Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that the vote on the new school zones will take place on Dec 6th. We're not doing the other 5 exercises in frustration, I mean zoning. So I guess we'll learn then what the plan is? Or will the Nov 27th public hearing make it too contentious?

I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Ummmm, when the heck do we go from theorizing about the plan to knowing what APS will do? Or will the "troops" being rallied make APS delay the Dec 6th announcement noted on the website? They've already scrapped the other 5 zoning metrics because the walkability study was too contentious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

The Drew boosters are eyeing that part of Douglas Park to be zoned FROM HB TO Drew.

You posted that rumor before months ago and I don't know where you are getting it from. It's nonsense. That area in question is in the Randolph walkzone and Randolph is under capacity is under capacity. It's going to Randolph and the staff spreadsheet indicated as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

Is it the case they're going to pull current HB students out and send them to Drew? I was not aware of that. We live in Nauck and have a neighbor whose child goes to HB, they certainly have not heard anything about that.

In any event Drew is losing 450 Montessori students, which I imagine is substantially more than even the sum of those who opt into HB from the Drew zone and the future Randolph students.

Yes, I think that's pretty likely that they would move kids living in the Drew zone out of HB. That is what rezoning does. They will hear about whether or not it's happening when the rest of us do, this fall. But the option for kids in the Nauck Civic Assn boundary to attend HB is an artifact of montessori being at Drew, and since it's no longer there and they need to fill Drew, I wouldn't count on your friends kids getting grandfathered in at HB. I assume this is also a secondary reason that HBs current principal is going to Drew - there would be some continuity there.

Drew's open seats will probably also be filled by the current Patrick's Henry PUs south of the Pike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

The Drew boosters are eyeing that part of Douglas Park to be zoned FROM HB TO Drew.

You posted that rumor before months ago and I don't know where you are getting it from. It's nonsense. That area in question is in the Randolph walkzone and Randolph is under capacity is under capacity. It's going to Randolph and the staff spreadsheet indicated as much.

I didn’t post that, and it’s been said by Nauck civic association people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see when the proposals come out, but I would bet money on key not moving. People need to realize that not moving key has effects on the rest of the county, especially with the asfs boundary staying fixed going forward. Looking at the other thread, it seems like the thought is to empty long branch to fleet, and move most of south of wilson to long branch. What do you south arlingtons think of that? Does that do anything to help with boundaries and disrupt poverty pockets?

Where did you hear that one? The PUs zoned to Henry are the ones that are mostly supposed to go to Fleet. I say mostly because some of them will certainly be zoned to Drew, because they were closer to Drew in the first place. I agree with others that it would be odd to send the PUs from Long Branch to Fleet, so free up more seats in Clarendon/Rosslyn, when Henry is bursting at the seams. Fleet will open at capacity.

Plus, I think Henry PTA would probably lay siege to Fleet if it were zoned as a school for people north of 50... I don't know what T-shirt color they've chosen though.

It was the consensus in the other boundary thread. People kept saying "long branch will make space there's no space in taylor". If you sum up the units in the current key, taylor, and long branch zones, you exceed the building capacities. You can likely assume that a certain percentage will keep on going to key because its close by, but since they only have one year of data, that seems like a risk.
APS really f'ed this up. I'll be curious to see what the proposals look like this fall.

Henry is at 143%. Taylor is at 98%. There may some land at play, but the Henry population as it exists will fill Fleet.

Isn't Reed supposed to take pressure off of the north schools?

Sorry, but ASFS zone currently has about 300 extra kids now that Key is no longer neighborhood -- before they even start adding a walk zone around ASFS! They need another school, and if they shift them all to Taylor it's utilization goes to 145% -- so if Key stays immersion, Long Branch has to be in the mix.

This is why it made sense to many people to make key and ASFS both neighborhood, put immersion in the ATS building, and shift the ATS program to Nottingham once Reed is available. That part of the county will be able to absorb students into the neighborhood schools, freeing up capacity elsewhere. The current ATS building may not be an ideal location for immersion, but something’s gotta give.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see when the proposals come out, but I would bet money on key not moving. People need to realize that not moving key has effects on the rest of the county, especially with the asfs boundary staying fixed going forward. Looking at the other thread, it seems like the thought is to empty long branch to fleet, and move most of south of wilson to long branch. What do you south arlingtons think of that? Does that do anything to help with boundaries and disrupt poverty pockets?

