Can somebody please exain why South Arlington is considered inferior to North Arlington?

[Anonymous]

I recently drove down Columbia Pike.

I noticed there is a lot of building and improvements going on.

The problem they are going to have is that it's not possible to keep up the "blended" approach they are trying out.

I saw many new businesses and some remodeled businesses that just don't seem to "fit". You can't slap an ethnic store into an area that is trying to "upscale" if the ethnic store's goal is too cram as much stuff into their space as possible, to not worry about presentation or marketing. Also, my experience as a white American going into any ethnic store or business in the Columbia Pike/S.Arlington area has uniformly been very poor. These businesses are really only catering to a select niche and are not looking to expand their market. Their mistake of course but it also doesn't work in an area that is trying to attract customers as well as residents.

I know there is always a big outcry about losing diversity, etc but there needs to be a reality check. Ethnic stores are fine and great as long as the goal of those stores is too actually a wide customer base. Trying to attract a very small niche audience doesn't help the business or the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And we're back to where we started.

South Arlington is considered inferior to North Arlington because there are more brown people in South Arlington.

All the North Arlington people who consider themselves "progressive" in all other areas are just racist hypocrites.

So, you're suggesting that if you're not willing to slum it with the poors, that makes you racist? How do you figure? Aren't you the one making the assumption poors = brown people? How am I the racist?

Lots of brown people with money up here in North Arlington.

I am not white and would not live in South Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently drove down Columbia Pike.

I noticed there is a lot of building and improvements going on.

The problem they are going to have is that it's not possible to keep up the "blended" approach they are trying out.

I saw many new businesses and some remodeled businesses that just don't seem to "fit". You can't slap an ethnic store into an area that is trying to "upscale" if the ethnic store's goal is too cram as much stuff into their space as possible, to not worry about presentation or marketing. Also, my experience as a white American going into any ethnic store or business in the Columbia Pike/S.Arlington area has uniformly been very poor. These businesses are really only catering to a select niche and are not looking to expand their market. Their mistake of course but it also doesn't work in an area that is trying to attract customers as well as residents.

I know there is always a big outcry about losing diversity, etc but there needs to be a reality check. Ethnic stores are fine and great as long as the goal of those stores is too actually a wide customer base. Trying to attract a very small niche audience doesn't help the business or the neighborhood.

They tried to do that to 7 corners / bailey's cross roads and it never really made a difference.

[Anonymous]

The flip side of saying that North Arlington folks are all racists would be saying that people who choose to live in South Arlington over North Arlington (when they have the choice) are choosing a bigger/nicer house over their kids' education. Both statements would be stupid. (though I have no doubt that North Arlington has its share of racists and South Arlington has its share of people who prefer renovated $700K houses over non-renovated ones farther north.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And we're back to where we started.

South Arlington is considered inferior to North Arlington because there are more brown people in South Arlington.

All the North Arlington people who consider themselves "progressive" in all other areas are just racist hypocrites.

So, you're suggesting that if you're not willing to slum it with the poors, that makes you racist? How do you figure? Aren't you the one making the assumption poors = brown people? How am I the racist?

Lots of brown people with money up here in North Arlington.

There are not a lot of brown people in N. Arlington. Yellow people, yes. Middle Eastern (white), yes. Brown, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lower performing schools thus students and poorer population

Get the cause and effect right at least:
Tons of single mother households + tons of people who are not fluent in English = poorly performing student body.
Poorly performing student body = poorly performing school = low property values and even low quality housing, neighborhoods, etc. eventually.

That trade off is everywhere in the world.

The kids who are not fluent in English learn the language fast and become bilingual. One study in Britain found bilingual kids to be smarter than their monolingual peers.
And poor households are not single parent households, that seems to be an urban legend.
I would say densely populated area = more kids in school, lower property value = less money for schools

Student body is not the determining factor, it matters, but not enough to explain the difference. Just say the inequality of American school system. To label kids as dumb and parents as wayward single moms is offensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lower performing schools thus students and poorer population

Get the cause and effect right at least:
Tons of single mother households + tons of people who are not fluent in English = poorly performing student body.
Poorly performing student body = poorly performing school = low property values and even low quality housing, neighborhoods, etc. eventually.

That trade off is everywhere in the world.

The kids who are not fluent in English learn the language fast and become bilingual. One study in Britain found bilingual kids to be smarter than their monolingual peers.
And poor households are not single parent households, that seems to be an urban legend.
I would say densely populated area = more kids in school, lower property value = less money for schools

Student body is not the determining factor, it matters, but not enough to explain the difference. Just say the inequality of American school system. To label kids as dumb and parents as wayward single moms is offensive

I agree that the preponderance of dumb kids and single mothers is truly offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And we're back to where we started.

