APS Free and Reduced Meals - New Report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

Nice strawman. No one said that.

As multiple people have said on this thread, tweaking boundaries does nothing to balance numbers. The only way to do it is to change housing (go lobby the county) or radical boundary changes requiring extensive busing, such as slicing the county up north to south in skinny long sections.

/dead horse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

You want to send Kindergartners on 45 min bus rides each way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

You want to send Kindergartners on 45 min bus rides each way?

Many people "choose" to do this...and luck out on the opportunity to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

You want to send Kindergartners on 45 min bus rides each way?

Many people "choose" to do this...and luck out on the opportunity to do that.

Some, sure, but certainly not most. Option schools can provide an "out" for a small # of kids but not enough to significantly shift school %s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You want to send Kindergartners on 45 min bus rides each way?

Many people "choose" to do this...and luck out on the opportunity to do that.

Of the 25,000+ students in APS, less than 10% of those (maybe even less than 5%) are taking advantage of lottery school options, and that's by choice.

When surveyed a few years ago the overwhelming proportion of APS families of all demographics very clearly stated that they valued proximity and neighborhood schools over any other consideration including diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS has posted this year's free and reduced meals report: https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/FREE-REDUCED-OCTOBER-31-2022.pdf

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%
KENMORE 51.34%
HOFFMAN BOSTON 46.38%
CAMPBELL 45.65%
JEFFERSON 42.05%
ABINGDON 40.69%
WAKEFIELD 39.59%
GUNSTON 36.81%
INNOVATION 35.98%
ARL. TRADITIONAL 34.78%
ARLINGTON COMM 34.61%
ESCUELA KEY 32.63%
ALICE WEST FLEET 32.11%
LONG BRANCH 31.68%
OAKRIDGE 31.62%
CLAREMONT 27.64%
MONTESSORI 27.60%
WASHINGTON LIB 24.34%
DOROTHY HAMM 19.11%
SWANSON 17.56%
ASHLAWN 17.21%
SCIENCE FOCUS 14.78%
YORKTOWN 14.40%
GLEBE 13.04%
HB WOODLAWN 12.15%
TAYLOR 8.02%
CARDINAL 6.37%
NOTTINGHAM 4.63%
JAMESTOWN 4.57%
DISCOVERY 2.88%
TUCKAHOE 2.68%
WILLIAMSBURG 2.43%
TOTAL 30.13%

Wow, after three years of no data, I was waiting for this, and the trends are as I expected, but still shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh please. There have been many of us advocating on these issues to both the school and county boards for YEARS. and "forced busing" isn't the only way to improve socioeconomic diversity within the schools. Those of use who have been in this conversation WITH the TWO boards over the years have made various arguments and proposed various ways forward. But people have only so much energy, time, and tolerance for the ignorance, politics, and denialism of both boards who find it easier to just point their fingers at each other.

It would be honestly easier and better than the unpopular forced bussing to make changes via other means. Just one example - allow the Montessori parents at Jamestown (who are there because they chose it) to remain at the school. Add VPI classes (to be chosen with a possibility to remain at that elementary) at the other far North elementary schools with FLR less than 10%. It will not be the same as changing the housing landscape, but the effects will be immediate and noticeable. Worked at ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

Nice strawman. No one said that.

As multiple people have said on this thread, tweaking boundaries does nothing to balance numbers. The only way to do it is to change housing (go lobby the county) or radical boundary changes requiring extensive busing, such as slicing the county up north to south in skinny long sections.

/dead horse

Well we can foster additional AH when we have sufficient resources for the current crop of kids. Oversized high schools. Hunger games registration for county sports programs and camps. Insufficient park space and recreation areas. Heck we don’t have enough drivers to vacuum leaves. We are seeing a drop in county revenue as commercial real estate withers, we can’t afford to build more AH just so you can feel like FARMS rates are fare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sorry county is full. Get your neighbors to go to the school and FARMs will drop.

This response is why it’s unacceptable to force boundary changes that don’t involve upper north schools. This attitude of “sucks to be the rest of you who aren’t as wealthy as we are. Thanks for taking the hit so we can all feel better.”

