Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. Leaders should lead and make the unpopular decisions, instead of leaving it to a community that thinks nothing of segregation when little Johnny may not get to go all the way through ES, MS, and HS with all of the same kids.

Oh please don't sound so holier than thou. It's not wrong that many people don't put demographic diversity at the top of their list when balancing multiple competing factors. To me it's a nice-to-have, for my own child I have other factors that are more important. In this case, many families zoned for W-L worry about losing IB access, which was a prime reason they bought in a W-L zone. For some, they do want community continuity for their children and families. For some, they see no reason to attend a school 50% further away when there is at least one and possibly two HS closer. And yes, some people do look at a school's performance or FARMS rate and want to send their kid to a school that is already high-performing rather than having their kid be one of those there to help improve it.

FWIW, My planning unit is not in play this go-around but I'm watching the issue closely.

And that, folks, is the definition of white privilege.

Hi there. NP here. My family is NOT WHITE and we purchased in W-L in one of the planning units under consideration specifically because of IB and W-L's numbers (and we stretched hard to afford it over a home zoned for Wakefield). Painting educational planning as a white person's concern is tremendously insulting to minorities who very much want the best opportunities for their children.

This is a CB issue -- they are the ones concentrating affordable housing in particular areas of the county with NO thought to how it will impact school overcrowding and the distribution of poverty in our county. If affordable housing were more equally distributed instead of being 95% concentrated on the Pike and in central Arlington near Ballston, I guarantee all schools would be more diverse both racially and with regards to SES.

And if the county adopted a rational approach to new development that considered impact on county services (such as schools, transportation, police/fire, etc) BEFORE approving literally any and all new development (including affordable housing), this would NEVER have become the issue it has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.

In addition, it helps to move the units in the Henry and Hoffman-Boston zones that go to W-L into Wakefield. Most of these units do not have high poverty levels and this move has the benefit of keeping those kids together all the way from ES-MS-HS. Plus they are bused to HS already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm finding the ES and MS boundaries hard to read. Some of them don't have clear lines. For example, I can't tell where McK, Glebe and Ashlawn draw the lines.

Same here. They are not very clear.

Anonymous wrote:I'm finding the ES and MS boundaries hard to read. Some of them don't have clear lines. For example, I can't tell where McK, Glebe and Ashlawn draw the lines.

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.

I did this in my submission. But you can't move them all to Yorktown because there are too many. I had to split them between Yorktown and Wakefield. There is no way to avoid moving at least one of these high poverty PLs to Wakefield. The numbers simply don't work with the restrictions in place. If someone can show an example where they've fobs a way to do this, please post. Because I haven't found a way to do it.

I did it. I posted at 10/12 15:36. The 2017 number for Wakefield is low- but evertything is green, so Ithink that is okay.

Anonymous wrote:
It does also allow you to submit a plan when it's not all green. I ended up on an approach that had Wakefield yellow just for 2017 but at 89% (close enough to 90% IMO). Wakefield is on such a strong growth trajectory already that I found it hard to get it to all green without tipping over to red in 2020.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.

I did this in my submission. But you can't move them all to Yorktown because there are too many. I had to split them between Yorktown and Wakefield. There is no way to avoid moving at least one of these high poverty PLs to Wakefield. The numbers simply don't work with the restrictions in place. If someone can show an example where they've fobs a way to do this, please post. Because I haven't found a way to do it.

I did it. I posted at 10/12 15:36. The 2017 number for Wakefield is low- but evertything is green, so Ithink that is okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.

I did this in my submission. But you can't move them all to Yorktown because there are too many. I had to split them between Yorktown and Wakefield. There is no way to avoid moving at least one of these high poverty PLs to Wakefield. The numbers simply don't work with the restrictions in place. If someone can show an example where they've fobs a way to do this, please post. Because I haven't found a way to do it.

Anonymous wrote:How are people who are focused on re-distributing the poverty to the other 2 HSs able to do it? I am curious what their proposals might look like.
---------------------

Start moving the western planning units in play to Yorktown. The more you add, the more the units south of there (also in play) become eligible for Yorktown. You have a make a contiguous path to Yorktown to move them. But you can move units all the way south to columbia pike.