Where did you hear that one? The PUs zoned to Henry are the ones that are mostly supposed to go to Fleet. I say mostly because some of them will certainly be zoned to Drew, because they were closer to Drew in the first place. I agree with others that it would be odd to send the PUs from Long Branch to Fleet, so free up more seats in Clarendon/Rosslyn, when Henry is bursting at the seams. Fleet will open at capacity.

Plus, I think Henry PTA would probably lay siege to Fleet if it were zoned as a school for people north of 50... I don't know what T-shirt color they've chosen though.

It was the consensus in the other boundary thread. People kept saying "long branch will make space there's no space in taylor". If you sum up the units in the current key, taylor, and long branch zones, you exceed the building capacities. You can likely assume that a certain percentage will keep on going to key because its close by, but since they only have one year of data, that seems like a risk.
APS really f'ed this up. I'll be curious to see what the proposals look like this fall.

Henry is at 143%. Taylor is at 98%. There may some land at play, but the Henry population as it exists will fill Fleet.

Isn't Reed supposed to take pressure off of the north schools?

Sorry, but ASFS zone currently has about 300 extra kids now that Key is no longer neighborhood -- before they even start adding a walk zone around ASFS! They need another school, and if they shift them all to Taylor it's utilization goes to 145% -- so if Key stays immersion, Long Branch has to be in the mix.

This is why it made sense to many people to make key and ASFS both neighborhood, put immersion in the ATS building, and shift the ATS program to Nottingham once Reed is available. That part of the county will be able to absorb students into the neighborhood schools, freeing up capacity elsewhere. The current ATS building may not be an ideal location for immersion, but something’s gotta give.

Key isn't moving. I think everyone including staff thought it was a good idea (as evidenced by all of their write ups). There is no political will to do it.
Once they do whatever boundaries to move long branch to h-b and then move asfs to long branch and taylor, it will be impossible to try to get them to move key. All the planning units around it will have been moved to other schools.
If you believe strongly that immersion should move to somewhere where there are more native spanish speakers, then now is the time to voice this because unless there is a strong push from the community to move key in the next few weeks, that's it we're stuck with key where it is for at least the next five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see when the proposals come out, but I would bet money on key not moving. People need to realize that not moving key has effects on the rest of the county, especially with the asfs boundary staying fixed going forward. Looking at the other thread, it seems like the thought is to empty long branch to fleet, and move most of south of wilson to long branch. What do you south arlingtons think of that? Does that do anything to help with boundaries and disrupt poverty pockets?

Where did you hear that one? The PUs zoned to Henry are the ones that are mostly supposed to go to Fleet. I say mostly because some of them will certainly be zoned to Drew, because they were closer to Drew in the first place. I agree with others that it would be odd to send the PUs from Long Branch to Fleet, so free up more seats in Clarendon/Rosslyn, when Henry is bursting at the seams. Fleet will open at capacity.

Plus, I think Henry PTA would probably lay siege to Fleet if it were zoned as a school for people north of 50... I don't know what T-shirt color they've chosen though.

It was the consensus in the other boundary thread. People kept saying "long branch will make space there's no space in taylor". If you sum up the units in the current key, taylor, and long branch zones, you exceed the building capacities. You can likely assume that a certain percentage will keep on going to key because its close by, but since they only have one year of data, that seems like a risk.
APS really f'ed this up. I'll be curious to see what the proposals look like this fall.

Henry is at 143%. Taylor is at 98%. There may some land at play, but the Henry population as it exists will fill Fleet.

Isn't Reed supposed to take pressure off of the north schools?

Sorry, but ASFS zone currently has about 300 extra kids now that Key is no longer neighborhood -- before they even start adding a walk zone around ASFS! They need another school, and if they shift them all to Taylor it's utilization goes to 145% -- so if Key stays immersion, Long Branch has to be in the mix.

