Reply to Drew Model Elementary: proposed boundaries (s/o from APS/SA thread specific to Drew)

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Drew Model Elementary: proposed boundaries (s/o from APS/SA thread specific to Drew)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I agree with you, and was horrified when I first looked at the map.  I sat down with all the data to try and make some alternative proposals.
The problem is our current walk-zone fetish.   Try to move Columbia Heights somewhere else.  They can't go to Abingdon b/c it is full, and moving any Abingdon units results in either breaking contiguity or breaking their walk zone.  They can't go to Randolph b/c it is basically full from its walkzone.   the same with Barcoft- You could switch 37050 out of Barcroft and replace it with 37090- but that is not going to make much of a difference.  You can't send all of Columbia Heights to Barcroft- it would way overflow it.

If you drop the walkzone obsession, you could move 36091 to Drew, allowing 36130 to also go to Drew.  36130 is Fairlington on the other side of 395- its 150 kids, less than 10 FARMS.  36091 is about 10 kids all FARMS.  It looks like there are about 170 kids in the Columbia Heights units proposed to go to Drew- most of which are FARMS (maybe 150 FARMS?)  That would maybe put Abingdon at 1/2 FARMS, and bring Drew's FARMS rate down significantly.

If you did that- you might also be able to make 38050 Abingdon instead of Randolph, and swap it for 46011 which would slightly help Randolph demographics.  [/quote]

This is OP. The walk zone thing isn't going away and I'm not going to fight it. It's a huge problem for really doing anything about demographics, but I'm taking APS at its word that transportation costs are a problem and need to be minimized. I am, however, also taking APS at its word that it really weighs its own policy considerations. When I see a boundary like the proposed Drew boundary, APS's word on that is seriously called into question.

Focusing on the PUs with no walkers, I think you take the Abingdon-Kenmore units and send them to Barcroft or Randolph, put more of eastern Barcroft to Fleet, and put the south-of-pike Fleet units to Drew. It's not great for Barcroft but my math suggests doing it that way would have both Barcroft and Drew in the 60s for fr/l rate, vs. in the 40s for Barcroft and over 80 for Drew under the current proposal.[/quote]

I live in the current Abingdon-Kenmore zone in Columbia Forest. Your proposal looks pretty good to me. [/quote]

I appreciate if you'd provide feedback in the survey along those lines. I'm saying things about that area that I think are true but only know my area. It's helpful to have others weigh in from different areas also affected by this process.

Also note, someone corrected me in this thread. Barcroft's fr/l rate wouldn't be in the 40s under any scenario. Under APS's projections, Barcroft could get into the high 50s, vs. the low 60s under the current trends. With my rough math based on the above, Barcroft would be more like the high 60s. Also, there are #s issues with regard to crowding. It is a difficult situation, no doubt.[/quote]

I suspect they are eliminating the year-round calendar and anticipating more MC families staying at Barcroft, so they need to take efficiency into consideration, which is why they moved out some PUs. If they assign too many kids to the school, and they don't choice out in the same numbers, that will be a real problem. There are a lot of kids living in those PUs. If they enroll at the neighborhood school, there isn't room for the Columbia Forest PUs. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics