APS middle school boundary process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think for these PUs being discussed they are very close to Ashlawn so unlikely to be moved. But who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The elementary districting process will address ES to MS alignment. MS districting is only concerned with Ms to HS alignment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think alignment will focus more on the high school boundaries they already set, and those portions of the elementary school zones that aren't likely to change when those boundaries are done. Elementary boundaries that are harder to predict are likely to be given lesser consideration in this. If I'm remember correctly, that was part of why middle school alignment wasn't given as much consideration in drawing the high school boundaries, because the school board knew the middle school boundaries would be up next and there wasn't much value in aligning the high school boundaries with middle school boundaries that would be moot within a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think alignment will focus more on the high school boundaries they already set, and those portions of the elementary school zones that aren't likely to change when those boundaries are done. Elementary boundaries that are harder to predict are likely to be given lesser consideration in this. If I'm remember correctly, that was part of why middle school alignment wasn't given as much consideration in drawing the high school boundaries, because the school board knew the middle school boundaries would be up next and there wasn't much value in aligning the high school boundaries with middle school boundaries that would be moot within a year.

This is my understanding as well. "Alignment" for this process means MS to HS. I doubt we'll ever have perfect ES-MS-HS alignment, and I don't necessarily think we should because kids should have the opportunity to reinvent themselves and be forced, to some degree, to branch out of their comfort zones. I think what we should try to avoid is making a couple of PU's outliers at each stage along the way, because then you're placing a handful of students at a distinct social disadvantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I think alignment will focus more on the high school boundaries they already set, and those portions of the elementary school zones that aren't likely to change when those boundaries are done. Elementary boundaries that are harder to predict are likely to be given lesser consideration in this. If I'm remember correctly, that was part of why middle school alignment wasn't given as much consideration in drawing the high school boundaries, because the school board knew the middle school boundaries would be up next and there wasn't much value in aligning the high school boundaries with middle school boundaries that would be moot within a year.

This is my understanding as well. "Alignment" for this process means MS to HS. I doubt we'll ever have perfect ES-MS-HS alignment, and I don't necessarily think we should because kids should have the opportunity to reinvent themselves and be forced, to some degree, to branch out of their comfort zones. I think what we should try to avoid is making a couple of PU's outliers at each stage along the way, because then you're placing a handful of students at a distinct social disadvantage.

If only we can get the Board to see this.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you pay property taxes in Arlington, you have skin in the game.

Anyway, I was so busy looking at the western half of the county I didn't notice the Yorktown island. Since they have said contiguity of boundaries is a must, I guess "F" is a non-starter (why is it included I wonder?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you pay property taxes in Arlington, you have skin in the game.

Anyway, I was so busy looking at the western half of the county I didn't notice the Yorktown island. Since they have said contiguity of boundaries is a must, I guess "F" is a non-starter (why is it included I wonder?).

So are you thinking H is the best option presented so far? Any tweaks you'd make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you pay property taxes in Arlington, you have skin in the game.

Anyway, I was so busy looking at the western half of the county I didn't notice the Yorktown island. Since they have said contiguity of boundaries is a must, I guess "F" is a non-starter (why is it included I wonder?).

So are you thinking H is the best option presented so far? Any tweaks you'd make?

I like the H map a lot

[Anonymous]

Are these maps actually labeled A through J somewhere?

[Anonymous]

For those who attended the 21st meeting and last night-- are the 5 postep under engage the only options? I thought they were discussion slides. What about option G of the PowerPoint presentation which showed the most balance demographic wise? B4 people jump down my throat I am in North Arlington and am not advocating walkers all be bussed to further schools. Just trying to understand if we are all on the same page regarding option choices. TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who attended the 21st meeting and last night-- are the 5 postep under engage the only options? I thought they were discussion slides. What about option G of the PowerPoint presentation which showed the most balance demographic wise? B4 people jump down my throat I am in North Arlington and am not advocating walkers all be bussed to further schools. Just trying to understand if we are all on the same page regarding option choices. TIA!

It is ONLY the blended maps that they are requesting feedback on. The ones that are single-consideration/illustrative are purely to show what boundaries would look like if ONLY ONE factor was considered. They aren't going to only consider one factor so that demographics-only map is not something to get worked up about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these maps actually labeled A through J somewhere?

If you click on the links to blended options here https://www.apsva.us/middle-school-boundary-illustrative-draft-maps/

Alignment is Scenario B
Proximity 1 is Scenario D
Proximity 2 is Scenario F
Demographics is Scenario H
Efficiency is Scenario J

I think these five are the ones that are the "starting point" for community discussion. The others were illustrative and aren't really being considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are these maps actually labeled A through J somewhere?

Not all on one single list, but some are labeled in the presentation and some are labeled in the file name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who attended the 21st meeting and last night-- are the 5 postep under engage the only options? I thought they were discussion slides. What about option G of the PowerPoint presentation which showed the most balance demographic wise? B4 people jump down my throat I am in North Arlington and am not advocating walkers all be bussed to further schools. Just trying to understand if we are all on the same page regarding option choices. TIA!

It is ONLY the blended maps that they are requesting feedback on. The ones that are single-consideration/illustrative are purely to show what boundaries would look like if ONLY ONE factor was considered. They aren't going to only consider one factor so that demographics-only map is not something to get worked up about.

thanks for the clarification. i wasn't getting worked up about it. i just wanted to be sure i was commenting on the right ones. i thought g was helpful b/c it showed how APS could achieve better parity regarding demographics. that said, it shouldn't be the only factor. i hope if they want comments on the blended ones the numbers are actually accurate. i still remember the total fiasco regarding the mini HS boundary process late 2016/early 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who attended the 21st meeting and last night-- are the 5 postep under engage the only options? I thought they were discussion slides. What about option G of the PowerPoint presentation which showed the most balance demographic wise? B4 people jump down my throat I am in North Arlington and am not advocating walkers all be bussed to further schools. Just trying to understand if we are all on the same page regarding option choices. TIA!

It is ONLY the blended maps that they are requesting feedback on. The ones that are single-consideration/illustrative are purely to show what boundaries would look like if ONLY ONE factor was considered. They aren't going to only consider one factor so that demographics-only map is not something to get worked up about.

thanks for the clarification. i wasn't getting worked up about it. i just wanted to be sure i was commenting on the right ones. i thought g was helpful b/c it showed how APS could achieve better parity regarding demographics. that said, it shouldn't be the only factor. i hope if they want comments on the blended ones the numbers are actually accurate. i still remember the total fiasco regarding the mini HS boundary process late 2016/early 2017.

Are the numbers available for the blended maps? I haven't seen any yet...