Anonymous wrote:Does it do any good to send an email or express viewpoints, or is there realistically already a plan in place? Right now I'm 3/4 mile away from Swanson, yet my kids will need to be bussed all the way to Kenmore under many of these proposed plans. I understand bussing kids around if they're relatively equal distances away from two schools, but this makes no sense. Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else? When I grew up, you went to the schools that were closest to where you actually lived; this is crazy.

It's not crazy. The schools aren't built in perfect locations, so the boundaries aren't ever going to have everyone going to their geographically closest school. Also, it's not the ONLY consideration. Can anyone tell me the current overall percentage of students who are bus riders to MS? I am still not convinced that most of these scenarios actually INCREASE the overall number of students on buses or buses needed. Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:The SB is going to raise the fr/l numbers at Kenmore for sure, Jefferson possibly. They did it with the high school boundary process, they will do it here too (at the last minute with maps no one has seen too). The SB will take the northern edge of Kenmore and send to Swanson. They may even take Buckingham and move to Kenmore. Moving all the poorer kids to the smallest number of schools is in their best interest: keeps the rest of the county happy and they don't have to worry about the lower income community speaking up (or speaking up enough). Unless someone is planning to file a lawsuit or report this to the feds (who now don't care) the SB does not have to worry about being sued for intentional segregation. And, they have a champion in this plan with Talento - she is already on the record saying that Latino families want to go to school with other Latino families.

So, the diversity option is just lip service, don't even waste your time worrying about it.

And if you think your snowflake in these high poverty schools is getting as good an education as they would in a wealthy north arlington school, talk to parents who have moved north. I am one of those parents. We moved from Kenmore zone to Swanson when my daughter was in 7th grade. OMG, it is like being in an entirely different county. School administration, time in the class devoted to disruption, cleanliness and just niceness of classrooms and school, attitude of peer groups, PTA resources and parent participation. No comparison, at all.

Probably right about what the SB will do. I'm never giving the party another cent in donations if they can't even represent our ideals at the local level.

Does it do any good to send an email or express viewpoints, or is there realistically already a plan in place? Right now I'm 3/4 mile away from Swanson, yet my kids will need to be bussed all the way to Kenmore under many of these proposed plans. I understand bussing kids around if they're relatively equal distances away from two schools, but this makes no sense. Doesn't it seem weird to anyone else? When I grew up, you went to the schools that were closest to where you actually lived; this is crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.

A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.

I disagree. Scenarios that leave one school both with low farms levels and highly under-enrolled seem ridiculous, when we're given the chance to fix these issues.

PP here. I appreciate your point, and I'm pro-diversity and pro-doing something about the demographics. However, there are legitimate countervailing factors, not least of which is that many families, including in both the north and south, don't want to take a long bus ride to a school very far away (understanding that "very far" is a relative term in Arlington). I don't think all of that is racist subterfuge. People are allowed to make choices about where they live and are allowed to prefer neighborhood schools. People are allowed to not prioritize diversity, whatever that means, when it comes to their own families. I personally don't live in the Williamsburg zone on purpose and I'm not going to force my penchant for diversity down everyone's throats when there are legitimately held preferences on the other side. If there are reasonable ways to achieve some fairness, taking the county's housing/AH history as an unfortunate given, then that's what I personally am in favor of.

So how can we reasonably do this? Do any of the scenarios come close?

The SB is going to raise the fr/l numbers at Kenmore for sure, Jefferson possibly. They did it with the high school boundary process, they will do it here too (at the last minute with maps no one has seen too). The SB will take the northern edge of Kenmore and send to Swanson. They may even take Buckingham and move to Kenmore. Moving all the poorer kids to the smallest number of schools is in their best interest: keeps the rest of the county happy and they don't have to worry about the lower income community speaking up (or speaking up enough). Unless someone is planning to file a lawsuit or report this to the feds (who now don't care) the SB does not have to worry about being sued for intentional segregation. And, they have a champion in this plan with Talento - she is already on the record saying that Latino families want to go to school with other Latino families.

So, the diversity option is just lip service, don't even waste your time worrying about it.

And if you think your snowflake in these high poverty schools is getting as good an education as they would in a wealthy north arlington school, talk to parents who have moved north. I am one of those parents. We moved from Kenmore zone to Swanson when my daughter was in 7th grade. OMG, it is like being in an entirely different county. School administration, time in the class devoted to disruption, cleanliness and just niceness of classrooms and school, attitude of peer groups, PTA resources and parent participation. No comparison, at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.

A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.

I disagree. Scenarios that leave one school both with low farms levels and highly under-enrolled seem ridiculous, when we're given the chance to fix these issues.

PP here. I appreciate your point, and I'm pro-diversity and pro-doing something about the demographics. However, there are legitimate countervailing factors, not least of which is that many families, including in both the north and south, don't want to take a long bus ride to a school very far away (understanding that "very far" is a relative term in Arlington). I don't think all of that is racist subterfuge. People are allowed to make choices about where they live and are allowed to prefer neighborhood schools. People are allowed to not prioritize diversity, whatever that means, when it comes to their own families. I personally don't live in the Williamsburg zone on purpose and I'm not going to force my penchant for diversity down everyone's throats when there are legitimately held preferences on the other side. If there are reasonable ways to achieve some fairness, taking the county's housing/AH history as an unfortunate given, then that's what I personally am in favor of.

Anonymous wrote:In terms of the Dominion Hills Neighborhood and turning walkers into busriders- yes a lot of these scenarios transfer you from Swanson to Kenmore. But guess what- you are still a walker. It is 1.7 miles from Swanson to Kenmore. The schools are just not that far apart. It is actually an extremely pleasant walk along the 4 mile run trail- or Kensington st if you prefer to stick to streets. APS thinks that middle schoolers can walk 1.5 miles. The closest house to Swanson that is being talked about being moved to Kenmore is precisely 1.5 miles- That is the outer edge of the Planning Unit.

