Anonymous
01/14/2020 08:01
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
1. Staff hasn't changed their goals. They have tried to respond to the questions and criticisms of the community. They can't do that without expanding upon their rationale and providing additional information. Should they have been more thorough in their justification for their proposal at the outset? Absolutely. But they haven't changed their goals or objectives.
2. All the more evidence that they don't have all the information or knowledge that APS has and of their hubris to think they could still know and do better. Then, when their proposals are critiqued, they blame APS for not listening or not understanding or changing their objectives and rationale or moving their goalposts. As you can glean from the DCUM exchange, there are even people in the community who can quickly tear apart the "superiority" of their proposals. The reason staff has stuck behind this one proposal is because they've already considered various options and determined this one was the better balance of all the considerations they need to include.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:55
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
Thank you for this side of the argument. I am not on AEM, am a South Arlington parent at ATS, but stay involved in school decisions that affect my neighborhood. Does the counter proposal map analyze PUs that would be little islands feeding into different middle schools (like be only PU from a particular elementary school to go to a particular middle school) and does it analyze demographics, which may be hard for those in North Arlington to understand how vital that is for SA boundary considerations. Does it analyze any PUs that would have to move again after just being moved in the SA boundary adjustments?
Basically, I’m a little suspect of alternatives that affect the entire county put forth by very self-motivated people. That will always be a flawed and unfair proposal because their self-interest drives the proposal. From my limited interactions with the planning staff, while imperfect, I get the impression they are genuinely in it for all of our children. From what I know of parents, myself included, we are driven by concern for our own kids, our conveniences, and our property values.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:52
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
Yes, I left the rest out, but IMO, the rest makes it worse, not better. First, she didn’t truly stop at 50, they made a bunch of changes south of 50 to make their north-of-50 math work. Second, it’s lazy. You may not know all the ins and outs of south Arlington, but you can at least make a good faith to not, for instance, move planning units in violation of policy because they just moved this year (which they acknowledge doing in their spreadsheet). You can use releases data and do basic calculations to see if you’ve exacerbated FARMS disparities. She did none of this, not because she couldn’t (unless she’s truly stupid, in which case why bother with her proposals at all), but because she doesn’t give a shit about a south Arlington except to the extent they can be used to help her privileged self get what she wants.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:50
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
I understand that McKinley parents don’t have a sufficient grasp of the neighborhoods south of 50. Me neither. But that’s why we have professionals that do this for a living. You shouldn’t do a county-wide boundary process by splitting the county in half. The idea that this McKinley map can handle north arlington without any impact on the work that will be done in south arlington is absurd. It’s 26 square miles, and we have capacity issues in certain schools both north and south. Moves in one place impact other places, and there’s no magical line on 50 that diminishes those impacts.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:48
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Prove the move!
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:48
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Drown ‘em in facts ‘n figures, and alternatives, ask for more time, create chaos, and ... PUNT... on the move.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:45
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
Right, but this community generated map definitively is a boundary change. APS’s current proposal contemplates a second step where boundaries will be adjusted. We can argue about whether it was wise to do it one two separate steps, but the fact is that’s what’s happening. So the six considerations WILL be considered before final boundaries are set. This community map is a proposed one-step process. So it should take the 6 considerations into account because there’s no step 2 where they will come into play.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:41
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
They used the same information and same criteria that APS did. It wasn't until last week that staff said "oh wait, we want to account for VPI which is part of this decision." APS claimed not to be using demographics or other considerations since they weren't doing boundaries right now. The people who did this used APS's data and the goals that APS stated at the time to see if there were in fact other potential options to generate discussion. The staff fell in behind a single proposal almost immediately, and has changed their statements and goalposts repeatedly in order to make that seem like the only option.
And PP who quoted only part of the AEM poster was disingenuous. For those not on there, she said they stopped roughly at Rt 50 because those doing the work didn't feel they had enough information about the schools and communities in the southern half of the county to reasonably shuffle things too much. Again, parents with day jobs trying to see if they could offer up reasonable alternatives for staff and SB to consider rather than the one and only one that staff has stuck behind.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:23
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
Yes, this was after several major issues were pointed out:
“Lo and behold we landed on a scenario that could plausibly outperform APS’ option”.
Notice the silence from the prolific anti-move posters on AEM. They know the map sucks but don’t want to eat their own.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:21
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
Yes, this was after several major issues were pointed out:
“Lo and behold we landed on a scenario that could plausibly outperform APS’ option”.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 07:05
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
and they admitted they disregarded pre-k and didn't leave room for VPI classrooms. Their response is basically- take it up with APS, we didn't know we needed to do that. Well- that is a fatal flaw in your map- yet you are still touting it and suggesting you have a better solution.
Anonymous
01/14/2020 06:46
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Anonymous wrote:Per McKinley data analyst: "Also, When we were building this we basically stopped at Rt 50."
Nothing says take our redistricting proposals seriously like we just stopped halfway through the county cause we dont actually care about anyone but ourselves.
It's not like there isn't a very real reason to look at utility and zones between Long Branch and Fleet, 2 schools 5 blocks apart, one of which is significantly underutilized, during this process about seat deficits.
I finally looked at this map. Even looking just north of 50 (which, lolz) it is genuinely awful. So many kids will be in the much bemoaned “bussing past two other neighborhood schools” situation. For example, planning units in the ASFS walk zone will be going to Taylor and all the way across the county to Ashlawn. It also looks like there are planning units that will move in isolation. There’s no accounting for demographics or alignment. And it doesn’t balance capacity.
But those planning units around McKinley still get to walk to McKinley. So I guess everything else is fine.
Anonymous
01/13/2020 23:56
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Per McKinley data analyst: "Also, When we were building this we basically stopped at Rt 50."
Nothing says take our redistricting proposals seriously like we just stopped halfway through the county cause we dont actually care about anyone but ourselves.
It's not like there isn't a very real reason to look at utility and zones between Long Branch and Fleet, 2 schools 5 blocks apart, one of which is significantly underutilized, during this process about seat deficits.
Anonymous
01/13/2020 23:15
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Per McKinley data analyst: "Also, When we were building this we basically stopped at Rt 50."
Anonymous
01/13/2020 21:53
Subject: Re:APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
Ooh, someone just called out McKinley’s ATS -> Nottingham proposal on AEM.