Anonymous
10/05/2018 10:33
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
I thought Gilliam Place was only passed because it was seniors housing. Why are we assuming so many kids?
Anonymous
10/05/2018 10:24
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP of the other Drew thread. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me keeping this one on topic!
I posted on the other one before I noticed this one, but I was thinking moving part of Claremont could be part of the solution too.
What I have gotten to work best so far is: the rest of Alcova to Fleet; the south-of-pike Henry units to Drew; Drew keeps the Abingdon-Jefferson units currently proposed to move to Drew and also Drew picks up 36050; Abingdon and Barcroft keep most of their existing Columbia Forest/Four Mile units.
The drawback to this is that Barcroft remains overcrowded (I've gotten it to 116%, down from its current 135%), though Abingdon's utilization rate is not so bad. For Barcroft, I figure Gilliam Place opening will be a huge influx for it which would be mitigated by sending that PU to Fleet, so maybe 116% with no Gilliam Place isn't so bad. It's hard though.
What does this do to the fr/l rate at Barcroft? I don't think they will entertain anything that will raise the percentage at any school. Given the Columbia Hills project, the best thing really would've been to move Claremont Immersion up to CS, because CS really only makes sense as an option school due to its highly limited walk zone. And due to the highly segregated neighborhood, having two nearby option schools (Immersion and Campbell), plus a neighborhood school not all that far would have been a good thing: three non-segregated schools from which to choose.
I think you're right about Claremont. Unfortunately, it seems to be too late. To answer your question, the proposal above would make Barcroft's fr/l rate 68%, up from its current 62%. As the Staff has pointed out, fr/l projections may wind up being lower in practice because the #s are based on kids who live there, with no attempt to estimate how many will opt in to other schools. I imagine given the Barcroft calendar thing, a higher # of kids than usual opt out of Barcroft specifically. But, there's no denying that doing the above would make Barcroft more fr/l. I think the question really is, better to have Drew at 83% and Barcroft at 57% or Drew at 60% and Barcroft at 68%? It is not an easy call.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 10:21
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
On the Gilliam Place point. I'm the PP who raised that. My point is that under the Staff's current proposal, Gilliam Place stays Barcroft. I think the Staff's projections say there will be 45-50 kids coming out of that PU in 2019. My understanding is that there are numbers out there (I heard this from a SB member) suggesting Gilliam Place alone will produce 80+ kids when it opens or in the ensuing years.
So, my point is that the Staff may be well underestimating Gilliam (wouldn't be the first time) such that keeping it at Barcroft is a ticking time bomb both in terms of overall # of students and # of fr/l students. Moving Gilliam's unit to Fleet means that bomb will go off at Fleet (sorry for the aggressive metaphor), which is a bigger school and also under capacity by projections and demographically much more balanced than Barcroft.
It's sort of a mitigating factor to set off from the reality that there are no easy solutions here and the way I would propose helping Drew does not do as much to help Barcroft as the Staff's current proposal.
So, my point is that the Staff may be well underestimating Gilliam (wouldn't be the first time) such that keeping it at Barcroft is a ticking time bomb both in terms of overall # of students and # of fr/l students. Moving Gilliam's unit to Fleet means that bomb will go off at Fleet (sorry for the aggressive metaphor), which is a bigger school and also under capacity by projections and demographically much more balanced than Barcroft.
It's sort of a mitigating factor to set off from the reality that there are no easy solutions here and the way I would propose helping Drew does not do as much to help Barcroft as the Staff's current proposal.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 10:15
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm pasting the comment from the other thread here:
"I had this thought last night too, looking at the data. I don't think you can take the whole neighborhood because it would create an island out of Columbia Forest (since there isn't room for it all to go to Barcroft) but maybe another unit or so would work. I don't have a sense of whether that would split up the neighborhood or create other issues though. It also helps with alignment since those units are Jefferson and would add to the otherwise small # of proposed Drew-Jefferson kids."
I think the single family homes of Columbia Forest is pretty much self-contained within boundaries of major roads. The apartment buildings seem a bit separated from the rest - if I'm understanding the whole of the civic association correctly. The problem is when you split off the apartments in that part of the County, you're essentially talking about all low-income going to low-income Drew. Whereas with the Pentagon City situation, you're chopping off the apartment/condo portion of Oakridge; but it's higher income going to low-income Hoffman Boston.
