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

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To 12:00, you can keep your status quo. It affects me not at all if you prefer lily-white schools with low poverty, or if you are enamored of the nice balance W-L has achieved. I chose differently for my children and I'm comfortable with my decision. However, I'd like to keep MY status quo as a Wakefield parent, which means not undercutting naturally occurring improvement by continually cramming all the FARMS kids into the same district, so that other kids can have the option to walk 30 min to and from school.

And yes, if we had a better socioeconomic balance across the county, these problems would go away. Some of us are actively trying to encourage that by living where we live. Current certain policies and proposals seem to be at odds with that would-be solution. Also, if I had wings I'd be a fucking bird. [/quote]

This x1000.

Status quo is a concept that applies to everyone, not just the person doing the talking. Preserving status quo means [b]no one[/b] gets moved, not just that *you* don't get moved.[/quote]

Thank you Pp's!

Lots of snide little remarks on this thread, " you knew what you bought when you moved to south Arlington" etc etc...
Yes, we did know. We bought in a school that was 45% poverty ( not majority), not 65%. What about our status quo? If the SB engages in poor practices, we will be selling and moving inbounds to WL or Yorktown. I'm not here to play games with my kid's education. 
I'm not certain we will even wait if it creeps up to 50%. [/quote]

I posted earlier about trying to fit the numbers across the three schools.  When I tried to do what others suggested it didn't work.  I wanted to ask how you guys even reach 65%  I clicked on the 4 western pike planning units not 3508 (that's up for consideration) but not directly on the boundary.  If you start at something like 2060 students at Wakefield (according to the tool) and assume 42% are FARMS it's about 865 FARMS students.  when you click on the 4 units that are right on the border it's takes you up to 2347 students total.  Adding 287 +865 = 1152/2347= 49%.  How is everyone reaching 65% (this of course only includes the current HS population) not the claims about future FARMS kids.

So taking this into account, it would be more like 49% FARMS and incorporating some of the other 5 factors.  Also, when you say it's about not allowing others to walk to their school v. jamming all the FARMS kids into one school, it's not.   It's about more bussing costs since the nearest planning units to Wakefield could walk.  It's about less time for the others having less time during the evening with their families.  It's also asking those kids to bus further and come to a school which may not be as good as the one their parents moved to.   As I said above and before in earlier posts, I tried clicking on only the units pushed by some others on this board and I could not achieve good numbers across all 3 schools.  Who knows how this will all play out.  All I am saying is that it's not necessarily 65% v. 42%.  It could be 49% and achieving some of the other stuff.  I was able to do this and not move too many other units that were walking distance to all of the schools.

[/quote]

I think the point many of us are trying to make is that Wakefield is already at the edge. In this county, success stories have hovered around 1/3 FARMS, for example, Henry and W-L itself. Wakefield is already over that, whether at your 42% or 46% (which I thought was the current figure). If I move 3506, 3507, 3509, and 3510, the % by my math becomes 52%. If I add 3508 (which would push the # of students at Wakefield into the red, so it's not allowed), the % is 61%. Either way, these are big numbers on top of already elevated rates. And, as you point out, it doesn't take into account the acknowledged AH boom that is coming down the pike (literally).

To address your other points, busing costs would not increase since these units are already at W-L. I suppose other busing costs might increase in theory to bus kids in substitute planning units who can no longer walk to school, though I don't think so because there are ways to adjust the units without affecting the current walk zones. I flat out do not understand the point about families having less evening time. This county is 26 square miles. Any kid on a bus, or within a walk zone, will get home well before any reasonable definition of "evening" sets in. And regarding your last point, it's about asking those kids to "come to a school which may not be as good as the one their parents moved to." Though I assume you are referring to non-Wakefield zones, that is in fact EXACTLY what we are talking about. Our percentage of FARMS kids increase and boom, this is not a school that is as good as the one us parents moved into. This theory does not only apply to upper-middle class families who really stretched to afford an address with an N. at the end.

It is highly frustrating that we are assumed to have mortgaged our children's educations deliberately in order to live in South Arlington, as if it's Cabrini Greens and we just don't give a shit because, oooh, shiny teardown. We have values. They include, at least in my case and among others, not striving exclusively for the highest test scores at the expense of either socioeconomic or racial/ethnic diversity. Maybe those values are pie in the sky, wrong, or not aligned with yours. But if there is consideration of the education situation that a parent buys into, then then we get that too.
[/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