Yep. NIMBY-ism at its finest.

What type of boundary changes do you want? If you want to significantly change #s it will require significant bussing.

That comment has been made and responded to multiple times in this thread.
The NIMBY comment was in response to the previous post - read it. Langston Blvd should mirror CP. PP's comment about taking the hit so the rest can fell better reflects the south taking all the density and majority of affordably housing, no room for more including in the north, so thanks!

I fully support balancing AH across the county. I support missing middle.

Until then, what should we do? You want extensive bussing? Because that’s the only option to balance it out at the school level now.

So you want to F all the future high school students?

You want to send Kindergartners on 45 min bus rides each way?

I was referring to additional AH and MM. obviously don’t want busing either. Call me a NIMBY but until developers pay more into county coffers to provide land and money for additional schools, it’s a bad deal for all Arlingtons. And they can’t pay directly because of state law, so the CB has to put on big boy pants and plan and budget to bridge that need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It would be honestly easier and better than the unpopular forced bussing to make changes via other means. Just one example - allow the Montessori parents at Jamestown (who are there because they chose it) to remain at the school. Add VPI classes (to be chosen with a possibility to remain at that elementary) at the other far North elementary schools with FLR less than 10%. It will not be the same as changing the housing landscape, but the effects will be immediate and noticeable. Worked at ATS.

This was explored as well. It's an option, but again an option that puts the onus of integration on the poor families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh please. There have been many of us advocating on these issues to both the school and county boards for YEARS. and "forced busing" isn't the only way to improve socioeconomic diversity within the schools. Those of use who have been in this conversation WITH the TWO boards over the years have made various arguments and proposed various ways forward. But people have only so much energy, time, and tolerance for the ignorance, politics, and denialism of both boards who find it easier to just point their fingers at each other.

It would be honestly easier and better than the unpopular forced bussing to make changes via other means. Just one example - allow the Montessori parents at Jamestown (who are there because they chose it) to remain at the school. Add VPI classes (to be chosen with a possibility to remain at that elementary) at the other far North elementary schools with FLR less than 10%. It will not be the same as changing the housing landscape, but the effects will be immediate and noticeable. Worked at ATS.

What does that do for high FRM schools in SA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh please. There have been many of us advocating on these issues to both the school and county boards for YEARS. and "forced busing" isn't the only way to improve socioeconomic diversity within the schools. Those of use who have been in this conversation WITH the TWO boards over the years have made various arguments and proposed various ways forward. But people have only so much energy, time, and tolerance for the ignorance, politics, and denialism of both boards who find it easier to just point their fingers at each other.

It would be honestly easier and better than the unpopular forced bussing to make changes via other means. Just one example - allow the Montessori parents at Jamestown (who are there because they chose it) to remain at the school. Add VPI classes (to be chosen with a possibility to remain at that elementary) at the other far North elementary schools with FLR less than 10%. It will not be the same as changing the housing landscape, but the effects will be immediate and noticeable. Worked at ATS.

They have trouble filling VPI classrooms that far away from AH and public transit. If they could fill them, they would absolutely put more there.

[Anonymous]

There’s nothing new under the sun. How to better balance FARMS percentages between schools in APS has been hashed out repeatedly on DCUM, AEM, in school board meetings, and in other social spaces.

Any time APS tinkers with reassigning students to different schools, they have to balance several considerations, not just one. FARMS numbers, bus availability and routes, length of commute, budget, proximity, and ensuring that kids have at least a (certain number) of other neighborhood kids assigned to the same el-mid-high schools. And maybe other criteria that I’ve forgotten. Squeezing that balloon just a little in one place can throw other considerations out of whack.

The one consideration that families value the most, by a wide margin, is proximity. Keeping as many kids as possible in neighborhood schools also plays friendly with all of the other criteria with the notable exception of balancing FARMS numbers.

Public transportation for high schoolers has gotten some traction with APS, along with ranked hs choice for those outside of walk range. Beyond that, minor tweaks here and there are probably all that’s feasible.