It's clear that all the boundary factors cannot be met for every school. A large island is not the same as a few isolated small PUs somewhere; so making an entire neighborhood an island should be prioritized for the sake of other factors (demographics) rather than abandoning socio-economic balance for the sake of cleaner maps. If we have to relinquish a principle in the process, instead of everyone assuming we HAVE to follow alignment and contiguity, how about advocating we follow demographics and relinquish a little bit of one of the others instead? Diversity has a better impact on a school than contiguity and subsequent homogeneity.
The issue is Columbia Hills. They can't send that PU to Carlin Springs OR Barcroft OR Drew without increasing the fr/l rates at already high poverty schools. It has to go to Abingdon. I believe that PU is 36021. If you take the Claremont neighborhood to Drew, it leaves that PU a non-contiguous island zoned to Abingdon. That is the key. What other PUs can you move around but keep that one at Abingdon?
36021 is currently proposed to remain at Abingdon. Are you thinking of a different one? There are a couple units in that area that are 100% fr/l or close to 100%.
What about taking only 36051 to Drew? It helps to bring down Abingdon's overall # of students but isn't a demographic burden to Drew. (I'm the same one who mentioned that above on this thread.) I don't know that area well so someone has to correct me if there are issues.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 09:11
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:I'm pasting the comment from the other thread here:
"I had this thought last night too, looking at the data. I don't think you can take the whole neighborhood because it would create an island out of Columbia Forest (since there isn't room for it all to go to Barcroft) but maybe another unit or so would work. I don't have a sense of whether that would split up the neighborhood or create other issues though. It also helps with alignment since those units are Jefferson and would add to the otherwise small # of proposed Drew-Jefferson kids."
I think the single family homes of Columbia Forest is pretty much self-contained within boundaries of major roads. The apartment buildings seem a bit separated from the rest - if I'm understanding the whole of the civic association correctly. The problem is when you split off the apartments in that part of the County, you're essentially talking about all low-income going to low-income Drew. Whereas with the Pentagon City situation, you're chopping off the apartment/condo portion of Oakridge; but it's higher income going to low-income Hoffman Boston.
It's clear that all the boundary factors cannot be met for every school. A large island is not the same as a few isolated small PUs somewhere; so making an entire neighborhood an island should be prioritized for the sake of other factors (demographics) rather than abandoning socio-economic balance for the sake of cleaner maps. If we have to relinquish a principle in the process, instead of everyone assuming we HAVE to follow alignment and contiguity, how about advocating we follow demographics and relinquish a little bit of one of the others instead? Diversity has a better impact on a school than contiguity and subsequent homogeneity.
The issue is Columbia Hills. They can't send that PU to Carlin Springs OR Barcroft OR Drew without increasing the fr/l rates at already high poverty schools. It has to go to Abingdon. I believe that PU is 36021. If you take the Claremont neighborhood to Drew, it leaves that PU a non-contiguous island zoned to Abingdon. That is the key. What other PUs can you move around but keep that one at Abingdon?
Anonymous
10/05/2018 09:11
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:I'm pasting the comment from the other thread here:
"I had this thought last night too, looking at the data. I don't think you can take the whole neighborhood because it would create an island out of Columbia Forest (since there isn't room for it all to go to Barcroft) but maybe another unit or so would work. I don't have a sense of whether that would split up the neighborhood or create other issues though. It also helps with alignment since those units are Jefferson and would add to the otherwise small # of proposed Drew-Jefferson kids."
I think the single family homes of Columbia Forest is pretty much self-contained within boundaries of major roads. The apartment buildings seem a bit separated from the rest - if I'm understanding the whole of the civic association correctly. The problem is when you split off the apartments in that part of the County, you're essentially talking about all low-income going to low-income Drew. Whereas with the Pentagon City situation, you're chopping off the apartment/condo portion of Oakridge; but it's higher income going to low-income Hoffman Boston.
It's clear that all the boundary factors cannot be met for every school. A large island is not the same as a few isolated small PUs somewhere; so making an entire neighborhood an island should be prioritized for the sake of other factors (demographics) rather than abandoning socio-economic balance for the sake of cleaner maps. If we have to relinquish a principle in the process, instead of everyone assuming we HAVE to follow alignment and contiguity, how about advocating we follow demographics and relinquish a little bit of one of the others instead? Diversity has a better impact on a school than contiguity and subsequent homogeneity.
