Anonymous wrote:I'm a south Arlington parent of a toddler. High school is many years away for my family, but I'm following the discussion. We are inbetween gen x and millenials and were never concerned with Wakefield. Is this a generational divide, or will we change our tune as we get closer to middle school? Do you think the younger middle class families moving into south Arlington will stick around for high school?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.
This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."
Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.
And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.
This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."
Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.
I agree. I have mixed emotions and general bemusement at how last night went down, but there was a genuinely sad moment when everyone was carping on Wakefield, both directly and indirectly, and a Wakefield rep spoke up to defend it. Fine, it has a higher % of low-income kids and a lower pass rate on some state tests, but come on. It's not a third-world prison camp.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.
This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."
Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.
This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."
Actually, this. This is what they should do. We don't need a repeat of last night.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
This is why I asked last night if this was a plan for just year one. Because anyone who actually used the tool could figure that units proposed weren't likely to get the job done. The map I submitted moved Arlington Forest to Wakefield AND several others to Wakefield as well, and I still couldn't get Wakefield out of yellow in the first year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
I don't want any options. Just make a fucking decision, for ONCE. That is what we elect you for.
This process should not be allowed to deteriorate into residents attacking one another and denigrating one of the county's high schools. This is not "community building."
Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
why even bother with 'options' when they'll do whatever they want to do? just redraw all boundaries and give each school the same %s of overcrowding and walker vs bussers and FARMs vs non-FAMRs. it's not that hard with the data and tool they already have.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
WHAT?!?!
Seriously, just give us three options. This is crazy. I don't have time for this crap.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They screwed up and undercounted kids when they made the recommendations yesterday. Other PUs may be back on the table now. https://www.apsva.us/aps-boundaries/
At last night’s meeting on the high school boundary refinements, several individuals identified an error on the spreadsheet handout. We have reviewed the data again and have found that the baseline spreadsheet added the students listed for each year. We learned today that while the data on the boundary tool was accurate, it was not clear on the spreadsheet that the data provided for each year was actually cumulative for the years progressively.
As a result, we are reviewing the draft options to make any necessary revisions and most likely will need to add more planning units into each of the draft options presented at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Revised information will be posted on Monday 10/31.
UGH. What the hell?! Why not just end this farce and have presented the 3 options at the start of this process and let people comment on it? Especially, if you were going to ignore people's submissions anyway. A lot of people wasted too much time with the tool and it didn't even get any comment from the APS folks.