The DH units touch the Swanson unit. The closest houses are two blocks from Swanson, the furthest are closer to 3/4-1mi. No way in hell would I put 6th graders on that trail before dawn, which is what they would have to do for DH kids to walk to Kenmore and current Kenmore kids to walk to DH. H is beyond stupid.

Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.

A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.

I disagree. Scenarios that leave one school both with low farms levels and highly under-enrolled seem ridiculous, when we're given the chance to fix these issues.

Anonymous wrote:Wait til the ES boundary process begins...(HUGE SIGH).

+1

This one will directly affect me and my neighborhood and I just am not looking forward to seeing people's true colors come out at ALL. The HS/MS debates are mostly academic to my neighborhood, but they have been revealing and not in a good way.

Wait til the ES boundary process begins...(HUGE SIGH).

Anonymous wrote:Can someone ( succinctly) explain what happened with the HS boundary last year?
I had heard that the numbers were wrong, but I never figured out the specifics.
Can anyone break it down?

There were a few options that seemed to divide up the overcrowding pretty evenly among WL, Wakefield and Yorktown. There was one option where the Western Pike was going to leave WL and go to Wakefield, but that was dead on arrival b/c it would send more poor kids to Wakefield with more than 40% FARMs. Some people close to WL were also at risk of being moved over to Wakefield, but they mobilized and wore bright orange shirts (and seemed to piss off other parents) (I didn't care b/c I think every parent is entitled to advocate for their own kids).

At the final hour, Kaninen seems put off that the proposal which would pretty much split up the kids (only need about 200 sent to each school) would put a trailer at Yorktown in the final year. So proposes a new option of a smaller group going to Yorktown (never mind this option would guarantee trailers at WL for 3 years and there were safety risks cited about on-going construction of the future Ed Center (at this point SB had not voted to cram those extra 1300 seats there (now 700 or so)).

Meanwhile, the meetings which are happening at a rapid pace have data which shows the projected FARMS rates for each option. A few parents (including myself) look at them and see there's now way the numbers are correct (for example, they had FARMS rates at WL going up when the option had FARMS PUs moving out). APS tries to fix this in late 2016.

At the last meeting, SB suddenly all votes for her proposal--sending the fewest UMC kids to YT. A few months later, it comes out that they had calculated the projected enrollment wrong and YT will be overcrowded (HAH!).

It also comes out they f#cked up the McKinley numbers by more than 100 students (can't recall exact number) but it's significant but SB says they won't do anything about it even though it's totally APS admin's fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:school board policy is not to make any new islands- it doesn't necessarily mean they have to get rid of an existing island.

I honestly don't think there is a good answer to a tough problem. I hate to see economic disparity increased beyond what it currently is- but the only option that gets Williamsburg to a larger FARMS rate (17%), drops Swanson to 7% (Option B) and I don't see that as a net benefit to anyone.


H is probably about the most balanced- it has Gunston/Jefferson/Kenmore between 40-45% and Stratford Swanson at roughly 25%. Of course it also puts Williamsburg at4% FARMS and only 93% capacity- and that doesn't seem right either.

That's why J plus adding some (bus riders from Kenmore and Jefferson (adjacent) to Swanson, Stratford and the Williamsburg island might help address this.

Exactly.

J increases Kenmore's fr/l rate by 6 percentage points and Gunston's by 7 percentage points (not just 6 or 7 percent, for those of you who can do math).

To accept J, but with some islands carved out, is to say that we value diversity but only if it's the poor kids who have to get less sleep and travel farther far from their homes. This is a non-starter. What else have you got?

DP here. I may be reading this wrong, but J appears to keep the same Kenmore boundary and only alter Gunston a little bit around the eastern Pike. Where can I look to see the increases in numbers of fr/l? Is it purely a function of projections of increased population, some of which will be fr/l?

That may be correct. I can't tell exactly without an overlay. But if it's a function of increased fr/l population with the current boundary, are you saying APS should not attempt to balance this out by adjusting boundaries?

Most recently available fr/l numbers are here (from October 2016): https://www.apsva.us/statistics/free-and-reduced-price-meals/

I'm not suggesting that. I'm just trying to understand whether it's (a) the population will naturally do that on its own or (b) something about these shifts is causing a more artificially accelerated increase in the rate. In the end, you're right, the numbers are what they are and should be addressed. It's just a question of context for how to advocate for addressing them. And, if the projections tell us that all South Arl schools are heading towards 50% FARMs, that's obviously a bigger hill to climb and simple boundary tweaks within the south may not be enough. It might be grounds to advocate for an H, with Kenmore reaching way up into the north.

Can someone ( succinctly) explain what happened with the HS boundary last year?
I had heard that the numbers were wrong, but I never figured out the specifics.
Can anyone break it down?

Anonymous wrote:^^ I think it's very important in elementary school to go to school with your neighbors. The kids make friends a few doors down or a short walk. They can run back and forth to each other's houses. Play dates aren't a major pain in the ass with having to pick a kid up on the other side of town sitting in rush hioir traffic on Lee highway.

Most of our neighborhood goest to the same school, but there is a large portion from all the way across town. I've had to really cut back on play dates with any of those kids because it's just too much of a pain. The kids in the neighborhood will get together a lot and in nights they have practices they can still have short play dates beforehand.

The last round of redistricting for ES shows the country didn't care about this at all -- the McK realignment put neighborhoods in three separate schools.

What are the black bolded lines on the new charts?