I agree with this. The other high farms schools in SA have been at their current levels for at least 15 years, probably longer. If Drew ends up with an 80% farms rate, it's not going to "gradually come down," it's going to stay wherever it starts until the next time boundaries are drawn. Aside from Henry and Oakridge, farms rates have been stable for decades. This makes demographics more important than one might think.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:57
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
I'm just reading along to learn, but people should report anything derailing/off-topic asap via the report button. It's much more likely the thread will be cleaned up effectively if Jeff can address it when it's just a few posts rather than multiple pages.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:56
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
I'm pasting the comment from the other thread here:
"I had this thought last night too, looking at the data. I don't think you can take the whole neighborhood because it would create an island out of Columbia Forest (since there isn't room for it all to go to Barcroft) but maybe another unit or so would work. I don't have a sense of whether that would split up the neighborhood or create other issues though. It also helps with alignment since those units are Jefferson and would add to the otherwise small # of proposed Drew-Jefferson kids."
I think the single family homes of Columbia Forest is pretty much self-contained within boundaries of major roads. The apartment buildings seem a bit separated from the rest - if I'm understanding the whole of the civic association correctly. The problem is when you split off the apartments in that part of the County, you're essentially talking about all low-income going to low-income Drew. Whereas with the Pentagon City situation, you're chopping off the apartment/condo portion of Oakridge; but it's higher income going to low-income Hoffman Boston.
It's clear that all the boundary factors cannot be met for every school. A large island is not the same as a few isolated small PUs somewhere; so making an entire neighborhood an island should be prioritized for the sake of other factors (demographics) rather than abandoning socio-economic balance for the sake of cleaner maps. If we have to relinquish a principle in the process, instead of everyone assuming we HAVE to follow alignment and contiguity, how about advocating we follow demographics and relinquish a little bit of one of the others instead? Diversity has a better impact on a school than contiguity and subsequent homogeneity.
"I had this thought last night too, looking at the data. I don't think you can take the whole neighborhood because it would create an island out of Columbia Forest (since there isn't room for it all to go to Barcroft) but maybe another unit or so would work. I don't have a sense of whether that would split up the neighborhood or create other issues though. It also helps with alignment since those units are Jefferson and would add to the otherwise small # of proposed Drew-Jefferson kids."
I think the single family homes of Columbia Forest is pretty much self-contained within boundaries of major roads. The apartment buildings seem a bit separated from the rest - if I'm understanding the whole of the civic association correctly. The problem is when you split off the apartments in that part of the County, you're essentially talking about all low-income going to low-income Drew. Whereas with the Pentagon City situation, you're chopping off the apartment/condo portion of Oakridge; but it's higher income going to low-income Hoffman Boston.
It's clear that all the boundary factors cannot be met for every school. A large island is not the same as a few isolated small PUs somewhere; so making an entire neighborhood an island should be prioritized for the sake of other factors (demographics) rather than abandoning socio-economic balance for the sake of cleaner maps. If we have to relinquish a principle in the process, instead of everyone assuming we HAVE to follow alignment and contiguity, how about advocating we follow demographics and relinquish a little bit of one of the others instead? Diversity has a better impact on a school than contiguity and subsequent homogeneity.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:54
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP of the other Drew thread. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me keeping this one on topic!
I posted on the other one before I noticed this one, but I was thinking moving part of Claremont could be part of the solution too.
What I have gotten to work best so far is: the rest of Alcova to Fleet; the south-of-pike Henry units to Drew; Drew keeps the Abingdon-Jefferson units currently proposed to move to Drew and also Drew picks up 36050; Abingdon and Barcroft keep most of their existing Columbia Forest/Four Mile units.
The drawback to this is that Barcroft remains overcrowded (I've gotten it to 116%, down from its current 135%), though Abingdon's utilization rate is not so bad. For Barcroft, I figure Gilliam Place opening will be a huge influx for it which would be mitigated by sending that PU to Fleet, so maybe 116% with no Gilliam Place isn't so bad. It's hard though.
What does this do to the fr/l rate at Barcroft? I don't think they will entertain anything that will raise the percentage at any school. Given the Columbia Hills project, the best thing really would've been to move Claremont Immersion up to CS, because CS really only makes sense as an option school due to its highly limited walk zone. And due to the highly segregated neighborhood, having two nearby option schools (Immersion and Campbell), plus a neighborhood school not all that far would have been a good thing: three non-segregated schools from which to choose.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:36
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Gilliam place is a relatively small CAF. I don’t think it makes up for Alcova to Fleet.
It does. The current alocova PUs have only about 70 students, maybe fewer. Gilliam will double that.
