APS Free and Reduced Meals - New Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you all read about how well it went in San Francisco.

https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/student-assignment-changes.

All people want neighborhood schools. The low-income parents and the high-income parents. All people want some predictability and a sense of community.

The answer is changed zoning and housing policies and it's possible to change things but it will take decades to see real results. If some of you believe so passionately about all this, get out and support the missing middle initiative. Are you the same people arguing against that because "overcrowding"?

People in single family neighborhoods by houses because they like the neighborhood. Dot North Arlington with low rise affordable apartments in enough quantity to balance FARMS numbers with south Arlington and the problem will disappear as wealthy people just move

Not really. Arlington doesn't have a public housing authority or anyplace to "dot North Arlington with low rise affordable apartments". They'd need to upzone Langston Blvd and the County would continue to finance/fund mixed use affordable housing (that is the County's affordable housing model). S Arlington would redevelop over time and have higher percentage of market rate apartments. That has already started to happen on Columbia Pike, as one example.

It just takes a long time.

It has only happened on the Pike east of Glebe. West End is too saturated with CAF developments.
They SHOULD upzone Langston Blvd and stick it with the same affordable housing goals they stuck the Pike with, and not allow anymore "transfer" rights to put the affordable units elsewhere (ie, where it already is).
People argue that they are upzoning Langston and that Plan Langston calls for a lot of affordable housing. The amount is not comparable to the goals or density of the Pike.

Don’t be daft. The county is at capacity. We need to stop all high density development, as our infrastructure and tax base can’t afford any more of that growth. The schools have no capacity and no place to build.

There is absolutely no reason Langston Blvd, with multiple modes of public transit, cannot - or should not - be expected to manage the same level of density (and affordable housing) as Columbia Pike with only bus transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you all read about how well it went in San Francisco.

https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/student-assignment-changes.

All people want neighborhood schools. The low-income parents and the high-income parents. All people want some predictability and a sense of community.

The answer is changed zoning and housing policies and it's possible to change things but it will take decades to see real results. If some of you believe so passionately about all this, get out and support the missing middle initiative. Are you the same people arguing against that because "overcrowding"?

People in single family neighborhoods by houses because they like the neighborhood. Dot North Arlington with low rise affordable apartments in enough quantity to balance FARMS numbers with south Arlington and the problem will disappear as wealthy people just move

Not really. Arlington doesn't have a public housing authority or anyplace to "dot North Arlington with low rise affordable apartments". They'd need to upzone Langston Blvd and the County would continue to finance/fund mixed use affordable housing (that is the County's affordable housing model). S Arlington would redevelop over time and have higher percentage of market rate apartments. That has already started to happen on Columbia Pike, as one example.

It just takes a long time.

It has only happened on the Pike east of Glebe. West End is too saturated with CAF developments.
They SHOULD upzone Langston Blvd and stick it with the same affordable housing goals they stuck the Pike with, and not allow anymore "transfer" rights to put the affordable units elsewhere (ie, where it already is).
People argue that they are upzoning Langston and that Plan Langston calls for a lot of affordable housing. The amount is not comparable to the goals or density of the Pike.

Don’t be daft. The county is at capacity. We need to stop all high density development, as our infrastructure and tax base can’t afford any more of that growth. The schools have no capacity and no place to build.

There is absolutely no reason Langston Blvd, with multiple modes of public transit, cannot - or should not - be expected to manage the same level of density (and affordable housing) as Columbia Pike with only bus transit.

FFS I’m not talking about bus service. I’m talking about all the county services and school capacity. Just because you have a chip on your should because you saved money and bought near the pike doesn’t mean you get to dictate screwing over the entire county.

[Anonymous]

No more growth *anywhere* until the CB addresses school capacity.

No more AH in SA. Put it in NA with access to public transportation. Langston or Glebe would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No more growth *anywhere* until the CB addresses school capacity.

No more AH in SA. Put it in NA with access to public transportation. Langston or Glebe would work.

Which means no more growth anywhere.

I would be fine tearing down AH in SA and turning to parkland or schools and adding to NA. But we need to arrest overall growth period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

I can see how the free-lunch-for-all makes sense; but taking an average isn't a good way to try to reflect the real FRL at each school. Estimates should at least be more reflective of the levels relative to each other pre-COVID when they were still counting. It's really not likely that each of these schools is 74%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

I can see how the free-lunch-for-all makes sense; but taking an average isn't a good way to try to reflect the real FRL at each school. Estimates should at least be more reflective of the levels relative to each other pre-COVID when they were still counting. It's really not likely that each of these schools is 74%.

Does APS just think it looks better to have 5 schools with extremely high FRL% rather than 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

I can see how the free-lunch-for-all makes sense; but taking an average isn't a good way to try to reflect the real FRL at each school. Estimates should at least be more reflective of the levels relative to each other pre-COVID when they were still counting. It's really not likely that each of these schools is 74%.

Does APS just think it looks better to have 5 schools with extremely high FRL% rather than 3?

Or maybe APS wanted to keep kids from going hungry at more needy schools? If the trade off is between feeding kids and getting better data, I personally would choose to feed kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

Huh, that's good to know. How do they make sure the schools continue to qualify? It's very unlikely any of those schools will dip below the threshold, but speaking theoretically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

I can see how the free-lunch-for-all makes sense; but taking an average isn't a good way to try to reflect the real FRL at each school. Estimates should at least be more reflective of the levels relative to each other pre-COVID when they were still counting. It's really not likely that each of these schools is 74%.

Does APS just think it looks better to have 5 schools with extremely high FRL% rather than 3?

Or maybe APS wanted to keep kids from going hungry at more needy schools? If the trade off is between feeding kids and getting better data, I personally would choose to feed kids.

I have no problem with feeding kids for free. And my comment above does not suggest otherwise. My issue is with accurately reflecting the poverty level at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

Citation?

My kid goes to one of these schools and when I tried to apply for FRL I was not able to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

Citation?

My kid goes to one of these schools and when I tried to apply for FRL I was not able to?

https://www.apsva.us/food-and-nutrition-services/free-and-reduced-meal-applications/

[Anonymous]

We are east of Glebe and rejoined from Fleet to Drew. Almost the entire neighborhood goes private. 3/4 kids in poverty and a large percent below grade level. No thanks. And spare me the you saved money by buying near Columbia Pike so you are condemned to failing schools and overwhelming AH. Spare me your all are welcome signs from North Arlington. Langston should mirror CP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the first time these numbers have been reported since 2019, so we are seeing the impact of the school moves, pandemic changes, etc. Barrett, Barcroft, and Drew are all significantly higher.

BARRETT 74.91%
RANDOLPH 74.88%
BARCROFT 74.84%
CARLIN SPRINGS 74.82%
DREW 74.78%

The reason these schools are so different the previous years is because they actually stopped counting FRL kids at these schools. They are part of the program where ALL kids get free lunch and if you actually try to apply online you can not apply for these schools. seeing how close these numbers are to each other I am guess that they take an average based on the number of students to be roughly around 75%.

Citation?

My kid goes to one of these schools and when I tried to apply for FRL I was not able to?

So you’re just guessing at how they came up with the %?