This is why it made sense to many people to make key and ASFS both neighborhood, put immersion in the ATS building, and shift the ATS program to Nottingham once Reed is available. That part of the county will be able to absorb students into the neighborhood schools, freeing up capacity elsewhere. The current ATS building may not be an ideal location for immersion, but something’s gotta give.

Key isn't moving. I think everyone including staff thought it was a good idea (as evidenced by all of their write ups). There is no political will to do it.
Once they do whatever boundaries to move long branch to h-b and then move asfs to long branch and taylor, it will be impossible to try to get them to move key. All the planning units around it will have been moved to other schools.
If you believe strongly that immersion should move to somewhere where there are more native spanish speakers, then now is the time to voice this because unless there is a strong push from the community to move key in the next few weeks, that's it we're stuck with key where it is for at least the next five years.

Sorry I'm the pp right above -- I meant that everyone including staff thought it was a good idea to move key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

The Drew boosters are eyeing that part of Douglas Park to be zoned FROM HB TO Drew.

You posted that rumor before months ago and I don't know where you are getting it from. It's nonsense. That area in question is in the Randolph walkzone and Randolph is under capacity is under capacity. It's going to Randolph and the staff spreadsheet indicated as much.

I didn’t post that, and it’s been said by Nauck civic association people.

Here it is, the phrase "eyeing" jogged my memory.: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/510/690327.page#12457845

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS does need to make Drew more attractive. Isn't the principal from H-B going to Drew? With all new programs, and the influx of UMCs from Henry and Oakridge, it could be a well balanced school, if people don't fight going there.

"Could be" is the operative phrase. APS admin will be under pressure to drop the AH in the Oakridge walk zone on Drew's doorstep, because the alternative is sending wealthier families out of Oakridge to HB. Those kids are getting busssd now anyway, but I expect they'll complain and the AH families won't, because they probably are completely unaware the boundaries are being shifted. That would be a disaster for Drew. UMC buy-in at Drew hinges on one and only one thing: the estimated farms rate. If it's above 50 percent, UMC will bail and it will spiral up to 70 or higher. Nauck is not Douglas Park. There are many homes that have long since been paid off and been inherited by children and grandchildren. That is why, despite being mostly duplexes and SFH that sell relatively high, Nauck has a poverty rate that rivals that of Buckingham. It already has all the farms. It really, really doesn't need it made worse by the elementary boundary process..

The principal from HB is by all accounts wonderful, but she had the wind at her back there ... a gentrifying neighborhood with a falling farms rate, and the Mongolian population at the school places a lot of value on education. At Drew she's going to face a very different situation, and frankly, a more complex and harder one compounded by history. I think she's up to the task but I think it'd be critical that she have the resources that UMC families bring to a school. That won't happen if APS draws inequitable boundaries.

I think I get what you are saying, but usually, inheriting a house (living mortgage/rent free) usually increases a family's income. It's usually a way to pass on wealth to the next generation because you can sell it and get money or you can live in it and save your money.

Why is it different in Nauck? I am asking out of curiosity, not to be a jerk.

Inheriting a house free and clear is generally a one time windfall, not an ongoing source of income, unless you have somewhere else to live and can rent it out. My sense is that many people in this situation were already living with aged parents and so stayed after they passed because that was their house, too. In others, inheriting the house actually did increase their income because they were able to move in, rent-free, and stop paying rent elsewhere.

I own in Nauck and am the 2nd owner of an 80 year old property. The family that used to own still is in the neighborhood from time to time and I have met them. They said they couldn't afford the property taxes and had to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

The Drew boosters are eyeing that part of Douglas Park to be zoned FROM HB TO Drew.

You posted that rumor before months ago and I don't know where you are getting it from. It's nonsense. That area in question is in the Randolph walkzone and Randolph is under capacity is under capacity. It's going to Randolph and the staff spreadsheet indicated as much.

I didn’t post that, and it’s been said by Nauck civic association people.

Here it is, the phrase "eyeing" jogged my memory.: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/510/690327.page#12457845

Not a particularly unique turn of phrase. Get off DCUM and go see a movie or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think I understand your point.

Also, I'm not familiar with the numbers but my general take is Drew will have a lot more open seats than Hoffman-Boston given the Montessori move.

