Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except that the choice schools already have more "diversity" than most neighborhood schools. Claremont is just under the title I threshold at 38%. Key is at 41%. Campbell is always at around 55%. Even ATS is at 26%, which is not as much as it needs to be, but respectable. Much more an white parents start to complain.

Sorry, but putting more "diversity" (ATS could use a bit more) will just turn the choice schools into lower performing schools. Campbell does OK, but there are A LOT of supports for those kids there.

The problem is the neighborhood schools' lack of diversity and VPI. Not choice schools.

Except, ATS' FRL is as high as it is because of the addition of VPI classes. That proves the point of VPIs being able to diversify schools. But it is also centrally located. As you move farther away from the poorest neighborhoods, VPI isn't going to be as effective a tool.

Claremont also has VPI classes which feed into Kindergarten; so it's FRL is higher, on top of the kids who would have been there anyway without the VPI entre'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amen. Montessori should be serving more low income families or it should be eliminated.

You do understand that the Montessori list is divided into two lists? 2/3rds of the Montessori application list is for low income (less than $80,000 per year for a family of 4) and 1/3rd of the Montessori application list is for families who make over $80k? Each application pool has separate lottery procedures. So how is Montessori not serving low income students? As a title 1 school, Montessori can not expand its classrooms beyond a certain number, so the program is restricted on the number of students it can enroll every year at 1st grade from satellite classroom transfers.

[Anonymous]

Those Montessori numbers don't hold after the 3 and 4 year olds. Low income families disproportionately revert to the neighborhood school for K and will even more once it moves from Drew to Henry.
The FRL numbers for Montessori will be unobscured once Henry opens and you can't use the FRL numbers of the Drew graded program to boost the stats. Please come back and tell me about the significant numbers of low income families being served by a Montessori school then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those Montessori numbers don't hold after the 3 and 4 year olds. Low income families disproportionately revert to the neighborhood school for K and will even more once it moves from Drew to Henry.
The FRL numbers for Montessori will be unobscured once Henry opens and you can't use the FRL numbers of the Drew graded program to boost the stats. Please come back and tell me about the significant numbers of low income families being served by a Montessori school then.

Well, point taken, but you seem to be blaming the montessori program for poor kids' families decision to attend their local elementary after preschool montessori. I'm not sure that's actually true, but since aps preschool montessori kids are all but guaranteed admission to Drew/Henry, if it is true, the problem would be retention, not access.

[Anonymous]

I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

[Anonymous]

Why all the Montessori hate? Did you not win a seat in the lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why all the Montessori hate? Did you not win a seat in the lottery?

Not the poster you are responding to, but actually no one "won a seat in the lottery" this year because there weren't any seats to vie for. The available slots were filled by APS montessori preschoolers, who have in years past been guaranteed seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

Nothing, really. Arlington county gov generally caters to baby boomers who made a fortune on homes bought 30 years ago, feel guilty about it, and so have allied with developers to build affordable housing. There's zero effort to appeal to what passes for middle income people here. They are supposed to move o fairfax and take their tendency to sometimes vote moderate republican with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

The wraparound services concentrated at Carlin Springs, for example, should be available and strong at all schools so that every school is able to adequately serve students from all economic levels. All schools should be able to adequately meet the needs of special education and ELL students, not encourage them to go elsewhere because their needs can't (or won't) be met.

The PPP focused on accommodating low-income students. The PP then included affluent, suggesting a focus needed on middle income students. The best way for a school to be able to accommodate everyone is to have a healthy mix of "everyone" at each school. So, we can invest in transportation. We can invest in community-building across different populations. We can invest in decision-making to serve the interest of being able to accommodate everyone in every school rather than decision-making based on the affluent protecting self-interests. How about quality, effective teacher training for all teachers across all schools? And invest our excessive PTA energies and resources on those things rather than on "more and more" for one school, which serves students and teachers based on affluence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

The wraparound services concentrated at Carlin Springs, for example, should be available and strong at all schools so that every school is able to adequately serve students from all economic levels. All schools should be able to adequately meet the needs of special education and ELL students, not encourage them to go elsewhere because their needs can't (or won't) be met.

The PPP focused on accommodating low-income students. The PP then included affluent, suggesting a focus needed on middle income students. The best way for a school to be able to accommodate everyone is to have a healthy mix of "everyone" at each school. So, we can invest in transportation. We can invest in community-building across different populations. We can invest in decision-making to serve the interest of being able to accommodate everyone in every school rather than decision-making based on the affluent protecting self-interests. How about quality, effective teacher training for all teachers across all schools? And invest our excessive PTA energies and resources on those things rather than on "more and more" for one school, which serves students and teachers based on affluence.

You are right.

I move that we close this thread. 68 pages is enough to beat this horse, until the next inspiration hits...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

Nothing, really. Arlington county gov generally caters to baby boomers who made a fortune on homes bought 30 years ago, feel guilty about it, and so have allied with developers to build affordable housing. There's zero effort to appeal to what passes for middle income people here. They are supposed to move o fairfax and take their tendency to sometimes vote moderate republican with them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

Nothing, really. Arlington county gov generally caters to baby boomers who made a fortune on homes bought 30 years ago, feel guilty about it, and so have allied with developers to build affordable housing. There's zero effort to appeal to what passes for middle income people here. They are supposed to move o fairfax and take their tendency to sometimes vote moderate republican with them.

I don't think guilt plays into any of it. It's just a feel-good pat on their own backs for contributing some level of social good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about blame. But I am suggesting we shouldn't be investing resources in this option program that tries to boot strap itself based on inflated FRL stats.

Should we be investing resources in ANY school that doesn't support, educate, or accommodate low income students?

What can we invest in schools so that they educate all income students, not just the affluent and low income?

The wraparound services concentrated at Carlin Springs, for example, should be available and strong at all schools so that every school is able to adequately serve students from all economic levels. All schools should be able to adequately meet the needs of special education and ELL students, not encourage them to go elsewhere because their needs can't (or won't) be met.

The PPP focused on accommodating low-income students. The PP then included affluent, suggesting a focus needed on middle income students. The best way for a school to be able to accommodate everyone is to have a healthy mix of "everyone" at each school. So, we can invest in transportation. We can invest in community-building across different populations. We can invest in decision-making to serve the interest of being able to accommodate everyone in every school rather than decision-making based on the affluent protecting self-interests. How about quality, effective teacher training for all teachers across all schools? And invest our excessive PTA energies and resources on those things rather than on "more and more" for one school, which serves students and teachers based on affluence.

You are right.

I move that we close this thread. 68 pages is enough to beat this horse, until the next inspiration hits...

I second!