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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious. Does anyone know at one income level, families begin to qualify for free or reduced meals?

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Free-Reduced-meal-application-SY-2016-2017.pdf

[Anonymous]

There was a huge discussion about all of this when the CB was getting the affordable housing master plan solidified in the summer of 2015. Where were you guys then? The few people who stood up and asked some very obvious questions were called racists by VOICE, MI VOCE QUENTE, Mary Haynes and Walter Tejada.
And now here we are...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

Exactly. It's very reasonable for parents to prioritize proximity to schools. I want my kids to be close to school and close to their friends. I also welcome diversity (we chose to live in a mixed area) and think that the solution doesn't lie in planning units - it's a county planning issue that needs to be addressed. Make the communities diverse, don't rely on bussing.

This is a red herring. The neighborhoods in Arlington are already not diverse. We are talking about boundary planning changes for the next school year (and the following three years) that take into account where the kids live NOW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Timely column from Arl Now on socioeconomic diversity.

https://www.arlnow.com/2016/10/13/peters-take-emphasize-socioeconomic-status-in-aps-boundary-decisions/

Dear lord the comments over there. Not that they aren't often equally terrible here, but at least over here most of the parents are somewhat informed.

[Anonymous]

I am a proponent of diversity in our schools and my DC attended them. Nevertheless, some things to consider about rezoning planning units to increase diversity by busing. In 2011, APS had 134 buses. In 2017 APS projects it will own 174 buses. That's a 30% increase. Imagine the increased cost to purchase, maintain and staff the buses. Now, APS needs someplace to store the buses when not in use and tne more buses we have the more space we need. The Buck property across from WL and backing up to Hayes Park may likely be just that in the next few years. Check out Arlington Advisory Groups & Commisions Community Facilities Study's website. The price tag for the Buck property is $30M. A very expensive parking lot. Assuming everyone was agreeable to busing to increase diversity, how is it going to paid for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a proponent of diversity in our schools and my DC attended them. Nevertheless, some things to consider about rezoning planning units to increase diversity by busing. In 2011, APS had 134 buses. In 2017 APS projects it will own 174 buses. That's a 30% increase. Imagine the increased cost to purchase, maintain and staff the buses. Now, APS needs someplace to store the buses when not in use and tne more buses we have the more space we need. The Buck property across from WL and backing up to Hayes Park may likely be just that in the next few years. Check out Arlington Advisory Groups & Commisions Community Facilities Study's website. The price tag for the Buck property is $30M. A very expensive parking lot. Assuming everyone was agreeable to busing to increase diversity, how is it going to paid for?

Doesn't matter. Not enough people are in favor of busing to make it happen on a large scale.

[Anonymous]

It's not about busing. Come on people. It's just about adding FARMS rates into the equation. If it's a choice between two planning units and one is concentrated with poverty- don't send it Wakefield if you can find another way. It needs to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not about busing. Come on people. It's just about adding FARMS rates into the equation. If it's a choice between two planning units and one is concentrated with poverty- don't send it Wakefield if you can find another way. It needs to be considered.

Agreed, but I wouldn't move planning units which are walking zone to another HS to accomplish this. Proximity is a bigger factor.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain the attendance zone restriction? If they really wanted solutions we would be able to play with all zones...

[Anonymous]

I think is a solution for the immediate over crowding. This will be a bigger debate in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

Exactly. It's very reasonable for parents to prioritize proximity to schools. I want my kids to be close to school and close to their friends. I also welcome diversity (we chose to live in a mixed area) and think that the solution doesn't lie in planning units - it's a county planning issue that needs to be addressed. Make the communities diverse, don't rely on bussing.

Oh sure you do.

The only way the county can encourage socioeconomic diversity is by maintaining and/or expanding affordable housing in areas where little to none currently exists. But when anyone tries to do this, they are met with massive resistance, and in some cases lawsuits, from your civic associations. Maybe you missed it, but there were people cheering on DCUM when moderately priced units is Westover were bulldozed to make way for more luxury townhouses. And your neighborhoods almost pushed through an affordable housing master plan that would have excluded geographic targets, meaning the county would have codified socioeconomic segregation in a planning document. So it's the chicken or the egg. If we try to encourage diverse neighborhoods by making more areas affordable and by removing economic barriers, we'll naturally get more economically diverse student populations. But we're swatted down at every turn. And if we ask you not to move more economically disadvantaged students into the school with the highest percentage of economically disadvantages students through slightly more creative boundaries, we're stopped because "walkable neighborhood schools." The end result is status quo. Don't pretend you don't know this.

