Anonymous
10/06/2017 14:25
Subject: Re:APS middle school boundary process
At the school board meeting last night they emphasized that the options pawned at the middle school sessions were merely starating points and not to be considered actual suggested plans.
After listening to all the feedback they will come out with their actual proposals. And then there will be public comment on those (after which we'll probably still see an 11th hr hybrid).
But there will be no "H" or "J" or whatever--these aren't the final options and apparently were not intended that way.
After listening to all the feedback they will come out with their actual proposals. And then there will be public comment on those (after which we'll probably still see an 11th hr hybrid).
But there will be no "H" or "J" or whatever--these aren't the final options and apparently were not intended that way.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:33
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote: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.
Brilliant - A North Island is needed. Buckingham is basically an island for Swanson so why not make an island for Kenmore. These would be great civic associations to bus to Kenmore :
Chain Bridge Forest
Arlingwood
Stafford-Albemarle-Glebe
Old Glebe
Rivercrest
Gulf Branch
Bellevue Forest
Great Idea! - this would help protect the precious Madison Community Center.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:30
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
I can’t imagine islands getting much support.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:28
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
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.
Brilliant - A North Island is needed. Buckingham is basically an island for Swanson so why not make an island for Kenmore. These would be great civic associations to bus to Kenmore :
Chain Bridge Forest
Arlingwood
Stafford-Albemarle-Glebe
Old Glebe
Rivercrest
Gulf Branch
Bellevue Forest
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:13
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:On the island: it certainly wasn't MEANT to serve wealthy people in Roslyn. It was meant to serve the Vietnamese immigrant community. But it doesn't do that now. It doesn't contribute much in the way of diversity and it establishes a precedent for busing. If we are going to bus in Arlington, then let's do in a way that establishes SES equity. Let's bus around everyone who is not in a walk zone to get economic equity. If we aren't, then let's eliminate this island. Right now, it sends mostly wealthy kids to a mostly wealthy school. Not entirely. There are a few apt complexes with disadvantaged kids. But that is not really what is going on here anymore.
umm- look at the data posted above. That island is sending nearly 60 FARMS kids to Williamsburg. Williamsburg has like 100 FARMS kids- so that at least 1/2 of them are coming from that island.
Yeah, the PP has some sort of picture in her mind of evil wealthy people demanding the island -- when in fact it's what makes Option F a good one because it actually puts some FARMs into Williamsburg.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:11
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:On the island: it certainly wasn't MEANT to serve wealthy people in Roslyn. It was meant to serve the Vietnamese immigrant community. But it doesn't do that now. It doesn't contribute much in the way of diversity and it establishes a precedent for busing. If we are going to bus in Arlington, then let's do in a way that establishes SES equity. Let's bus around everyone who is not in a walk zone to get economic equity. If we aren't, then let's eliminate this island. Right now, it sends mostly wealthy kids to a mostly wealthy school. Not entirely. There are a few apt complexes with disadvantaged kids. But that is not really what is going on here anymore.
umm- look at the data posted above. That island is sending nearly 60 FARMS kids to Williamsburg. Williamsburg has like 100 FARMS kids- so that at least 1/2 of them are coming from that island.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 13:02
Subject: Re:APS middle school boundary process
What is CARD?
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:56
Subject: Re:APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:If there is any sort of group organizing to support demographic distribution, I'd love to participate.
+1 perhaps we should see if Card is still active.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:52
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
On the island: it certainly wasn't MEANT to serve wealthy people in Roslyn. It was meant to serve the Vietnamese immigrant community. But it doesn't do that now. It doesn't contribute much in the way of diversity and it establishes a precedent for busing. If we are going to bus in Arlington, then let's do in a way that establishes SES equity. Let's bus around everyone who is not in a walk zone to get economic equity. If we aren't, then let's eliminate this island. Right now, it sends mostly wealthy kids to a mostly wealthy school. Not entirely. There are a few apt complexes with disadvantaged kids. But that is not really what is going on here anymore.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:51
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[
I do wish they would put the PU demographic data back up.
It is up-
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MS-Boundary-Student-Data-by-Planning-Unit_Web_Version.pdf
Oh thanks! Going to save it this time.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:47
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[
I do wish they would put the PU demographic data back up.
It is up-
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MS-Boundary-Student-Data-by-Planning-Unit_Web_Version.pdf
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:46
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
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.
I don't think the intent of the Island was ever to bus weathy urbanites to Williamsburg. It's a changing demographic area. There still is a considerable FARMS population- as illustrated below by PU, but as you can see a lot of the PU now have no FARMS.
The island is PU =
23240-no FARMs
23250- no FARMS
24020- no FARMS
24040- no FARMS
24041- no FARMS
24042- 16 FARMS
24043- (no currently- projected FARMS 2023)
24050- no FARMS
24051- no FARMS
24060- (no currently projected FARMS 2022)
24061- no FARMS
24080- no FARMS
24130- 10 FARMS
24081- 10 in 2021 then they go away?
24082- 31 FARMS
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MS-Boundary-Student-Data-by-Planning-Unit_Web_Version.pdf
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:40
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Well, the people in whatever that Williamsburg PU are are going to have a cow, too. I honestly think the 13040 should stay with Swanson because it is so proximate (I hate the thought of walkers being put on buses -- bad for the kids, bad for the parents), but I was trying to go halfway. It would obviously make more sense from a map perspective to go with 1410 + 1411, or 1307+1204 -- actually, the latter seems more reasonable and less like a cut out, but I don't know how the numbers work out with those.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.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.
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.
OK -- I have a real solution to the problem of 1F. What could happen is to ADD planning unit 1410 to the list of people going to Kenmore. 1410 is not close-in to Swanson, so you're not doing the stupid thing of putting kids on a bus when they could've walked 2 blocks to school. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I bet that would be a pretty sound solution. Just saying.
Seems like it would help, if the Board would let go of the contiguity factor in this small way. Aren't the ppl from 13040 still going to have a cow though?
I do wish they would put the PU demographic data back up.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:36
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.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.
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.
OK -- I have a real solution to the problem of 1F. What could happen is to ADD planning unit 1410 to the list of people going to Kenmore. 1410 is not close-in to Swanson, so you're not doing the stupid thing of putting kids on a bus when they could've walked 2 blocks to school. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I bet that would be a pretty sound solution. Just saying.
Seems like it would help, if the Board would let go of the contiguity factor in this small way. Aren't the ppl from 13040 still going to have a cow though?
I do wish they would put the PU demographic data back up.
Anonymous
10/06/2017 12:33
Subject: APS middle school boundary process
Anonymous wrote:Yeah, better to make them all suck. I'm sure the parents from those two other schools will be really happy. How about making a separate island up north and bussing those kids to Kenmore, while using the rest of the 1F plan. There, I fixed your problem for you. Easy.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yet your beloved Option H sends THREE schools into the 40s. Fail.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.
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.
I'm not really sure what the deal is with your attitude, but I'm trying to work within the world where the SB has said no more islands. Your point is also basically wrong. Kenmore and TJ already are in the 40s and, based on the maps and data APS has put up, Gunston will be 38-40 in a few years almost no matter what. So moving them all to the 40s isn't "making them all suck" unless, in your view, they already do.