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

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the recap, 12:51!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

I watched the live stream yesterday and then rewatched part of it. While they did ask for more info, I didn't get the sense they would necessarily reopen this up too much. It did look like they want to see actual walkability to examine the argument presented by AF parents. And of course examine how future enrollment would look after 4 years.

Can someone clear something up for me? I thought they said this would be only for the next four years but it sounded like there was an exchange with Murphy or his staff where they agreed with one SB member that they wouldn't change the planning units who would be moved back to WL after the next four years.

What struck me was:
1) Sanchez referring to the Ed Center as a given.
2) A number seemed to believe Wakefield is as good as the others. If you look at performance of white kids (which appear to be the race of the majority of parents who came forward last night) across all 3, so was highest and Wakefield the lowest.
3) Landers pointing out Arlington Tech as an alternative for people unhappy about overcrowding or the reputation of Wakefield. It seems almost if the show doesn't want to solve the overcrowding too well since they need AT to succeed first.

[Anonymous]

Damn auto correct. It should be SB not 'show' above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I'm a NP, a lawyer, and a liberal who favors diversity of all sorts in schools. It is not an easy issue. I didn't watch the clip but I can't imagine Jon Oliver, or anyone else, has come up with a ready solution to social problems that have been around now for generations. People tend to segregate themselves economically when it comes to where they live, simply as a matter of choosing to live where they can afford to live. People also tend to want to send their kids to school close to home if possible. Both of these are legitimate desires shared across all class, race, or any other lines. There's also a history of legal segregation here, and of more hidden tactics like redlining, which have had long-lasting effects on wealth accumulation, neighborhood demographics, and schools. But to try to overcome those issues all in one fell swoop does so on the backs of families who (1) are simply behaving like everyone else does in choosing where they live, and (2) themselves bear no responsibility for decisions of the past, and (3) are facing an ever more competitive world where they legitimately fear their children may not be better off than they themselves were. That's a tough pill to swallow, even if the solution is as simple as "just put them on a different bus."

I live in South Arlington BTW. Diversity is a value that's important to me, so I'm walking the walk. One of the things that is great about this county is that even the "bad" school is actually pretty darn good. The facility is beautiful, the teachers are top notch, and the kids are varied and work hard. I'll admit though, we are watching closely. DH and I grew up privileged and it wouldn't be any more fair for us to act out our bleeding heart principles if it comes at the cost of our children's futures, than to have the county force us to do so.

Your obsessions--i.e.,your point "(3)" are showing. It's not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

I watched the live stream yesterday and then rewatched part of it. While they did ask for more info, I didn't get the sense they would necessarily reopen this up too much. It did look like they want to see actual walkability to examine the argument presented by AF parents. And of course examine how future enrollment would look after 4 years.

Can someone clear something up for me? I thought they said this would be only for the next four years but it sounded like there was an exchange with Murphy or his staff where they agreed with one SB member that they wouldn't change the planning units who would be moved back to WL after the next four years.

What struck me was:
1) Sanchez referring to the Ed Center as a given.
2) A number seemed to believe Wakefield is as good as the others. If you look at performance of white kids (which appear to be the race of the majority of parents who came forward last night) across all 3, so was highest and Wakefield the lowest.
3) Landers pointing out Arlington Tech as an alternative for people unhappy about overcrowding or the reputation of Wakefield. It seems almost if the show doesn't want to solve the overcrowding too well since they need AT to succeed first.

I agree they probably won't make huge, sweeping changes, but I was surprised that they asked for additional scenarios, so that could mean going with an option not presented to them (or at least altering one of the existing 7).

I was surprised that people thought this was only a temporary switch. Once those PUs move, they are there for good, or at least until the next redistricting process. They won't revert back after 5 years.

Yes, Ed Center sounds like a done deal.

I LOLed at whichever SB member said that parents weren't well-informed about the Tech option. As if there's anyone to blame for that except APS.

[Anonymous]

I also appreciate the recap, thanks! Getting kind of sick of the AF schtick though. It's the "process" it's not "transparent," the Board said X but really meant Y. While I think all this community engagement is a bit of a sop myself, in no way were their voices not heard. Everyone heard you. They just disagree. That's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also appreciate the recap, thanks! Getting kind of sick of the AF schtick though. It's the "process" it's not "transparent," the Board said X but really meant Y. While I think all this community engagement is a bit of a sop myself, in no way were their voices not heard. Everyone heard you. They just disagree. That's life.

Not an AF parent here, but given how quickly this has been rolled out, it is not surprising to me that they want answers. I would too if our planning unit showed up in the majority of options.

What really is going to suck is trying to figure out who ends up in the Ed Center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also appreciate the recap, thanks! Getting kind of sick of the AF schtick though. It's the "process" it's not "transparent," the Board said X but really meant Y. While I think all this community engagement is a bit of a sop myself, in no way were their voices not heard. Everyone heard you. They just disagree. That's life.

Not an AF parent here, but given how quickly this has been rolled out, it is not surprising to me that they want answers. I would too if our planning unit showed up in the majority of options.

What really is going to suck is trying to figure out who ends up in the Ed Center.