Also, please don't interpret what I'm writing to mean that I think you're all burning crosses and secretly voting for Trump. But to ignore issues of SYSTEMIC racism, inherent in most neighborhood planning documents and schools systems, is not exactly progressive. Maybe we are not worse than many surrounding jurisdictions, but we're not better in this regard either. And I feel like we could be. We are small and wealthy county, and we can maximize the potential of our most disadvantaged students without harming the advantaged students in any meaningful way. My thought is: first, do no harm. I'm trying to play with the tool to find a way that doesn't increase the economically disadvantaged population at Wakefield while maintaining walkability for W-L students and also better balancing enrollment across the three schools. Like they said at the meeting last night, this will not and is not intended to fix all of our ills, but let's not screw the pooch in the name of geographical expedience. This a temporary solution to a population crisis, and the most elegant solution is one that doesn't make us look bad in newspapers, and one that won't set us back from becoming the community we claim we want to be. The long-term solution, which will include 1300 additional seats somewhere, will likely result in another boundary process in the coming years, and that is when we can really make significant changes to address diversity and instructional opportunities system-wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

Exactly. It's very reasonable for parents to prioritize proximity to schools. I want my kids to be close to school and close to their friends. I also welcome diversity (we chose to live in a mixed area) and think that the solution doesn't lie in planning units - it's a county planning issue that needs to be addressed. Make the communities diverse, don't rely on bussing.

Oh sure you do.

The only way the county can encourage socioeconomic diversity is by maintaining and/or expanding affordable housing in areas where little to none currently exists. But when anyone tries to do this, they are met with massive resistance, and in some cases lawsuits, from your civic associations. Maybe you missed it, but there were people cheering on DCUM when moderately priced units is Westover were bulldozed to make way for more luxury townhouses. And your neighborhoods almost pushed through an affordable housing master plan that would have excluded geographic targets, meaning the county would have codified socioeconomic segregation in a planning document. So it's the chicken or the egg. If we try to encourage diverse neighborhoods by making more areas affordable and by removing economic barriers, we'll naturally get more economically diverse student populations. But we're swatted down at every turn. And if we ask you not to move more economically disadvantaged students into the school with the highest percentage of economically disadvantages students through slightly more creative boundaries, we're stopped because "walkable neighborhood schools." The end result is status quo. Don't pretend you don't know this.

Also, please don't interpret what I'm writing to mean that I think you're all burning crosses and secretly voting for Trump. But to ignore issues of SYSTEMIC racism, inherent in most neighborhood planning documents and schools systems, is not exactly progressive. Maybe we are not worse than many surrounding jurisdictions, but we're not better in this regard either. And I feel like we could be. We are small and wealthy county, and we can maximize the potential of our most disadvantaged students without harming the advantaged students in any meaningful way. My thought is: first, do no harm. I'm trying to play with the tool to find a way that doesn't increase the economically disadvantaged population at Wakefield while maintaining walkability for W-L students and also better balancing enrollment across the three schools. Like they said at the meeting last night, this will not and is not intended to fix all of our ills, but let's not screw the pooch in the name of geographical expedience. This a temporary solution to a population crisis, and the most elegant solution is one that doesn't make us look bad in newspapers, and one that won't set us back from becoming the community we claim we want to be. The long-term solution, which will include 1300 additional seats somewhere, will likely result in another boundary process in the coming years, and that is when we can really make significant changes to address diversity and instructional opportunities system-wide.

"Your civic associations" "Your neighborhoods" WTF?!

Dick, you don't know me. I have never opposed new affordable housing projects. I don't go to every single CB meeting to vocalize this, but I do support them. And, gasp, I also supported the homeless shelter close to my house.

A big factor for us when we were choosing our neighborhood and neighborhood school was having diverse neighbors (incl. SES). Many of our neighbors feel the same way. We do already have that in ES-MS-HS. We just don't want to ship off our kids to the other side of the county when there is a perfectly fine, diverse HS close to us. And generally I think most parents would want a school close to them. It helps build community - something we value. So don't read my prioritizing proximity as anything else. It just makes you look like a huge dick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

Exactly. It's very reasonable for parents to prioritize proximity to schools. I want my kids to be close to school and close to their friends. I also welcome diversity (we chose to live in a mixed area) and think that the solution doesn't lie in planning units - it's a county planning issue that needs to be addressed. Make the communities diverse, don't rely on bussing.

Oh sure you do.

The only way the county can encourage socioeconomic diversity is by maintaining and/or expanding affordable housing in areas where little to none currently exists. But when anyone tries to do this, they are met with massive resistance, and in some cases lawsuits, from your civic associations. Maybe you missed it, but there were people cheering on DCUM when moderately priced units is Westover were bulldozed to make way for more luxury townhouses. And your neighborhoods almost pushed through an affordable housing master plan that would have excluded geographic targets, meaning the county would have codified socioeconomic segregation in a planning document. So it's the chicken or the egg. If we try to encourage diverse neighborhoods by making more areas affordable and by removing economic barriers, we'll naturally get more economically diverse student populations. But we're swatted down at every turn. And if we ask you not to move more economically disadvantaged students into the school with the highest percentage of economically disadvantages students through slightly more creative boundaries, we're stopped because "walkable neighborhood schools." The end result is status quo. Don't pretend you don't know this.

