Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Well, like I said, I personally am okay with the 40s. But is your position that we should deliberately sacrifice one school for the good of the rest of the schools? I can't support that. I don't believe in utilitarian zealotry when it comes to schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Well, like I said, I personally am okay with the 40s. But is your position that we should deliberately sacrifice one school for the good of the rest of the schools? I can't support that. I don't believe in utilitarian zealotry when it comes to schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.

Anonymous wrote:11:56 - I am with you on this. Have you sent this perspective to APS? It would be helpful for them to see this dilemma and your response so thoughtfully presented. I am hoping we can see a map that combines F and H to put the FARMS between 10 and 45%.

Anonymous wrote:I think the tension with F vs. H is the tension between making Williamsburg take its "fair share" vs. having Kenmore over 50%. Extrapolating from the experiences/views of W-L and Patrick Henry, it seems many people are fine with FARMS rates around 1/3, and certainly no one can quibble with the excellent results of those schools. However, some people start to get mighty uncomfortable once the rates rise up to the 40s and the outcomes may be inferior (again, extrapolating on attitudes towards, say, Wakefield and Kenmore).

I personally am comfortable with numbers in the 40s based on what I know now (we are zoned for Wakefield). However, I get uncomfortable with numbers over 50%. I can't articulate exactly why, or point to a specific study (many of which say lower rates are too high anyway), it just seems too darn high. We're not zoned for Kenmore under any circumstance, but I personally cannot support a plan that would push that school, or any other, over 50%. Because of that, I don't care about W'burg taking its fair share.

Anonymous wrote:Why that island? Why are we allowing children of wealthy urbanites in Roslyn (by and large) to be bussed to Williamsburg. It's absurd. Why not another island instead? The distribution would be fair if we bussed far north Jamestown or Taylor kids to Kenmore too. They have to take a bus either way too. Is anyone proposing that? It's absurd to have contiguity as a factor and to preserve this island.

Anonymous wrote:I can't tolerate 1F. No islands. We got rid of the islands for high school. Why keep them for middle school? Why is that community special?