watching this mess since map 1 is that the planners did intend to move almost all of Henry to Fleet. That’s why you had maps 1 and 2. But then the community forced them to answer why Henry’s boundaries were remaining mostly untouched, especially since it meant taking huge chunks of Abingdon out of the equation for 2020. It wasn’t just SF asking either. The planners stated at one point they squared away Fleet first, then went to figure out everybody else (Abingdon). People called it out.

But yes, to your point, an explanation would be nice. I don’t see it forthcoming though.

[Anonymous]

Just a thought and I don’t know how to make this happen... but this whole mess seems ripe for a week-by-week investigative podcast.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe there could be a cable show: “The Drama Queens and Kings of Arlington County.” Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a thought and I don’t know how to make this happen... but this whole mess seems ripe for a week-by-week investigative podcast.

With a listenership of...South Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This process makes me so sad. I think if there hadn’t been implied promises to Henry (real or not), then map 6.1.a was truly a solid attempt at sensibly filling Drew with the least amount of disruption systemwide. But as I’ve come to understand the Henry parents’ viewpoint, I really feel for them. Why break apart an existing performing school? It does appear they were sold a bill of goods, going back quite some time.

I liked the point made by one of the speakers last night asking for an explanation for the ludicrously gerrymandered Map 1. Reid tried to get an answer out of the planners, and even asked APS staff directly to walk through their thinking behind the flow of one map to the other over the course of the process. The lead planner, Laura S, looked absolutely stricken at that moment. She even snapped back at Reid and said “You should have given me the questions in advance!” He retorted, “I thought I did.”

In view of that exchange, and in view of the SB copiously praising the planners to the absolute confusion of any outside observer with at least a third grade education, I am starting to smell a cover up. We’re the SB members deeply involved behind the scenes at each stage in developing the maps? Were the planners ordered to draw these silly maps which they did holding their nose along the way? Why else would the SB praise them so profusely? Alternately the SB is covering for Patrick Murphy pulling the strings behind the scenes, which doesn’t seem likely.

Anyone else? The vote last night doesn’t end the most important question in my view — Who drew the first map and why?

I’m also deeply disappointed in local news reporting on this issue, especially from the Washington Post, which seemed to completely ignore Drew’s complex history. I would like to see our elected officials, and Patrick Murphy, held professionally accountable for this mess. Without real journalism, it’s harder.

I deeply believe there needs to be accountability for this failed process. Does anyone else agree? How do we demand it?

CF resident here: when I talked to Tannia I asked how the planning unit boundaries were decided. It seemed they are abritrarily drawn and I talked about how George Mason villages should have not been included in the Barcroft park planning unit. She asked me if those were the apartments next to the baseball field and I said yes. And she agreed with my point. She responded that the staff made up the first map and that the SB hadn't fully studied it yet at that point or were in the process of studying it. (Before October 17)

My personal opinion was that map 1 was drawn because it was the path of least resistance. It was a ludicrous map that isolated CF and concentrated poverty. I am thankful for those outside and inside CF calling the SB staff on that. If what Barbabara K says is true, that staff walk the neighborhoods and understand them, then they simply did not care for the students living in CF and the surrounding neighborhoods that were also selected to go to Drew in map 1. Map 1 was offensive on several levels and I have zero trust in the SB and especially their staff.

[Anonymous]

I would think that a Pulitzer type multi week project chronicling the demise of a once solid school system would be in order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that a Pulitzer type multi week project chronicling the demise of a once solid school system would be in order.

To add: resulting from poor planning decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that a Pulitzer type multi week project chronicling the demise of a once solid school system would be in order.

When was it solid? Serious question. Arlington lost population in the 70’s, it came back in the 80s and 90s but it saw an influx of poverty in SA, then gentrification started in the 2000s or so. Seriously, look at the census changes from 2000 to 2010.

When was this golden age of APS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that a Pulitzer type multi week project chronicling the demise of a once solid school system would be in order.

Those grapes are BITTER!

[Anonymous]

Map 1 has an easy explanation but it’s not something anyone wants to say out loud: if you concentrate the poverty at a handful of schools then the rest will be considered “good” and the transfer rates will go down. Sacrifice Barcroft, Randolph, Carlin Springs, and Drew so that the rest are acceptable to the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This process makes me so sad. I think if there hadn’t been implied promises to Henry (real or not), then map 6.1.a was truly a solid attempt at sensibly filling Drew with the least amount of disruption systemwide. But as I’ve come to understand the Henry parents’ viewpoint, I really feel for them. Why break apart an existing performing school? It does appear they were sold a bill of goods, going back quite some time.

