Anonymous wrote:I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

If those farms rates aren’t under 50 don’t bother.
Seriously.
Look, at first I was like you. I thought lowering rates to 60 would be enough. It’s not.
We have schools that have hovered around or slightly over 60 for DECADES.
Push WALKALBE apartments to Randolph.
Get Barcorft and Drew to 47% or lower. We were given an invitation by Talento at the meeting. Give the middle class more neighborhood schools. We can’t all go to Henry. Don’t pull middle class out of Abingdon. That school is poised to have some meaningful middle class support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Yes, to this. I also don't understand why the large PU currently zoned for Barcroft and nearest to Fleet isn't being zoned for Fleet - and the answer last night about crossing the intersection made little sense.

Honestly, this process is so disheartening. First they gerrymander the boundaries, and now they're cooking the FRL numbers. I don't know how I can take them seriously at all. Should we refocus the conversation on test scores then? I'm not sure how to get them to do the right thing -- it's just super sad to witness.

I'm not sure I buy the intersection argument but I will say Arlington overall has some geographic issues that enforce certain segregation. 50 is a physical barrier between north and south. Even if the kids across Glebe are walkable to Fleet it's not super likely that many elementary school kids would/should cross Glebe. Frustrating? Absolutely. But it's not completely unreasonable as a debate point.

Somehow I'd missed the inclusion of 37041 and 37042 at Fleet. Ok, this map is officially BS.

Yup, but they didn't include 37040 or 37050. Why?

Not PP but I have heard the explanation that 37040 and 37050 help Barcroft b/c they are pretty balanced PUs demographically. However, with the opening of Gilliam Place, now may be the time to move them to Fleet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Yes, to this. I also don't understand why the large PU currently zoned for Barcroft and nearest to Fleet isn't being zoned for Fleet - and the answer last night about crossing the intersection made little sense.

Honestly, this process is so disheartening. First they gerrymander the boundaries, and now they're cooking the FRL numbers. I don't know how I can take them seriously at all. Should we refocus the conversation on test scores then? I'm not sure how to get them to do the right thing -- it's just super sad to witness.

I'm not sure I buy the intersection argument but I will say Arlington overall has some geographic issues that enforce certain segregation. 50 is a physical barrier between north and south. Even if the kids across Glebe are walkable to Fleet it's not super likely that many elementary school kids would/should cross Glebe. Frustrating? Absolutely. But it's not completely unreasonable as a debate point.

Somehow I'd missed the inclusion of 37041 and 37042 at Fleet. Ok, this map is officially BS.

Yup, but they didn't include 37040 or 37050. Why?

I posted this way at the beginning of the thread, but I am convinced there are ways to re-do the map that fix many of the issues at Drew without touching Randolph. To the above Randolph poster, I don't disagree with you that we should be inclusive and not ignore those Randolph residents who opt out. I just don't know what to do about the situation and I wasn't trying to be flip. I do think there is something to be said for a community that, while low-income, is successful in its own way.

But I think I DO know how to address Drew. (1) Move CH to Drew. (2) Move a Claremont unit to Drew [I think this is optional, as it does maybe isolate Abingdon-Jefferson students]. (3) Keep CF at Abingdon. (4) Move additional Abingdon units east of CF to Barcroft. (5) Keep Barcroft Apts at Barcroft. (6) Move Alcova to Fleet.

Helps Drew's FR/L and alignment and proximity; moves a future CAF out of Barcroft; leaves Fleet under capacity to accommodate future growth that a PP a page or two back mentioned; leaves Barcroft and Abingdon somewhat full and Barcroft's FR/L rate somewhat high, but as the Staff said last night, they will be in the next process in another year. I really think this achieves a decent outcome.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously.
Just give Randolph to the FARM’s demo.
They want it, and they can not be inconvenienced. Which I truly understand. They NEED to walk. DP homeowners don’t walk. Their kids stand on 16th and catch buses elsewhere.
Give Talento her school.
Use it to help the other schools achieve a better mix. It’s actually the politically easy solution.
You won’t have DP middle class fighting you. Have you heard from them during this? Nope. They released crazy high frl #’s (92%!) for Randolph and the neighborhood was like, “ huh. Yeah that sounds about right”
They don’t gaf.
So send them to Drew.
We aren’t all going to get a walkable school with a great mix. Some will have to get on a bus for a better mix. Some will get to walk to their perfectly good homogenous school.
But Randolph isn’t getting a good mix AND a great inclusive walk zone.
So let’s get this deal done.

It's true. The demographics being what they are, you can't all be walkable and have a good mix. This at least seems like a better solution for helping the unestablished school get off the ground without having two hands tied behind their backs.

Seriously.
Just give Randolph to the FARM’s demo.
They want it, and they can not be inconvenienced. Which I truly understand. They NEED to walk. DP homeowners don’t walk. Their kids stand on 16th and catch buses elsewhere.
Give Talento her school.
Use it to help the other schools achieve a better mix. It’s actually the politically easy solution.
You won’t have DP middle class fighting you. Have you heard from them during this? Nope. They released crazy high frl #’s (92%!) for Randolph and the neighborhood was like, “ huh. Yeah that sounds about right”
They don’t gaf.
So send them to Drew.
We aren’t all going to get a walkable school with a great mix. Some will have to get on a bus for a better mix. Some will get to walk to their perfectly good homogenous school.
But Randolph isn’t getting a good mix AND a great inclusive walk zone.
So let’s get this deal done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Yes, to this. I also don't understand why the large PU currently zoned for Barcroft and nearest to Fleet isn't being zoned for Fleet - and the answer last night about crossing the intersection made little sense.