Yes, Gilliam may not be Barcroft Apartments; but it's 172 units and similar to Arlington Mill Residences. Arlington Mill Residences included well over 60 kids just for Barcroft, plus those who went to option schools, and middle and high schoolers.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:28
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Anonymous wrote:Gilliam place is a relatively small CAF. I don’t think it makes up for Alcova to Fleet.
It does. The current alocova PUs have only about 70 students, maybe fewer. Gilliam will double that.
Anonymous
10/05/2018 08:16
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Gilliam place is a relatively small CAF. I don’t think it makes up for Alcova to Fleet.
Anonymous
10/04/2018 21:25
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
I'm the OP of the other Drew thread. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me keeping this one on topic!
I posted on the other one before I noticed this one, but I was thinking moving part of Claremont could be part of the solution too.
What I have gotten to work best so far is: the rest of Alcova to Fleet; the south-of-pike Henry units to Drew; Drew keeps the Abingdon-Jefferson units currently proposed to move to Drew and also Drew picks up 36050; Abingdon and Barcroft keep most of their existing Columbia Forest/Four Mile units.
The drawback to this is that Barcroft remains overcrowded (I've gotten it to 116%, down from its current 135%), though Abingdon's utilization rate is not so bad. For Barcroft, I figure Gilliam Place opening will be a huge influx for it which would be mitigated by sending that PU to Fleet, so maybe 116% with no Gilliam Place isn't so bad. It's hard though.
I posted on the other one before I noticed this one, but I was thinking moving part of Claremont could be part of the solution too.
What I have gotten to work best so far is: the rest of Alcova to Fleet; the south-of-pike Henry units to Drew; Drew keeps the Abingdon-Jefferson units currently proposed to move to Drew and also Drew picks up 36050; Abingdon and Barcroft keep most of their existing Columbia Forest/Four Mile units.
The drawback to this is that Barcroft remains overcrowded (I've gotten it to 116%, down from its current 135%), though Abingdon's utilization rate is not so bad. For Barcroft, I figure Gilliam Place opening will be a huge influx for it which would be mitigated by sending that PU to Fleet, so maybe 116% with no Gilliam Place isn't so bad. It's hard though.
Anonymous
10/04/2018 19:59
Subject: Re:Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
In regards to CF specfically: CF stays put at Abingdon or gets the choice of Drew or Abingdon until the 2020 boundary process, which should include Carlyn Springs. Since CF's middle school is Kenmore, it would make sense to redraw CF to Carlyn Springs.
Or move immersion from Claremont to Carlyn Springs and make Claremont a neighborhood school.
Patrick Henry units South of the Pike should go to Drew.
Or move immersion from Claremont to Carlyn Springs and make Claremont a neighborhood school.
Patrick Henry units South of the Pike should go to Drew.
Anonymous
10/04/2018 19:27
Subject: Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
Having had more than my fill of the irrelevant bantering on other threads, I thought I'd try to start a new one for people who have actual thoughtful comments, suggestions, and ideas to improve the current proposed boundaries for the south arlington elementary schools. So, if you can contribute in that manner and refrain from the extraneous commentary, let's have some legitimate thoughts for discussion.
There have been a few thoughtful suggestions re. the Henry PUs south of the Pike and alternative PUs related to Abingdon. What do sensible, reasonable people think about the current proposal and how it can be improved?
There is another suggestion in the previous Drew boundary thread to move the Claremont neighborhood PUs to Drew. That would probably not pass the "map test" because it would cut-off Columbia Forest from the contiguous Abingdon boundary; but if APS was willing to propose what it just did with 2 Columbia Forest PUs (concocting contiguity to make it technically appear to follow the principle) why not at least keep each neighborhood together even if it chops the map a bit? It could help the 3 middle schools issue, too.
And btw, middle school boundaries could be tweaked again in another few years; so folks should keep that in mind as they comment on the alignment issue now.
There have been a few thoughtful suggestions re. the Henry PUs south of the Pike and alternative PUs related to Abingdon. What do sensible, reasonable people think about the current proposal and how it can be improved?
There is another suggestion in the previous Drew boundary thread to move the Claremont neighborhood PUs to Drew. That would probably not pass the "map test" because it would cut-off Columbia Forest from the contiguous Abingdon boundary; but if APS was willing to propose what it just did with 2 Columbia Forest PUs (concocting contiguity to make it technically appear to follow the principle) why not at least keep each neighborhood together even if it chops the map a bit? It could help the 3 middle schools issue, too.
And btw, middle school boundaries could be tweaked again in another few years; so folks should keep that in mind as they comment on the alignment issue now.