I liked the point made by one of the speakers last night asking for an explanation for the ludicrously gerrymandered Map 1. Reid tried to get an answer out of the planners, and even asked APS staff directly to walk through their thinking behind the flow of one map to the other over the course of the process. The lead planner, Laura S, looked absolutely stricken at that moment. She even snapped back at Reid and said “You should have given me the questions in advance!” He retorted, “I thought I did.”

In view of that exchange, and in view of the SB copiously praising the planners to the absolute confusion of any outside observer with at least a third grade education, I am starting to smell a cover up. We’re the SB members deeply involved behind the scenes at each stage in developing the maps? Were the planners ordered to draw these silly maps which they did holding their nose along the way? Why else would the SB praise them so profusely? Alternately the SB is covering for Patrick Murphy pulling the strings behind the scenes, which doesn’t seem likely.

Anyone else? The vote last night doesn’t end the most important question in my view — Who drew the first map and why?

I’m also deeply disappointed in local news reporting on this issue, especially from the Washington Post, which seemed to completely ignore Drew’s complex history. I would like to see our elected officials, and Patrick Murphy, held professionally accountable for this mess. Without real journalism, it’s harder.

I deeply believe there needs to be accountability for this failed process. Does anyone else agree? How do we demand it?

Proof that if you hear something enough times, you begin to believe it and it becomes truth.

Nevertheless, APS and SB both indeed need to be held accountable for the mess they create in these processes. In a degree of fairness, however, the community's demand for such extensive input every step of the way - and all the individual groups' expectations that their demands be met - has a significant impact on how things go, too. The process doesn't cause divisiveness.....Divisiveness pre-exists in the community and our way of approaching advocacy only feeds the process' impact on exacerbating that divisiveness. Everyone has a part in the blame here. But APS and the SB absolutely need to be held accountable for not only accurate data, also to use appropriate data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My own personal theory from watching this mess since map 1 is that the planners did intend to move almost all of Henry to Fleet. That’s why you had maps 1 and 2. But then the community forced them to answer why Henry’s boundaries were remaining mostly untouched, especially since it meant taking huge chunks of Abingdon out of the equation for 2020. It wasn’t just SF asking either. The planners stated at one point they squared away Fleet first, then went to figure out everybody else (Abingdon). People called it out.

But yes, to your point, an explanation would be nice. I don’t see it forthcoming though.

I agree with this. When I saw it, I assumed that Henry was correct that they had been promised they would stay together (or at least both the school community and the staff were misled in the same way), so they started from that as the first step, as much as possible kept walk zone units at current schools (thus Oakridge didn't offer units to shift to Drew), and then threw their hands up at the FARMS rate issue.

[Anonymous]

Come on.
The keep Henry Together nonsense was always going to be at that expense of another school’s demographics.
The only thing that f’ed this up was SOUTH ARLINGTON and a general lack of political awareness and savy.
South Fairlington should have seen it coming a year ago.
You know who would have seen it coming?
Parents at Tuckahoe, or Nottingham, or Taylor, or Jamestown.
This was a shit show, because staff are used to dealing with a shrewd group. If south Arlington has proven anything, it’s that they don’t have a clue. It’s why all the CAF are concentrated down there and why 100’s more are on the way thanks to Amazon.
At least your house will appreciate. I guess you can take out a home equity line of credit to pay for private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Map 1 has an easy explanation but it’s not something anyone wants to say out loud: if you concentrate the poverty at a handful of schools then the rest will be considered “good” and the transfer rates will go down. Sacrifice Barcroft, Randolph, Carlin Springs, and Drew so that the rest are acceptable to the middle class.

You're not wrong but we are already doing that and it's why Henry and Oakridge were so crowded and why this whole process started in the first place.

The "rest" are two schools: Henry and Oakridge. Families flocked to those schools over the last ten years because they were the least poor of SA schools. That got momentum and the result was that both schools FRL rates fell by over 30 points. That led to those schools getting really crowded, because once the rate started going down people really wanted to catch that train.

Meanwhile, the CB built more and more subsidized housing in the other SA schools zones, making their FRLs even higher, and barring any redevelopment of Barcroft Apts. That only made Henry and Oakridge even more desirable, since it was now clear that Barcroft, Randolph, carlin, had no way to lower their frl rates via gentrification and UMC buy in the way that Henry and Oakridge had.

Enter this boundary process, which reveals that at the moment- sa is not overcrowded. Claremont, Oakridge and Henry are. And why? Because the other schools, the rest, are segregated, high poverty, and undesirable to a large potion of the SA MC and UMC. Our segregation is the root cause of overcrowding, not our "success" as a school district in general.