Anonymous wrote:How are they not aware of the capacity issues 4 years from now? If they don't understand that, what do they think is coming in 10 years. This is why they don't think they need a fourth high school. They are remaining willfully ignorant.

I was referring to the capacity at all 3 high schools based on each option. The deck on 11/9 showe'd that and kanninen went ballistic even though yor ktown would be under 90% capacity for the bulk of the time before 2021 when all 3 schools end up over crowded.

How are they not aware of the capacity issues 4 years from now? If they don't understand that, what do they think is coming in 10 years. This is why they don't think they need a fourth high school. They are remaining willfully ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh that reminds me, Nottingham PTA rep showed up. She really took the cake. It's obvious all they care about is their precious snowflakes. She urged them to adopt 4 b/c her kids would end up in a crowded HS. (Weren't they the ones who successfully kept McKinley students out of their school and are currently under capacity, while other nearby elementary schools are bursting).

Yes, that would be the Nottingham PTA. I'm guessing that the Nottingham PTA, combined with the Yorktown Civic Association, are the ones influencing BK. That pocket of Arlington has money and outsized influence over the direction of this county.... I'm glad people are finally pushing back. Funny that half of McKinley also feeds into Yorktown, but Nottingham didn't give a crap about our kids being crammed into trailers during the elementary school boundary discussions. They are an extremely self-centered bunch.

This and others like them are the reason I'm hoping our kids get to stay at WL. Of course with the 1300 students who may be joining WL in the Ed Center, I'm not looking forward to that future either. I found it highly suspect that the overcapacity data for option 4 was not provided. How is the SB going to make a real comparison if they don't have that data before the Dec. 1st vote? It's making me feel quite disenchanted with this entire process and making me think it was just for show.

Anonymous wrote:Oh that reminds me, Nottingham PTA rep showed up. She really took the cake. It's obvious all they care about is their precious snowflakes. She urged them to adopt 4 b/c her kids would end up in a crowded HS. (Weren't they the ones who successfully kept McKinley students out of their school and are currently under capacity, while other nearby elementary schools are bursting).

Yes, that would be the Nottingham PTA. I'm guessing that the Nottingham PTA, combined with the Yorktown Civic Association, are the ones influencing BK. That pocket of Arlington has money and outsized influence over the direction of this county.... I'm glad people are finally pushing back. Funny that half of McKinley also feeds into Yorktown, but Nottingham didn't give a crap about our kids being crammed into trailers during the elementary school boundary discussions. They are an extremely self-centered bunch.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, 11:16!

+1!

Anonymous wrote:Here's the link. The boundary change runs from about 43:00--1:35:00.

School Board Meeting - November 15, 2016: https://youtu.be/6cYECnUGXpQ

It is so incredibly awful to see oneself on TV.

Here's the link. The boundary change runs from about 43:00--1:35:00.

School Board Meeting - November 15, 2016: https://youtu.be/6cYECnUGXpQ

Thanks, 11:16!

Don't you have like a 75-page thread on this already?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone attend? Summaries much appreciated. Family logistics didn't work out to attend myself.

Don't they usually broadcast/record these for later viewing? I missed it myself, but would watch if I could find a link.

They do, but do they typically broadcast public comment? I don't think they did at the last meeting that allowed the public to speak.

Nevermind, sounds like a PP was able to watch it on line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone attend? Summaries much appreciated. Family logistics didn't work out to attend myself.

Don't they usually broadcast/record these for later viewing? I missed it myself, but would watch if I could find a link.

They do, but do they typically broadcast public comment? I don't think they did at the last meeting that allowed the public to speak.

I attended. I haven't been to a SB meeting in a long time, so I can't comment on how attendance looked compared with other recent meetings.

At the outset, APS staff very briefly presented the new Option 4 (although strangely did not include demographic info in this presentation) and announced that the new materials on line included corrections to the table on page 5 (correcting the errors that were pointed out by PPs on this thread).

26 people spoke during the public session. I was happy that there were very few swipes taken at Wakefield; most of the comments were more of the "I like where I am, don't move me" sort and less of the "don't move me to that terrible school" sort.

Some themes that emerged for me:

--Many were against the new Option 4. The first speaker angrily called out Kanninen as making an overtly political move that "sacrificed" one planning unit in order to "save" one that she favored. (As I didn't attend the previous work session and hadn't had the chance to examine option 4, I didn't really get a lock on what unit Kanninen was supposedly trying to save, nor which one she was throwing under the bus, no pun intended. Hopefully others can weight in on this.) Several people commented that the new option 4 had been sprung at the last minute, with no opportunity for proper public consideration. There were complaints that it had been posted on-line just 2 hours before the meeting, giving people no time to look at it.

