Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I don't think that works. I only see 1 Eastern Barcroft planning unit that is not in the walkzone (37050) It has about 50 kids- 18 of which are FARMS.
So under that theory Barcroft could pick up about 1/3 of Columbia Heights. In terms of putting Columbia Heights at Randolph- randolph currently only has 2 non walkking PU's. 38050 and 38100. Its a total of about 33 kids- of which 31 are FARMS? (I think there is a DATA problem with 38050 b/c it reflects a higher number of FARMS students than total students). Either way if you figure out a way to move out those two units from Randoph- which would probably mean sending them to Drew, you still don't have any seats for Columbia Heights even split between Randolph and Barcroft.
Drew is getting Columbia Heights b/c of the walkzone issue. You are going to have to move at least one PU that is in a walkzone in order to send Columbia Heights anywhere other than Drew.

Are you guys confusing Columbia Heights and Columbia Forest? Unless I’m reading the proposed map incorrectly, Columbia Heights is staying Henry/Fleet and not going to Drew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I don't think that works. I only see 1 Eastern Barcroft planning unit that is not in the walkzone (37050) It has about 50 kids- 18 of which are FARMS.
So under that theory Barcroft could pick up about 1/3 of Columbia Heights. In terms of putting Columbia Heights at Randolph- randolph currently only has 2 non walkking PU's. 38050 and 38100. Its a total of about 33 kids- of which 31 are FARMS? (I think there is a DATA problem with 38050 b/c it reflects a higher number of FARMS students than total students). Either way if you figure out a way to move out those two units from Randoph- which would probably mean sending them to Drew, you still don't have any seats for Columbia Heights even split between Randolph and Barcroft.
Drew is getting Columbia Heights b/c of the walkzone issue. You are going to have to move at least one PU that is in a walkzone in order to send Columbia Heights anywhere other than Drew.

You're mixing up Columbia Forest and Columbia heights. The latter is zoned Henry, the former is the island in question that aps wants to send to Drew.

Anonymous wrote:In the more general SA boundary proposal thread someone mentioned that in the current proposal there are (presumably higher SES) kids who will be bused to a different school, who could just as easily bused to Drew and thereby reduce the FARMs rate there. Could someone provide some specifics about that? PUs or specific map locations to help visualize the potential bus rides?

Sorry OP - I’m pp and just read your 13:13 post. I think that provides the info I need.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I don't think that works. I only see 1 Eastern Barcroft planning unit that is not in the walkzone (37050) It has about 50 kids- 18 of which are FARMS.
So under that theory Barcroft could pick up about 1/3 of Columbia Heights. In terms of putting Columbia Heights at Randolph- randolph currently only has 2 non walkking PU's. 38050 and 38100. Its a total of about 33 kids- of which 31 are FARMS? (I think there is a DATA problem with 38050 b/c it reflects a higher number of FARMS students than total students). Either way if you figure out a way to move out those two units from Randoph- which would probably mean sending them to Drew, you still don't have any seats for Columbia Heights even split between Randolph and Barcroft.
Drew is getting Columbia Heights b/c of the walkzone issue. You are going to have to move at least one PU that is in a walkzone in order to send Columbia Heights anywhere other than Drew.

In the more general SA boundary proposal thread someone mentioned that in the current proposal there are (presumably higher SES) kids who will be bused to a different school, who could just as easily bused to Drew and thereby reduce the FARMs rate there. Could someone provide some specifics about that? PUs or specific map locations to help visualize the potential bus rides?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

I seriously doubt this map will change between now and November. But in the meantime, I would LOVE to see a survey of available extracurricular activities available at every Arlington elementary school. I think the results would shock and dismay everyone who saw it.

There are PTAs that can raise 100k in a single silent auction and that money goes a long way. I think wealthy, well meaning people in Arlington justify their resistance to integrated schools because they think title 1 and other spending somehow makes up for the lack of a critical mass of MC and UMC families. It would show finally and clearly how much more opportunity comes with a school that is not dominated by poverty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Correct. Making walk zones priority #1 makes everything more difficult. It's pretty depressing that saving money on a few bus drivers is the justification for creating schools that are 80%+ poor.

