Yes, please to all of this.

Stop the madness of the community engagement hysteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Former W-L zoned neighborhoods along Military Rd, Lorcom Ln, Nelly Custis, etc, were rezoned to Yorktown five years ago to remove the “island,” i.e., to make a contiguous attendance area for Yorktown.

Anything is possible with future boundary changes, if they are comprehensive. All of Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Clarendon used to go to W-L. I wouldn’t rule out those Metro adjacent urban neighborhoods being rezoned back.

Also it’s entirely possible that that urban Yorktown zone could grow to include Lyon Village, the neighborhoods north of Langston Blvd, etc., like Cherrydale, Maywood, and the area of apartments by MOMs organic, still zoned to W-L.

I’m afraid no one knows the answer to your question but we can all make educated guesses based on precedent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Right now it's Innovation, Hamm, Yorktown. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

That’s probably why APS is streamlining the process.

Moreover, due to the pandemic, the planned large scale “comprehensive boundary changes” never happened with the opening of DHMS and the W-L Annex, so that’s why APS is playing catch up with the boundary fixes. And with the programs and schools that moved, alignment no longer works that well in parts of Arlington. Some communities have been asking APS for fixes for years now, since the last boundary change.

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, speaking as someone who has been affected by school boundary shifts in APS, they spend WAY too much time engaging with the community and doing meaningless surveys. Just move on, make a decision, and get it over with. So much hand wringing and non-decisions.

Past processes end up just being more work for staff and more stress for the community. And then the alignment still gets bungled at the end of months of obfuscation, stress, and school board meetings filled with shouting parents.

Hopefully this new abbreviated and transparent boundary process will make future changes run more smoothly.

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, speaking as someone who has been affected by school boundary shifts in APS, they spend WAY too much time engaging with the community and doing meaningless surveys. Just move on, make a decision, and get it over with. So much hand wringing and non-decisions.

1000x THIS!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, speaking as someone who has been affected by school boundary shifts in APS, they spend WAY too much time engaging with the community and doing meaningless surveys. Just move on, make a decision, and get it over with. So much hand wringing and non-decisions.

+100 Listening to complainers does not generally improve the decision and just encourages more of it.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

Of course efficiency and proximity should be the first factor. Community input has been a real problem.

In my opinion, speaking as someone who has been affected by school boundary shifts in APS, they spend WAY too much time engaging with the community and doing meaningless surveys. Just move on, make a decision, and get it over with. So much hand wringing and non-decisions.

It also seems to be clarifying that community engagement is considered but is not a primary driving force behind decisions.

Will be interesting how that works in practice.

Anyone watching this one?

https://www.apsva.us/engage/boundaries-policy/

Some of the changes look like they are in direct response to arguments made when they tried to close Nottingham and redo middle school boundaries, others are just streamlining and adding flexibility. The biggest changes are probably that they are proposing to officially rank the boundary considerations saying efficiency and proximity trump demographics and requiring a rationale be given when a boundary proposal is issued.

Any thoughts? Just a minor policy update or is there something in there teeing up a future scuffle?