--There was a large contingent of folks from 2311 (I think), who had walked to the meeting together to demonstrate how very close to W-L they were and why moving them to Yorktown was a bad idea. (I think this is in play only for Options 1 & 2.)

--There was a large contingent of folks from Arlington Forest, most wearing orange and opposed to moving 1201, 1202, and 1203 to Wakefield (Option 3). Most referred to the fact that some parts of Arlington Forest were in the walk zone for W-L and moving them to Wakefield would put them on a bus. But there were also some Arlington Forest residents who said that those planning units *should* be moved to Wakefield, to keep the whole neighborhood (which goes to Kenmore) together, and some who pointed out that most of Arlington Forest was not in the walk zone.

--There were several people who urged the school board to do a better job of diversifying the high schools. These seemed to be more general comments about boundary drawing--general disappointment that this process is not going to make bigger changes for Yorktown and Wakefield--than about preferences for one particular option over another. At least one person seemed to be arguing for a county-wide busing approach that would better diversify all the schools.

--There were several people (some who are already in Wakefield planning units, others who appeared not to be) who commented about the problems inherent in concentrating poverty in one high school and urged the school board to choose the option that would lead to the lowest F/RL percentage at Wakefield (option 3). A couple of these people (and in the group above) referred to the Washington Post article yesterday about the growing segregation of schools in Virginia. One person said that according to the report two of the most segregated schools in Virginia were in Arlington. One person referred to a study done in Fairfax County that found that ~45% low-income was a real tipping point in student performance.

--There was one person who said that she had deliberately sought out diverse schools for her children, choosing not to send them to their assigned predominantly white elementary schools. She said that sending her kids to Yorktown was not acceptable to her and that if her planning unit was moved would the school board consider allowing people in the planning unit who preferred a more diverse environment to opt for Wakefield instead. She assured the school board that it wouldn't create too much trouble for Wakefield because she thought most of her neighbors would prefer Yorktown to Wakefield.

There were also comments of the NIMBY variety, like "my 5th grader has looked forward to attending W-L for years!" (Move someone else's 5th grader, just not mine.) And "Our neighborhood has a 60 year history of Generals pride." (End someone else's long history at W-L, just not mine.) etc.

Those were my takeaways, eager to hear others' thoughts.

You should be able to watch the Youtube video. Google the APS SB meeting for 11/15. I watched it, and there's no indication which way the SB will proceed. APS posted the new option 4 only 2 hours before the meeting, and they did not provide capacity data that they had done previously for the 11/9 work session. I was wondering if that data could be wrong like the FARMS data which had originally been reported for WL was wrong and they corrected in the new attached materials. Also, it's super annoying that the updated 11/3 materials disappeared from the HS boundary website. Fortunately, I had it downloaded on my phone. there is a link for attached materials that correspond to the meeting dates but that only contains the first draft of the 11/9 materials not the updated ones.

Basically, a number of S. Arlington families came forward and said they wanted option 3 b/c it had the fewest FARMS kids going to Wakefield (all 4 options move very little FARMS kids out of WL). A number of AF parents asked AF remain at WL. 1303 said they have only 15 kids who will go from Kenmore into a 1700 school at Yorktown and so they asked to be removed from consideration. Maywood/Cherrydale parents from 2311 came in and asked they be removed so that would be options 3 or 4. Kanninen was the one who had asked for option 4 b/c at the last planning session she saw that all 3 HSs would be at overcapacity in 2021 (never mind Yorktown would be in the 90s for most of the 2017-2020 years) and freaked out. She even suggested at one point leaving the kids at WL so only they would have trailers. (I'm from N. Arlington, and I was appalled by her statements). Plus, she then asked if these options took into account spaces for IB transfers to WL. Sorry selfish lady, you can't have it both ways. Oh that reminds me, Nottingham PTA rep showed up. She really took the cake. It's obvious all they care about is their precious snowflakes. She urged them to adopt 4 b/c her kids would end up in a crowded HS. (Weren't they the ones who successfully kept McKinley students out of their school and are currently under capacity, while other nearby elementary schools are bursting). There was a PU from Glen Carlyn, I forget which PU, that said they want to remain together, and to be removed from consideration for moving to Yorktown (I think that's where one of the options had them going).

I don't understand this. If they are re-doing boundaries in 2020, why should the upcoming HS students all suffer disproportionately? Yorktown is being extremely selfish. I do not have any skin in this game as my kids won't enter HS for many years to come.

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone attend? Summaries much appreciated. Family logistics didn't work out to attend myself.

Don't they usually broadcast/record these for later viewing? I missed it myself, but would watch if I could find a link.

Did anyone attend? Summaries much appreciated. Family logistics didn't work out to attend myself.