Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

And in case you are wondering, the correct F/RL percentages for W-L under the proposed options are:

Option 1: 30%
Option 2: 31%
Option 3: 34%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the posters continuing to update this thread.

Question about the options: what happened to the options provided on Halloween after they realized they messed up the numbers? Did those get ditched in the 2 days before the Nov 3 board meeting? I don't see a link to what was presented on Nov 3 on the website so can't follow what was done. Certainly taking the point Lander made about process though. Honestly.

Replying to myself, having now looked at the presentation last night (in addition to the data PDF). http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/HS-Boundaries-SBWS-PPT-11-9-16-rev.pdf

When did they release these re-revised options? In particular, I believe the Oct 31 options included moving all of Barrett to Wakefield but did NOT include two western Pike planning units along with that. Now of course, I can't find that set of options on the website. APS is gaslighting me, I swear.

Thanks to the posters continuing to update this thread.

Question about the options: what happened to the options provided on Halloween after they realized they messed up the numbers? Did those get ditched in the 2 days before the Nov 3 board meeting? I don't see a link to what was presented on Nov 3 on the website so can't follow what was done. Certainly taking the point Lander made about process though. Honestly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

This. That's why the FARM's percentage at W-L will go up, which is what many of us southside folks have been trying to point out (because all three schools should be moving towards the county average rather than away from it). The combined options they've given us do nothing to address diversity at YHS and make both W-L and Wakefield less diverse. And every option for YHS bridges to the island, so for those of you who think that in four years they are going to take another look at the island, you are wrong. They are making all the boundaries become more lateral, so that the upper north goes YHS, the central area goes W-L and everything south of 50 goes Wakefield. It will not change. There will not be a total overhaul of the boundaries because those 1300 seats are going to be choice. There is no fourth comprehensive HS coming. They are punting. They'll move on to county board or state delegate or whatever their next political step up is, and whoever's around in the future will be left to deal with rising enrollment and inadequate facilities.

If they had chosen option B for Wakefield and option A for YHS, they could have moved towards vertical boundaries, which could have been expanded in four years to really address diversity and capacity and would have been in keeping within the other criteria. But they heard you, white walkers. You'll have your way. Enjoy your privilege! Oh, and p.s., you will get to see very clearly what not caring about diversity will get us all over the next four years. Shameful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

So I watched the work session this evening. I've read this thread describing the SB members, plus I have observed them now at various SB meetings/work sessions over the past year. Here are my general impressions of them based on tonight's discussion.

I agree that Sanchez is over her head. She couldn't seem to follow the most basic information regarding percentages. Also, she clearly only cares about not adding any of the arlington mill folks to Wakefield. So her voting seems fairly predictable.

The other gentleman, Goldstein, seemed a bit lost at first, but then caught on to the numbers etc. He brought up the issue of school choice, and it did not seem like the time given the fast timeframe the SB is operating under and the purpose of dealing with this immediate 400 extra capactiy issue at WL. I liked how Van Doren responded that we already have it through transfers. Wakefield and Yorktown kids can request transfers to either of these schools from the other. WL is currently above capacity, but the students at the other schools can apply to the IB program. (Also presuming WL kids can request transfers to the other HS?). It was silly when Goldstein said that the parents may not know about the trasnfer option. So tell them then.

People may have complained about Landers in some eralier posts on this thread. But I think the joke abou the gentleman's club is irrelevant for purposes of this school rezoning. 1) he gets tha this is a temporary measure to address the immediate overcapacity at WL; 2) he also mentioned the 2022 rezoning which will need to address the issue of the Yorktown Island. (it doesn't make sense to bus those kids up to Williamsburg and Yorktown due to some past historical reasons, particulalry if these kids want the same walkability/proximity options as other kids in APS. also, the arguments that some parents raised at prior meetings on boundary refinements. how the kids come home after school and then are isolated from the rest of their classmates zoned for yorktown, etc.); 3) he gave his recommendation for B (it was clear from the way he was phrasing things that AF and the south arlington parents have been very vocal about their desires. it's pretty apparent that the SB members want to avoid moving any of the western planning units along columbia pike. see how Kannien wanted to have another option (get to that later) but told Sanchez 3706 would not be part of it?); 4) he raised the issue of process (when others seemed to suggest it might be alright to discuss Kanninen's 4th option after the public hearing. Now the APS staff are trying to have the 4th option up by Monday before the Tuesday hearing. that seems to be the only choice given there's only tomorrow and Monday since Friday's a holiday.

Kanninen seemed pretty self-interested for yorktown. She suggested that she would prefer not moving any kids out of WL if in 2021-2022 there migth be trailers at all 3 HSs, never mind that for the 4 preceding years there would capacity of under 97% at Yorktown for option B which was endorsed by Landers and Sanchez this evening. It seemed pretty inconsistent with her question asking if they've left enough room at WL for IB transfers. So let me get this straight, you don't want to move the suggested 400 or so out of WL which will be facing severe overcrowding, but you still want the APS staff to reserve enough space for the incoming IB transfers from the underenrolled Yorktown and Wakefield (if none o f the transfers are done). She demanded a 4th option. it will transfer less kids to the other schools, but the numbers will most likely be way more out of wack in that bulge year of 2021-22.

At least Van Dorn seemed to signal she wants to move more than what Kannien is suggesting. She brought up the issue of safety if WL is overcrowded during the construction of that 1300 seat Ed Center. Plus, as Landers pointed out, overcrowding can severely impact learning at a school. Is it really fair to ask WL to shoulder all the overcrowding for 5 years and then once the 1300 seat is built on its campus? The only sane thing that she said to me was the fact that she wanted HB Woodlawn to take more students.

the whole hope about Arlington Tech seems overly optimistic. did anyone else notice tha tthe slide re: capacity considerations had the number o fseats they wanted for each measure (e.g., modifications at WF and YT; 1300 extra seats (clearly referencing Ed Center)) but no mention of how many seats for Arlington Tech. I don't remember if it was 800 or 1000 seats they had projected for Arlington Tech by 2022. If it was another HB Woodlawn, I'm sure they would not have any issues getting their numbers filled.

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Anonymous wrote:New presentation is up.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/AFJPPZ649330/$file/HS%20Boundaries%20SBWS%20PPT%2011-9-16.pdf

Only 1 AF option now.
Doesn't show how many kids going to each school. And doesn't show capacity for the years that matter: 2017-2021
Yorktown parents should inquire.

Here's the link.

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Data-by-Option-SB-Work-Session-11-09-16-rev.pdf

So no matter which option they choose, Yorktown, the richest high school, ends up the least crowded?

Stay klassy, SB.

New presentation is up.

http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/AFJPPZ649330/$file/HS%20Boundaries%20SBWS%20PPT%2011-9-16.pdf

Only 1 AF option now.
Doesn't show how many kids going to each school. And doesn't show capacity for the years that matter: 2017-2021
Yorktown parents should inquire.

Anonymous wrote:$500 from the Crystal City Restaurant.

All in $1's? Ha!

Anonymous wrote:Reid is the only one who seems to really get it. I wonder if it is due to where he lives. I'm so glad he asked about farm projections. I have been wondering the same, and not just about siblings. We have PU that have 100's of units of AH that are planned. Have those units been taken into account?

I agree, I was really glad he was there. I think he was taking that into account, that's why he followed up with the question about population numbers.