A large chunk of HB students live in Nauck, and are bussed to HB; Nauck students have for years had the option of attending either Drew or HB. Once they are rezoned to Drew, that will open up space at HB. More space will be opened up when the chunk of Douglas park bounded by Pollard, Walter Reed, and 4mr that is currently zoned to HB is reassigned to randolph, which has room and is walkable from there. Those two thing would free up space at HB that Oakridge could use to alleviate overcrowding, without resorting to bussing kids out of its walk zone.

The Drew boosters are eyeing that part of Douglas Park to be zoned FROM HB TO Drew.

You posted that rumor before months ago and I don't know where you are getting it from. It's nonsense. That area in question is in the Randolph walkzone and Randolph is under capacity is under capacity. It's going to Randolph and the staff spreadsheet indicated as much.

I didn’t post that, and it’s been said by Nauck civic association people.

Here it is, the phrase "eyeing" jogged my memory.: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/510/690327.page#12457845

Not a particularly unique turn of phrase. Get off DCUM and go see a movie or something.

uh, yeah it is a unique turn of phrase, else I wouldn't have noticed it. It's a verbatim repeat. Makes me wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fleet is also going to take a big chunk of Alcova heights so more of abingdon and randolph can go to Barcroft. All of the Barcroft apartments will go to Barcroft. The school is close and after Alcova is mostly moved to Fleet there will be plenty of room at Barcroft.

Just how many kids from Alcova do you think actually attend Barcroft? Alcova Barcroft students aren't going to empty the school, though the school is already under capacity (thanks to the former principal)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see when the proposals come out, but I would bet money on key not moving. People need to realize that not moving key has effects on the rest of the county, especially with the asfs boundary staying fixed going forward. Looking at the other thread, it seems like the thought is to empty long branch to fleet, and move most of south of wilson to long branch. What do you south arlingtons think of that? Does that do anything to help with boundaries and disrupt poverty pockets?

Where did you hear that one? The PUs zoned to Henry are the ones that are mostly supposed to go to Fleet. I say mostly because some of them will certainly be zoned to Drew, because they were closer to Drew in the first place. I agree with others that it would be odd to send the PUs from Long Branch to Fleet, so free up more seats in Clarendon/Rosslyn, when Henry is bursting at the seams. Fleet will open at capacity.

Plus, I think Henry PTA would probably lay siege to Fleet if it were zoned as a school for people north of 50... I don't know what T-shirt color they've chosen though.

It was the consensus in the other boundary thread. People kept saying "long branch will make space there's no space in taylor". If you sum up the units in the current key, taylor, and long branch zones, you exceed the building capacities. You can likely assume that a certain percentage will keep on going to key because its close by, but since they only have one year of data, that seems like a risk.
APS really f'ed this up. I'll be curious to see what the proposals look like this fall.

Long Branch can't just make space, based on maximum utilization, unless they move more PUs out of the boundary than just the ones S of 50. Since Barrett is not involved in the first round of school boundary changes, the only possible move is for them to take Long Branch kids N of 50 and send them to Fleet. If their object is to avoid public outcry, they done messed up.

They'll take the long branch kids who are SOUTH of 50, not north of 50.

[Anonymous]

Alcova (those who don't transfer) are a decent chunk of Barcroft, and one of the only two UMC neighborhoods for the school. If they are out, the only UMC neighborhood is Barcroft, which is not much, and less UMC than much of Alcova. That move would leave Barcroft with an even higher FARMS rate than it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that the vote on the new school zones will take place on Dec 6th. We're not doing the other 5 exercises in frustration, I mean zoning. So I guess we'll learn then what the plan is? Or will the Nov 27th public hearing make it too contentious?

I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Ummmm, when the heck do we go from theorizing about the plan to knowing what APS will do? Or will the "troops" being rallied make APS delay the Dec 6th announcement noted on the website? They've already scrapped the other 5 zoning metrics because the walkability study was too contentious.

What five “exercises” are you talking about? Is that the same as what you’re referring to as “zoning metrics”? If so, are you referring to the six boundary policy considerations, which have not actually been scrapped and will be used to guide this fall’s boundary process?