Honestly, this process is so disheartening. First they gerrymander the boundaries, and now they're cooking the FRL numbers. I don't know how I can take them seriously at all. Should we refocus the conversation on test scores then? I'm not sure how to get them to do the right thing -- it's just super sad to witness.

I'm not sure I buy the intersection argument but I will say Arlington overall has some geographic issues that enforce certain segregation. 50 is a physical barrier between north and south. Even if the kids across Glebe are walkable to Fleet it's not super likely that many elementary school kids would/should cross Glebe. Frustrating? Absolutely. But it's not completely unreasonable as a debate point.

Somehow I'd missed the inclusion of 37041 and 37042 at Fleet. Ok, this map is officially BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Good luck with that.
Talento drew a line at the meeting.

I didn't say I thought it'd happen! Haha. But they are either dicing up Columbia Forest or Fairlington to preserve Randolph or Henry/Fleet. That seems like a bad way to do it.

Anonymous wrote:What happened to that fancy map that allowed you to plug in PU’s with farms rates?
You know- the one they had for WL boundary redraw?
How come we don’t have that tool this time?

LOL they are NEVER giving us that again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the whole thing makes my head spin. We are trying to say that FARM % matter, but Randolph is basically saying leave us alone, we are good. So does it or doesn't it?

Then that weird numbers magic happened and they are now saying what they proposed for Drew anyhow is actually, what, 65% or something, not 85%?

Then people are basically saying it's really just commitment to the school that matters. So how are you going to fill a school with kids and families that want to be there and will make it work?

Your options aren't just to pick off Fleet. You can pick from: 1) Abingdon (aka Fairlington), 2) Oakridge, 3) Columbia Heights, and 4) Columbia Forest. And maybe more. So you have options.

I don't think any of us have seen all the maps showing what happens if you move kids from all those places. And to me a big question is whether the 65% is real or not. 65% is not awesome but you could live with it. 85% is terrible. (Although again Randolph doesn't seem to care.)

65% is not real. It is based on adding 350 to the denominator and no adjustment to the numerator. It is transparently wrong.

I think you're raising a bunch of good points that reasonable people can debate. Randolph says leave us alone, so let's leave them alone. They are a tightly bound community that has been together for a long time. Drew is another story and it's not only the FR/L rate for Drew -- it is the meandering boundary and long bus rides and alignment problems, all dropped onto a brand new school community that does not even have its own PTA right now and has no existing cohesive population to advocate for it. I am a big believer that we should try to do better on FR/L generally, but this proposal is unfair to Drew for many other reasons in addition to that.

I have to disagree regarding Randolph. APS is supposedly concerned about EVERY child, even the English-first-language middle class kids -- the ones whose parents are opting them out of Randolph. The community that IS there may be close and supportive and of like-background to understand each other and their needs, etc. But that doesn't mean we should just leave them alone. The community needs to be inviting and welcoming to the Douglas Park families who are shying away. It should be an INCLUSIVE community.

And let's face it: the majority of the Randolph community that are supposed to be so tight-knit all live in Barcroft Apartments, which is HUGE. The complex is already divided with some going to Barcroft. But you redistrict a large section away from Randolph to make room for the families who have been opting out and bring more diversity to the school and you can still have a supportive and close community. In fact, your community has expanded.

We're also doing them no favors keeping them segregated - it does nothing to help others overcome biases and prejudices. People need to interact with each other to change their mindsets. This boundary process is the opportunity to do that, not just at Drew - but to increase it again at Oakridge and Henry as well as hooking the white MC kids back into Randolph.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Yes, to this. I also don't understand why the large PU currently zoned for Barcroft and nearest to Fleet isn't being zoned for Fleet - and the answer last night about crossing the intersection made little sense.

Honestly, this process is so disheartening. First they gerrymander the boundaries, and now they're cooking the FRL numbers. I don't know how I can take them seriously at all. Should we refocus the conversation on test scores then? I'm not sure how to get them to do the right thing -- it's just super sad to witness.

I'm not sure I buy the intersection argument but I will say Arlington overall has some geographic issues that enforce certain segregation. 50 is a physical barrier between north and south. Even if the kids across Glebe are walkable to Fleet it's not super likely that many elementary school kids would/should cross Glebe. Frustrating? Absolutely. But it's not completely unreasonable as a debate point.

What happened to that fancy map that allowed you to plug in PU’s with farms rates?
You know- the one they had for WL boundary redraw?
How come we don’t have that tool this time?

The only thing that matters is numbers.



And when those numbers don’t give you the desired outcome? You just change the numbers.

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Good luck with that.
Talento drew a line at the meeting.

Anonymous wrote:I think they need to draw Drew's boundaries FIRST. Figure out how to balance the new school with areas close by. Then draw the boundaries for Randolph and Fleet and Barcroft and see what makes sense. But to just see Randolph as untouchable is hurting the process for everyone. The whole point of redoing the boundaries is that things are going to change.

Yes, to this. I also don't understand why the large PU currently zoned for Barcroft and nearest to Fleet isn't being zoned for Fleet - and the answer last night about crossing the intersection made little sense.

Honestly, this process is so disheartening. First they gerrymander the boundaries, and now they're cooking the FRL numbers. I don't know how I can take them seriously at all. Should we refocus the conversation on test scores then? I'm not sure how to get them to do the right thing -- it's just super sad to witness.