The real problem is housing. Vote Vihstadt.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Correct. Making walk zones priority #1 makes everything more difficult. It's pretty depressing that saving money on a few bus drivers is the justification for creating schools that are 80%+ poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this. I'm in one of the units that's being re-zoned from Abingdon to Drew. The alignment issue particularly bothers me, as well as pretending they are helping the FRL numbers. We are a complete island surrounded by Abingdon planning units and I'm not happy about it.

I don't blame you. Unfortunately, it does seem likely your units will move. I don't know how else to relieve Abingdon's overcrowding.

If one accepts that theory, where else could they go, besides Drew, which creates an island (actually a second island; there's one on south Walter Reed as well)? The island doesn't just look wrong, it makes access to the school difficult and leads to disengaged parents. There are four other elemtaroes closer to Columbia Forest than Drew.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this. I'm in one of the units that's being re-zoned from Abingdon to Drew. The alignment issue particularly bothers me, as well as pretending they are helping the FRL numbers. We are a complete island surrounded by Abingdon planning units and I'm not happy about it.

I don't blame you. Unfortunately, it does seem likely your units will move. I don't know how else to relieve Abingdon's overcrowding.

Thank you for starting this (I'm the person who originally asked how I could help advocate for you). I'm making notes on all of this and will keep following this and other discussions here to get as much info as I can before I submit my response.

Thank you for posting this. I'm in one of the units that's being re-zoned from Abingdon to Drew. The alignment issue particularly bothers me, as well as pretending they are helping the FRL numbers. We are a complete island surrounded by Abingdon planning units and I'm not happy about it.

I am a Drew parent who has posted several times on the other thread. One or two people asked for thoughts on how to advocate on behalf of the Drew zone, so I am posting my thoughts below. Hopefully this can be a productive conversation on how to create fairness and equity for the entire South Arlington community.

Points for the online questionnaire: This proposal does not honor APS's own criteria for Drew. As everyone knows, APS policy considers 6 factors in adjusting boundaries: efficiency, proximity, stability, alignment, demographics, and contiguity. APS's presentation says that stability and contiguity have “little impact” to this current process, so really we're talking 4 factors. For Drew, and seemingly only for Drew, 3 of those 4 factors are not being honored.

Alignment: Drew goes from sending to one MS to sending to three. Why are those Abingdon units zoned Kenmore being moved to Drew? Those kids in that small corner will be the only Drew-Kenmore students in the county.

Demographics: 'nuff said. Drew will be 83% on a good day. Note, the Drew planning units (like many others) have more fr/l kids as of 2017 than total students that APS is projecting for 2019. In other words, APS is assuming that fewer total students will attend those schools in 2019 even though it knows that more kids are actually attending in 2017, and that every single one of those kids is low-income. So it could be worse than the projected figures. Further, Drew is 51% this year. Yes, that's because of Montessori being there as well -- but don't put Drew in your presentation, APS, and brag on lowering its fr/l rate.

Proximity: Drew has a small walk zone and must draw from outside of the walk zone, but this map is absurd on its face. It looks like it was drawn by the Maryland state legislature. Kids from all the way out to the Pike and Four Mile will be going to Drew. Color me not surprised when it's harder for those families to participate in activities (yes, I know Abingdon is also far for them).

Contiguity: APS says this one isn't in play, but in fact it is. Drew's proposed boundary runs through Jennie Dean Park and Barcroft Park, not through neighborhoods. There are *zero* students in one of those planning units. That's an island and APS said no more islands.

As I said in the other thread, no one is asking for a miracle here. Nauck is a generally lower income neighborhood. But for all the importance of school communities, folks are showing a lot of disregard to the future Drew community by proposing to open it under these circumstances.