50%+ FARMS schools in Arlington
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
As long as the low-income population keeps declining?
When did Arlington turn into such douche-bag territory? So glad we left! |
Anonymous
Wealthy families move to Arlington for its good public schools, stable neighborhoods, and a healthy dose of diversity, however these very families are helping to squeeze out the diverse population they rave about. It's not intentional, but just think of all the North Arlington low-income apartment complexes that no longer exist: Lee Gardens, Pollard Gardens, 2/3 of Buckingham, Parkland Gardens, etc... |
Anonymous
|
The list of N Arlington low-income protected housing is substantially larger, because many newer buildings in the area are also compelled to reserve a certain number of units for low-income and there are mid-size garden complexes around in various N Arlington areas that people don't mention...In the middle of the two new strips of very upscale Buckingham THs there is a low-income complex called the George Mason Apartments that's a decent size for example....
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/housing/housing_info/CPHDHousingHousing_infoAffordable.aspx |
Anonymous
The county is trying to maintain a healthy level of low income housing in North Arlington, but the number of low income units has substantially decreased over the past 20+ years, a trend that is very unlikely to change. In N Arlington, there are pockets of low-income areas, and low-income apartments are sometimes mixed with market rate apartments, but whole neighborhoods of high poverty in N Arlington no longer exist. Landowners in the 80s had let their formerly market-rate garden apartments decline, hoping to cash in on the redevelopment close to the Metro orange line. Buckingham held out the longest, and it became an area of high poverty in the 90s. The redevelopment there today was always planned. Unless a non-profit buys the Geo Mason apartments, I suspect the owner will eventually sell to a developer. |
Anonymous
This is more appropriate for the real estate thread, but I was interested in those nice THs now on sale but concerned about the George Mason Apartments which are literally adjacent- are they protected or not? Can they be re-developed in the future by right of the developer or are they there to stay? |
Anonymous
The area is very safe and trending upscale. I wouldn't worry about property values, safety, etc. |
Anonymous
If you don't "buy" the anecdotes, then I guess you're going to signing your child(ren) up for ATS (should you be so lucky) or Key (but wait, I think they have a decent number of "FARMS" students too) or maybe private school... Barrett IS a Title I school - there's no hiding that fact. But I just don't know how you can say it is a "mediocre" learning environment if you haven't even had a child there. Our child is a student there and has had wonderful teachers and has thrived in a very positive environment that is absolutely meeting his needs. I also had concerns about Barrett as a school when we first bought in the neighborhood before our kids were born. We assumed we'd move once we had kids and they became school-age. In the years before my first started kindergarten, though, the majority of my neighbors not only chose to send their kids to Barrett over other alternatives, but spoke very highly about their experiences with it. I don't think any of our friends and neighbors are trying to "justify" their choices - I think they, as we, are genuinely happy with the school. |
Anonymous
PP here- fair enough, people are happy. But are you telling me the school or your child's learning environment has none of the adverse effects associated with majority low-income schools? There is nearly unanimous consensus in the academic and policy literature on education that majority low-income schools produce lower outcomes for students of all socioeconomic backgrounds (I've included an example of a typical excerpt from these types of studies) this on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative assessments of outcomes by highly regarding specialists in the field. I heartily support the socioeconomic integration of schools, but for me that does not mean a majority low-income school. I understand the demographics in the Barrett area are shifting and this takes time...I just don't have the risk appetite to be at the vanguard. "2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress suggests: Low-income students attending more affluent schools scored almost two years ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools. Indeed, low-income students given a chance to attend more affluent schools performed more than half a year better, on average, than middle-income students who attend high-poverty schools (Kahlenberg, 2009a, p. 1). Summarizing these results suggests that high-poverty schools produce worse outcomes for both low and middle-income students. Moreover, when low-income students attend middle-income schools their performance, relative to their low-income peers in high-poverty schools, improves dramatically. More than forty years of research has resulted in the same conclusion that the overall socioeconomic status of a school affects the achievement of all its students." |
Anonymous
| Another issue that will arise is that children who have any kind of learning difficulty or special need - there is very little parental involvement outside of what the school demands. So the kid with serious ADHD - maybe the parent looks into or maybe not. These parents are not going to be looking at outside help for their child or persuing any kind of outside therapy. If the school doesn't provide it, they are not doing it. It's not like in a majority upper middle class schools where all the parents want their kids to do well and go to college and will put in the time and money to every therapy and doctor imaginable to get their kid where they need to be. |
Anonymous
| Perhaps these parents simply cannot afford to provide the therapies, medications, doctor appointments, etc that wealthier parents can. That certainly doesn't mean that these parents don't care about their children. Some parents work multiple jobs simply to make ends meet. In this country, mental health is for the rich. |
Anonymous
The middle class families that were in the "vanguard" sent their kids to Barrett about ten years ago. Today, almost half the school's population is from middle /upper middle class backgrounds, and very educated families for the most part. These families demand a lot from the public schools, and have very high expectations. In fact, students have transferred from other N Arlington elementary schools into Barrett. If in two years you still have doubts, there are excellent private schools in the area: GDS, Beauvoir, St Stephen's St. Agnes, Potomac School, etc... One of the benefits of living in close-in Arlington is that there are excellent public and private school options. |
Anonymous
You are right - they can't afford it (or choose not to in some cases). And you are right again, it doesn't meant they don't care. But the fact is that those inabilities to provide those therpies and go to those appointments etc then effect all the kids in that classroom including your own child so it is something to consider when looking at the makeup of the school population. |
Anonymous
| There are plenty of parents who can afford therapy who chose to ignore that their child needs help too so what is your point? |
Anonymous
These schools are in DC, Alexandria and McLean, not Arlington. I guess you mean they aren't a long drive from Arlington? I'm surprised you didn't mention O'Connell, which is in Arlington. |
Anonymous
O'Connell is a parochial high school, which does not have a lower school, and so it is not relevant to this discussion. |