Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing the boundary processes over the last decade have revealed to me is how incredibly bad at their jobs APS staff actually are.

Actually, the only thing I learned is how entitled and self-centered North Arlington can be. More than I expected.

+1

Anonymous wrote:The only thing the boundary processes over the last decade have revealed to me is how incredibly bad at their jobs APS staff actually are.

Actually, the only thing I learned is how entitled and self-centered North Arlington can be. More than I expected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like contiguity was removed as a priority guiding boundaries. Too late for the now removed Rosslyn “island”. But I suppose APS can create new islands in the future if appropriate (as long as they’re not in the walk zone of a particular school, so as not to undermine proximity and alignment.)

It’s out of the policy but it’s still listed in the PIP as a consideration.

So what schools will the former Rosslyn island be assigned to?

Former W-L zoned neighborhoods along Military Rd, Lorcom Ln, Nelly Custis, etc, were rezoned to Yorktown five years ago to remove the “island,” i.e., to make a contiguous attendance area for Yorktown.

Anything is possible with future boundary changes, if they are comprehensive. All of Rosslyn, Courthouse, and Clarendon used to go to W-L. I wouldn’t rule out those Metro adjacent urban neighborhoods being rezoned back.

Also it’s entirely possible that that urban Yorktown zone could grow to include Lyon Village, the neighborhoods north of Langston Blvd, etc., like Cherrydale, Maywood, and the area of apartments by MOMs organic, still zoned to W-L.

I’m afraid no one knows the answer to your question but we can all make educated guesses based on precedent.

I think all of the kids zoned to Innovation and Hamm should end up at Yorktown for high school. But who knows.

Innovation in its entirety could very well get rezoned to Yorktown, if Yorktown keeps its Rosslyn through Clarendon neighborhoods. That would make sense from an alignment standpoint but would score low on proximity/walkability.
However, a lot of walkable neighborhoods to W-L are currently zoned to Yorktown.

W-L is a desirable school (in terms of reputation) so I don’t think families in Lyon Village and Clarendon would mind which high school they’re zoned to (W-L v Yorktown), but if precedent is any guide, alignment problems are what upset most neighborhoods. Alignment may even trump proximity in terms of a neighborhood’s priorities, even if it may mean a bus ride to a school further away like Yorktown.

But like you said, who knows.

I agree with all of this. There is something unsettling about shipping only the Rosslyn island up to Yorktown for the diversity factor. Innovation is a brand new neighborhood school and it feels kind of choppy. They need to keep those planning units together.

Both Innovation and ASFS include cohorts of socio-economic diversity that go to Yorktown.

If all of Innovation were to all go to Yorktown, so as not to single out just the low income kids (to Yorktown), then it may make sense for all of ASFS to also go to Yorktown. Perhaps with the guaranteed option to attend W-L to keep walkability for families that value that over alignment. I read on here that Ashlawn families have the guaranteed option to choose W-L, even though they are zoned to Yorktown.

Of course the ASFS, Innovation, etc., boundaries would all likely all be redrawn with the middle and high schools, when APS does the comprehensive boundary changes. And so the socio-economic mix of each school may change. And in the hypothetical scenario that Rosslyn through Clarendon get rezoned back to W-L, many of the students could commute by Metro train or bus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.

The plan is to probably move cohorts of students, not isolated groups, so it wouldn’t be as disruptive as it’s been in the past.

This is an absurd thing to say. Even if a “cohort” moves together, it’s still incredibly disruptive to change schools. Sometimes it has to happen. It should not happen to the same student twice in 5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.

The plan is to probably move cohorts of students, not isolated groups, so it wouldn’t be as disruptive as it’s been in the past.

Don't kid yourself. They don't have a plan. Their plan now is just like they had a plan to move immersion, only to then figure out that they didn't need to based on capacity. And then they had a plan to use Nottingham as a swing space, only then to decide that APS doesn't have any need for a swing space. They literally had the whole county in a tizzy for no reason at all.

+1. They have no plan because they have incompetent staff members. They’re purely putting out fires.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.

Population growth isn't that unpredictable. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.

The plan is to probably move cohorts of students, not isolated groups, so it wouldn’t be as disruptive as it’s been in the past.

Don't kid yourself. They don't have a plan. Their plan now is just like they had a plan to move immersion, only to then figure out that they didn't need to based on capacity. And then they had a plan to use Nottingham as a swing space, only then to decide that APS doesn't have any need for a swing space. They literally had the whole county in a tizzy for no reason at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.

The plan is to probably move cohorts of students, not isolated groups, so it wouldn’t be as disruptive as it’s been in the past.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Change boundary review from every five years to every two years.

This change sounds like it's going to create a ton of churn. It basically means we'll always be in the middle of a boundary process. Ick.

Every TWO years? These Planning people seem to live for drama.

They don't want underutilized or overutilized buildings and they botched the current boundaries. No student can be moved more than twice within a five year period however. I think that’s what the policy states.

Twice in a five year period is a ton.