South Arlington is considered inferior to North Arlington because there are more brown people in South Arlington.

All the North Arlington people who consider themselves "progressive" in all other areas are just racist hypocrites.

So, you're suggesting that if you're not willing to slum it with the poors, that makes you racist? How do you figure? Aren't you the one making the assumption poors = brown people? How am I the racist?

Lots of brown people with money up here in North Arlington.

There are not a lot of brown people in N. Arlington. Yellow people, yes. Middle Eastern (white), yes. Brown, no.

http://www.johnmlangston.org/Membership/highview_park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lower performing schools thus students and poorer population

Get the cause and effect right at least:
Tons of single mother households + tons of people who are not fluent in English = poorly performing student body.
Poorly performing student body = poorly performing school = low property values and even low quality housing, neighborhoods, etc. eventually.

That trade off is everywhere in the world.

The kids who are not fluent in English learn the language fast and become bilingual. One study in Britain found bilingual kids to be smarter than their monolingual peers.
And poor households are not single parent households, that seems to be an urban legend.
I would say densely populated area = more kids in school, lower property value = less money for schools

Student body is not the determining factor, it matters, but not enough to explain the difference. Just say the inequality of American school system. To label kids as dumb and parents as wayward single moms is offensive

That's the dumbest shit I have read today. Look at DCPS the issue why the schools are behind is the student body.

How can the student body not effect the school's test scores or outcome?

No matter how hard you try you can rely on teaching and schools alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lower performing schools thus students and poorer population

Get the cause and effect right at least:
Tons of single mother households + tons of people who are not fluent in English = poorly performing student body.
Poorly performing student body = poorly performing school = low property values and even low quality housing, neighborhoods, etc. eventually.

That trade off is everywhere in the world.

The kids who are not fluent in English learn the language fast and become bilingual. One study in Britain found bilingual kids to be smarter than their monolingual peers.
And poor households are not single parent households, that seems to be an urban legend.
I would say densely populated area = more kids in school, lower property value = less money for schools

Student body is not the determining factor, it matters, but not enough to explain the difference. Just say the inequality of American school system. To label kids as dumb and parents as wayward single moms is offensive

That's the dumbest shit I have read today. Look at DCPS the issue why the schools are behind is the student body.

How can the student body not effect the school's test scores or outcome?

No matter how hard you try you can rely on teaching and schools alone.

Illiterate teachers supported by the Union were also a HUGE factor. Rhee wasn't cleaning house for no reason.

Look at Charters and public schools with poor socioeconomic student bodies that defy the odds.

[Anonymous]

Pretty simple - S. Arlington is a good place. Everyone in my neighborhood likes it, and chose it for any number of reasons - location probably is #1. We don't sit around wishing we lived elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty simple - S. Arlington is a good place. Everyone in my neighborhood likes it, and chose it for any number of reasons - location probably is #1. We don't sit around wishing we lived elsewhere.

Good is your opinion

[Anonymous]

I did a career day thing at Carlin Springs Elementary sometime back. 2 entire grades came through my table and I must have seen less than 8 white kids. Everyone else was brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And we're back to where we started.

South Arlington is considered inferior to North Arlington because there are more brown people in South Arlington.

All the North Arlington people who consider themselves "progressive" in all other areas are just racist hypocrites.

I'm sorry, what is "racist" about buying a house in a safe neighborhood that has good schools that will appropriately challenged your children?

In your fake world do you just lottery out houses, commutes, quality of schools, crime rates, etc.?

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, what is "racist" about buying a house in a safe neighborhood that has good schools that will appropriately challenged your children?

In your fake world do you just lottery out houses, commutes, quality of schools, crime rates, etc.?

What's "racist" is the assumption that a high percentage of Latinos or other brown people is inevitably associated with [small] houses, [long] commutes, [low] quality of schools, and [high] crime rates.

Many houses in South Arlington (such as mine) are newer, larger, and nicer than many homes in North Arlington.

My commute is shorter than most, because I live very close to a Yellow/Blue metro stop and near I-395 (the Roosevelt and Key Bridges are not the only way into DC).

My kids' school is fine--sure, students on average don't do as well on standardized tests than in a typical North Arlington school, but it hasn't stopped my kid from scoring in the 99th percentile on those tests. Moreover, when he participates in county-wide activities with the other little geniuses from the North side, he seems to keep up just fine.

As for crime rates, it's true that South Arlington in general has higher crime rates than the North side, but I can tell you that in the 8 years I've lived on the south side, I've not experienced any crime at all. During the five years I lived on the north side of Route 50, I had my car broken into, a peeper at my window, and otherwise ran into many more objectionable drunks than I've ever seen down here.

But if it makes you feel better to pay twice as much as I did to live in the same kind of house, just because "greatschools.com" says it's worth it, go right on ahead.