Also, please don't interpret what I'm writing to mean that I think you're all burning crosses and secretly voting for Trump. But to ignore issues of SYSTEMIC racism, inherent in most neighborhood planning documents and schools systems, is not exactly progressive. Maybe we are not worse than many surrounding jurisdictions, but we're not better in this regard either. And I feel like we could be. We are small and wealthy county, and we can maximize the potential of our most disadvantaged students without harming the advantaged students in any meaningful way. My thought is: first, do no harm. I'm trying to play with the tool to find a way that doesn't increase the economically disadvantaged population at Wakefield while maintaining walkability for W-L students and also better balancing enrollment across the three schools. Like they said at the meeting last night, this will not and is not intended to fix all of our ills, but let's not screw the pooch in the name of geographical expedience. This a temporary solution to a population crisis, and the most elegant solution is one that doesn't make us look bad in newspapers, and one that won't set us back from becoming the community we claim we want to be. The long-term solution, which will include 1300 additional seats somewhere, will likely result in another boundary process in the coming years, and that is when we can really make significant changes to address diversity and instructional opportunities system-wide.

"Your civic associations" "Your neighborhoods" WTF?!

Dick, you don't know me. I have never opposed new affordable housing projects. I don't go to every single CB meeting to vocalize this, but I do support them. And, gasp, I also supported the homeless shelter close to my house.

A big factor for us when we were choosing our neighborhood and neighborhood school was having diverse neighbors (incl. SES). Many of our neighbors feel the same way. We do already have that in ES-MS-HS. We just don't want to ship off our kids to the other side of the county when there is a perfectly fine, diverse HS close to us. And generally I think most parents would want a school close to them. It helps build community - something we value. So don't read my prioritizing proximity as anything else. It just makes you look like a huge dick.

The Lyon Village Civic association tied the county up in lawsuits against the Clarendon church project to the tune of $12 million. If you live there, I hope you voted out the people who were responsible for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bridged the Yorktown island and gave Yorktown a few additional units along the west county border but stopped at Route 50. I gave Wakefield Ft Myer and some units around the east end of Columbia Pike.

I moved 1302, 1303, 1304, 2312, 2313, 2314, and 2401 to Yorktown.

And I moved 3706, 4611, 4612, 4614, 4691, 4815, 4816, 4818, 4828, 4829, and 4899 to Wakefield.

I ended up with most year capacities under or close to 102 with only a couple years at 104 but that was my highest in any school. My goal was to end up with sustainable numbers and with my boundaries they all looked pretty good (104 or less) four years out.

I know you got the capacities close to 102 but isn't it farther for the planning units you selected to get to Wakefield? Or were you looking at other criteria as well and not just the capacity issue?

Yes, Ft Myer and some of those are closer to WL but the problem I found with simply shifting the closer planning units from WL to Wakefield (ie the ones south of 50) is that some of them are huge. You can begin and end the redistricting just by selecting a couple of these but then you end up splitting up those neighborhoods in that WL pocket south of 50 and the way the numbers per unit sorted out you'd either be way under or over capacity at Wakefield. That's why I started playing with the ones on the eastern side. They are also smaller numbers which means fewer buses. Those kids are so far from all the schools which are to the west of the county that they are going to be bused no matter which school they attend.

I found it frustrating that the existing Rosslyn island wasn't in play. I kept wanting to shift those kids around in ways I think would benefit everyone but for some reason they can't be touched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bridged the Yorktown island and gave Yorktown a few additional units along the west county border but stopped at Route 50. I gave Wakefield Ft Myer and some units around the east end of Columbia Pike.

I moved 1302, 1303, 1304, 2312, 2313, 2314, and 2401 to Yorktown.

And I moved 3706, 4611, 4612, 4614, 4691, 4815, 4816, 4818, 4828, 4829, and 4899 to Wakefield.

I ended up with most year capacities under or close to 102 with only a couple years at 104 but that was my highest in any school. My goal was to end up with sustainable numbers and with my boundaries they all looked pretty good (104 or less) four years out.

I know you got the capacities close to 102 but isn't it farther for the planning units you selected to get to Wakefield? Or were you looking at other criteria as well and not just the capacity issue?

Maybe, just maybe the PP had the thought not to send the 386 economically disadvantaged students in planning units 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, and 3510 to the school that already has 49% of its students qualifying for FARMs. Or maybe, just maybe, the PP thought it might be poor form to send 318 Hispanic students to the school that is 44.3% Hispanic.

Did none of you read the recent Washington Post article written when Loudoun tried to do the same thing and was publicly shamed into backtracking? Are we trying to make front page news as the most overtly racist/classist Virginian county? Maybe the DOJ doesn't have anything better to do with their time this year, because I have a feeling they will be hearing about this.

Yes, I did also have that thought. It's a tough balance to be sure and I think there are many, many factors to consider.