Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how to build a map by planning unit that shows the different elementary/middle/HS combinations? I often hear parents say “no one else is split up like our PU” and I am curious if that is actually true or if there are pockets like this all over the county. I would like to advocate during future boundary debates to minimize these isolated PUs.

I’m not impacted by the MS boundary process, but we live in a planning unit where ours is the only PU at our elementary where kids will stay together through HS. A small portion of our ES will go to MS together. Then we will be split from those ES friends, but joined again in HS with kids who went to the same ES but different MS.

The planned (then cancelled) 2020 comprehensive boundary changes to all the school pyramids were supposed to help the Ashlawn boundaries.

Before 2018, Ashlawn used to split to Swanson and Kenmore but then all students reunited at W-L for high school.

Right - but the question is “Is Ashlawn the only school that splits this much?” Or are there other parts of the county that also get split up?

Abingdon splits to Gunston, TJ and Kenmore

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Because the epicenter of political power has traditionally been in N Arlington. (Although that may be shifting.) And large-scale boundary changes are sure to have political repercussions. When the school board was appointed, boundaries were easier to change at the macro level.

I really don't think it's just about N Arlington power. I think parents across the county mostly want their kids to go to a school that is nearby and to stay with their cohort of friends. I think APS can do better than the last disaster of a plan that still has everyone on edge and distristful that the next set of boundary revisions are going to be awful and are unwanted.

That was a disaster. Proposing to bus kids who lived a block away from DHMS, who could see the school from their windows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how to build a map by planning unit that shows the different elementary/middle/HS combinations? I often hear parents say “no one else is split up like our PU” and I am curious if that is actually true or if there are pockets like this all over the county. I would like to advocate during future boundary debates to minimize these isolated PUs.

I’m not impacted by the MS boundary process, but we live in a planning unit where ours is the only PU at our elementary where kids will stay together through HS. A small portion of our ES will go to MS together. Then we will be split from those ES friends, but joined again in HS with kids who went to the same ES but different MS.

The planned (then cancelled) 2020 comprehensive boundary changes to all the school pyramids were supposed to help the Ashlawn boundaries.

Before 2018, Ashlawn used to split to Swanson and Kenmore but then all students reunited at W-L for high school.

Right - but the question is “Is Ashlawn the only school that splits this much?” Or are there other parts of the county that also get split up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how to build a map by planning unit that shows the different elementary/middle/HS combinations? I often hear parents say “no one else is split up like our PU” and I am curious if that is actually true or if there are pockets like this all over the county. I would like to advocate during future boundary debates to minimize these isolated PUs.

I’m not impacted by the MS boundary process, but we live in a planning unit where ours is the only PU at our elementary where kids will stay together through HS. A small portion of our ES will go to MS together. Then we will be split from those ES friends, but joined again in HS with kids who went to the same ES but different MS.

The planned (then cancelled) 2020 comprehensive boundary changes to all the school pyramids were supposed to help the Ashlawn boundaries.

Before 2018, Ashlawn used to split to Swanson and Kenmore but then all students reunited at W-L for high school.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how to build a map by planning unit that shows the different elementary/middle/HS combinations? I often hear parents say “no one else is split up like our PU” and I am curious if that is actually true or if there are pockets like this all over the county. I would like to advocate during future boundary debates to minimize these isolated PUs.

I’m not impacted by the MS boundary process, but we live in a planning unit where ours is the only PU at our elementary where kids will stay together through HS. A small portion of our ES will go to MS together. Then we will be split from those ES friends, but joined again in HS with kids who went to the same ES but different MS.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how to build a map by planning unit that shows the different elementary/middle/HS combinations? I often hear parents say “no one else is split up like our PU” and I am curious if that is actually true or if there are pockets like this all over the county. I would like to advocate during future boundary debates to minimize these isolated PUs.

I’m not impacted by the MS boundary process, but we live in a planning unit where ours is the only PU at our elementary where kids will stay together through HS. A small portion of our ES will go to MS together. Then we will be split from those ES friends, but joined again in HS with kids who went to the same ES but different MS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone looked at the Sept 30 enrollment numbers as compared to the capacity? Is Gunston over 100% this year?

Yes, capacity 992, enrollment 1038

NP here. They are verifying addresses again this year. Last time, that cut Gunston enrollment by 100 kids.

It’s only for 8th grade, I doubt it’s going to be that significant of a drop this year

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Because the epicenter of political power has traditionally been in N Arlington. (Although that may be shifting.) And large-scale boundary changes are sure to have political repercussions. When the school board was appointed, boundaries were easier to change at the macro level.

I really don't think it's just about N Arlington power. I think parents across the county mostly want their kids to go to a school that is nearby and to stay with their cohort of friends. I think APS can do better than the last disaster of a plan that still has everyone on edge and distristful that the next set of boundary revisions are going to be awful and are unwanted.

That was a disaster. Proposing to bus kids who lived a block away from DHMS, who could see the school from their windows.

Thank you, Taylor parent. Good to see you're still vigilant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Because the epicenter of political power has traditionally been in N Arlington. (Although that may be shifting.) And large-scale boundary changes are sure to have political repercussions. When the school board was appointed, boundaries were easier to change at the macro level.

I really don't think it's just about N Arlington power. I think parents across the county mostly want their kids to go to a school that is nearby and to stay with their cohort of friends. I think APS can do better than the last disaster of a plan that still has everyone on edge and distristful that the next set of boundary revisions are going to be awful and are unwanted.

That was a disaster. Proposing to bus kids who lived a block away from DHMS, who could see the school from their windows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Because the epicenter of political power has traditionally been in N Arlington. (Although that may be shifting.) And large-scale boundary changes are sure to have political repercussions. When the school board was appointed, boundaries were easier to change at the macro level.

I really don't think it's just about N Arlington power. I think parents across the county mostly want their kids to go to a school that is nearby and to stay with their cohort of friends. I think APS can do better than the last disaster of a plan that still has everyone on edge and distristful that the next set of boundary revisions are going to be awful and are unwanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Because the epicenter of political power has traditionally been in N Arlington. (Although that may be shifting.) And large-scale boundary changes are sure to have political repercussions. When the school board was appointed, boundaries were easier to change at the macro level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Re above post. Also it appears the FCPS boundary changes are equity focused and directed by school board members who want to see a more even demographic distribution among schools, especially high schools. There are no plans for that in APS.

Good for them!
"Progressive Arlington" always touting how it is a leader will have nothing to do with anything like that, despite being a fraction the size of FCPS and Fairfax County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone looked at the Sept 30 enrollment numbers as compared to the capacity? Is Gunston over 100% this year?

Yes, capacity 992, enrollment 1038

NP here. They are verifying addresses again this year. Last time, that cut Gunston enrollment by 100 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone looked at the Sept 30 enrollment numbers as compared to the capacity? Is Gunston over 100% this year?

Yes, capacity 992, enrollment 1038