Based on how many of them turned out the very first time, I'm guessing they had a sense this could happen to their neighborhood. My mom and her siblings actually grew up in that neighborhood when it was Barrett/Kenmore/Wakefield, then it became WL when the youngest was in high school (some 30 years ago), now it's looking like a return to the original. Anyway, I do hear them to some degree. As I've said upthread, APS never should have made certain PUs available as options in the first place if they weren't really willing to put them on the table. That seems to be what is happening here but remains unacknowledged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

Thanks to the poster who summarized the SB Meeting. I'd add that after watching it myself, it seemed that 2 board members (Landers and Goldstein if I remember correctly) seemed interested in rezoning so that there would not be a 50/50 split between students moved to Yorktown and students moved to Wakefield. I wouldn't be surprised if the board ultimately decides to send more kids to YHS than WHS.

I was also struck by Sanchez's comments that seemed imply the additional 1300 seat HS will be placed at the Ed Center. This means 3600 students at the W-L campus. If this troubles you as much as it does me, make your feelings known to the SB ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also appreciate the recap, thanks! Getting kind of sick of the AF schtick though. It's the "process" it's not "transparent," the Board said X but really meant Y. While I think all this community engagement is a bit of a sop myself, in no way were their voices not heard. Everyone heard you. They just disagree. That's life.

Not an AF parent here, but given how quickly this has been rolled out, it is not surprising to me that they want answers. I would too if our planning unit showed up in the majority of options.

What really is going to suck is trying to figure out who ends up in the Ed Center.

Why is this going to suck? The location means they can't draw separate boundaries for a school at the Ed Center. They could just make it part of the W-L campus, and have W-L be a 4000 student school with some housed in the Ed Center, but that would mean redrawing W-L's boundaries. Much easier to create one or more choice schools (which will share W-L's campus) and put them in the Ed Center and hope that if you build it, they will come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

Thanks to the poster who summarized the SB Meeting. I'd add that after watching it myself, it seemed that 2 board members (Landers and Goldstein if I remember correctly) seemed interested in rezoning so that there would not be a 50/50 split between students moved to Yorktown and students moved to Wakefield. I wouldn't be surprised if the board ultimately decides to send more kids to YHS than WHS.

I was also struck by Sanchez's comments that seemed imply the additional 1300 seat HS will be placed at the Ed Center. This means 3600 students at the W-L campus. If this troubles you as much as it does me, make your feelings known to the SB ASAP.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also appreciate the recap, thanks! Getting kind of sick of the AF schtick though. It's the "process" it's not "transparent," the Board said X but really meant Y. While I think all this community engagement is a bit of a sop myself, in no way were their voices not heard. Everyone heard you. They just disagree. That's life.

Not an AF parent here, but given how quickly this has been rolled out, it is not surprising to me that they want answers. I would too if our planning unit showed up in the majority of options.

What really is going to suck is trying to figure out who ends up in the Ed Center.

Why is this going to suck? The location means they can't draw separate boundaries for a school at the Ed Center. They could just make it part of the W-L campus, and have W-L be a 4000 student school with some housed in the Ed Center, but that would mean redrawing W-L's boundaries. Much easier to create one or more choice schools (which will share W-L's campus) and put them in the Ed Center and hope that if you build it, they will come.

(I'm not saying I think this is a good idea, just saying that this is how I think the SB is thinking about this.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

Thanks to the poster who summarized the SB Meeting. I'd add that after watching it myself, it seemed that 2 board members (Landers and Goldstein if I remember correctly) seemed interested in rezoning so that there would not be a 50/50 split between students moved to Yorktown and students moved to Wakefield. I wouldn't be surprised if the board ultimately decides to send more kids to YHS than WHS.

I was also struck by Sanchez's comments that seemed imply the additional 1300 seat HS will be placed at the Ed Center. This means 3600 students at the W-L campus. If this troubles you as much as it does me, make your feelings known to the SB ASAP.

I do think this is likely to happen. I was at a meeting just before the boundary tool opened up and a school board member said they'd talked about shifting more to YHS since it doesn't have the growth trend of WHS. When someone else followed up on that he said he "misspoke." Yeah, right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--I should add that the SB asked for quite a bit more data. I wouldn't be surprised if they make changes to the options.

Thanks to the poster who summarized the SB Meeting. I'd add that after watching it myself, it seemed that 2 board members (Landers and Goldstein if I remember correctly) seemed interested in rezoning so that there would not be a 50/50 split between students moved to Yorktown and students moved to Wakefield. I wouldn't be surprised if the board ultimately decides to send more kids to YHS than WHS.

I was also struck by Sanchez's comments that seemed imply the additional 1300 seat HS will be placed at the Ed Center. This means 3600 students at the W-L campus. If this troubles you as much as it does me, make your feelings known to the SB ASAP.

I do think this is likely to happen. I was at a meeting just before the boundary tool opened up and a school board member said they'd talked about shifting more to YHS since it doesn't have the growth trend of WHS. When someone else followed up on that he said he "misspoke." Yeah, right.

Well, if other families think WL is going to be fine with 3600 to 4000 students, then they're smoking something. I guess I won't be that upset after all if they do end up choosing our planning until to move up to Yorktown.

[Anonymous]

People would rather be at a 4000 student w-l, than an underenrolled Wakefield. That's what I'm taking away from this.