Anonymous
11/10/2018 20:16
Subject: Re:Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:What about scheduling a meet-up to take this discussion off-line. (gasp!)
And I'm not sure early engagement is useful. Doesn't seem to have turned out that well for Henry parents.... (sorry).
I'm game.
Anonymous
11/10/2018 17:26
Subject: Re:Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
What about scheduling a meet-up to take this discussion off-line. (gasp!)
And I'm not sure early engagement is useful. Doesn't seem to have turned out that well for Henry parents.... (sorry).
And I'm not sure early engagement is useful. Doesn't seem to have turned out that well for Henry parents.... (sorry).
Anonymous
11/10/2018 16:59
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
What? It gives APS the "flexibility" to constantly side in favor of communities that are more engaged and more threatening, often changing definitions of previously agreed upon terminology to bow and scrape to the right constituents. They don't need flexibility in deciding how to move boundaries. The need consistency. But yeah, I get it. When things always work in your favor, you don't want them to change.
DP, but you’re being ridiculous.
Here's some advice: don't engage, the school board is dirty. Go buy a house exactly 1 block (no more) from the school you want to go to. If that is not possible, move out of Arlington. Engagement doesn't matter, APS creates these maps years in advance and wastes taxes and resources pretending to "engage" with the community. The entire board is useless. the process is fake.
That won’t help if they decide to turn that school into a choice school with no neighborhood preference.
Anonymous
11/10/2018 15:22
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
What? It gives APS the "flexibility" to constantly side in favor of communities that are more engaged and more threatening, often changing definitions of previously agreed upon terminology to bow and scrape to the right constituents. They don't need flexibility in deciding how to move boundaries. The need consistency. But yeah, I get it. When things always work in your favor, you don't want them to change.
DP, but you’re being ridiculous.
Here's some advice: don't engage, the school board is dirty. Go buy a house exactly 1 block (no more) from the school you want to go to. If that is not possible, move out of Arlington. Engagement doesn't matter, APS creates these maps years in advance and wastes taxes and resources pretending to "engage" with the community. The entire board is useless. the process is fake.
Anonymous
11/10/2018 15:20
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
What? It gives APS the "flexibility" to constantly side in favor of communities that are more engaged and more threatening, often changing definitions of previously agreed upon terminology to bow and scrape to the right constituents. They don't need flexibility in deciding how to move boundaries. The need consistency. But yeah, I get it. When things always work in your favor, you don't want them to change.
Here's some advice: don't engage, the school board is dirty. Go buy a house exactly 1 block (no more) from the school you want to go to. If that is not possible, move out of Arlington. Engagement doesn't matter, APS creates these maps years in advance and wastes taxes and resources pretending to "engage" with the community. The entire board is useless. the process is fake.
DP, but you’re being ridiculous.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 19:12
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
What? It gives APS the "flexibility" to constantly side in favor of communities that are more engaged and more threatening, often changing definitions of previously agreed upon terminology to bow and scrape to the right constituents. They don't need flexibility in deciding how to move boundaries. The need consistency. But yeah, I get it. When things always work in your favor, you don't want them to change.
DP, but you’re being ridiculous.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 18:59
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
What? It gives APS the "flexibility" to constantly side in favor of communities that are more engaged and more threatening, often changing definitions of previously agreed upon terminology to bow and scrape to the right constituents. They don't need flexibility in deciding how to move boundaries. The need consistency. But yeah, I get it. When things always work in your favor, you don't want them to change.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 18:33
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Changing policy doesn't make sense. The six considerations are out there, and the current policy gives APS the flexibility to prioritize them as appropriate to the given circumstances. Changing policies means spending a year debating the policy changes, which is a waste of time.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 18:27
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:I think we need to focus on this boundary shift. You guys will have your turn.
The problem is, this boundary shift greatly impacts the next one. There isn't much influencing ability left on this one; but this decision should be made with an eye to how it sets parameters and options for the next, which unfortunately happens to include the poorest schools in the system.
And to another previous post, it's not premature. It's clear how unsophisticated and behind the ball south Arlington is on these things relative to north Arlington. You know darn well Key/ASFS are already at it - they've been at it for almost a year. They're still discussing the swap now even though that process doesn't start until January.
There are many factors that play a part in the next boundary round: Barcroft's calendar, PUs "eligible" for moving, impacts of new transfer policies on the various schools, will one or both immersion programs be relocated and to where, etc. I think it's important to start this thought process now, and push for answers to all these pieces BEFORE the boundary discussion starts. You know the northwestern quadrant will be thinking about what works for them ahead of time. South needs to be more assertive and not always playing defense.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 17:30
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Okay, here's something maybe we can unite on. Let's revise the APS policy. It's clear we're going to prioritize walkers. Why not come right out and say so? APS Policy No. 1, all students in the walk zone for a school shall be zoned to attend that school. Policy No. 2, any students not in a walk zone or in more than one walk zone shall be zoned to attend a school on the basis of the following factors. Policy No. 3, in drawing boundaries, APS will consider the following factors, in order of priority. Policy No. 4, where factors conflict or are inconsistent with each other, APS will consider these additional factors. Or SOMETHING. Let's change the policy to resemble what actually happens with these processes.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
As an added bonus, implementing a new policy would be a great time for a quasi referendum on demographics. Let's see if the community cares about demographics, once walkability is protected. Because if the community does care, I see two Board members up for re-election in 2020 who will be well out of step with that sentiment.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 16:54
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
I think we need to focus on this boundary shift. You guys will have your turn.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 16:22
Subject: Re:Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Clearly Abingdon should be the priority in the next round. 
Anonymous
11/09/2018 16:20
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
Anonymous wrote:This seems premature. Boundaries for reed are literally two years away.
Whatever. I would be interested in discussing. What about moving immersion to Carlin Springs? Seems to me then Claremont could help distribute the west Pike density and relieve some of Barcroft and Ashlawn could pick up some of current Carlin Springs and Barrett. I don't know the area well though. That also would seem to make Abingdon suddenly very wealthy.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 16:02
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
This seems premature. Boundaries for reed are literally two years away.
Anonymous
11/09/2018 15:26
Subject: Uniting for the next round of boundary changes
So, the never-ending thread on the current boundary change proposals has included expressions of need and desire to unify. I suspect not much unification will occur between now and December 6th, and the SB won't listen anyway. So how about we start gearing up for round 2? You know that one's going to be even tougher because north Arlington schools are also involved. Tougher because there will be the tendency to continue thinking about north and south as separate entities and kind of two processes going on side-by-side; and tougher because southern voices will be overwhelmed by the intensity and decibel levels in the north.
So, what needs to be priority in the next round? What needs to happen this time around in order to leave viable options open for our remaining southern elementaries in 2020?
How can we make sure Abingdon continues to grow in strength and positive reputation AND allow Barcroft more time to continue upward and stabilize under the current principal and what was beginning to be an upswing of optimism from parents in the community after several years of instability and changes?
So, what needs to be priority in the next round? What needs to happen this time around in order to leave viable options open for our remaining southern elementaries in 2020?
How can we make sure Abingdon continues to grow in strength and positive reputation AND allow Barcroft more time to continue upward and stabilize under the current principal and what was beginning to be an upswing of optimism from parents in the community after several years of instability and changes?