APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

But what about the other middle class kid? What happens to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem got created by Arlington Democrats and their single minded obsession with building as much affordable housing as possible, regardless of impact. That's why they are clustered where costs are cheapest, regardless of the impact on the neighborhood, schools, services, etc

And it seems no one wants their kids bussed to a further away school to either create diversity at that school or to join a more diverse neighborhood school. For option schools, some families are willing to go further. But when no one wants to go further for a neighborhood school, we are stuck with the demographics surrounding the school.

And the CB adds insult to injury by not working hand in hand with the AB on staff many other issues — funding, land.

Yet somehow in this case the wealthy families closest to Drew have managed to punt the boundary to families farther away. Hmmmm. Proximity matters, except when it doesn't.

And lastly, agree completely that the BS about there not being enough AH is just hat, BS. There isn't any N of Lee Hwy, and not enough in other parts of North Arlington. But there's too much in South Arlington. Not a single additional unit is "needed" here.

Can’t wait until Katie Cristol has kids. Make sure to live in her S Arlington planning unit. Or maybe she will move to the Discovery zone and live next door to Ms Natrrass.

IIRC, she lives in Columbia Heights, aka, the Henry PUs that are closer to Drew than Henry, but can't possibly be moved for some reason while they have to gerrymander a crazy noncontiguous boundary to the other side of 4 Mile Run. My goodness, those Henry parents look horrible on AEM.

She lives in the Randolph zone. She is a reading buddy there.

I believe she volunteers there, but she lived in Columbia Heights West, or did, anyway, up until very recently. Unless you are her or her neighbor, you might be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But what about the other middle class kid? What happens to them?

I think it depends. If it's a school where over 80% of the students are ELL and/or living in poverty with very little academic preparation prior to Kindergarten, I think the claims that they are ignored are hyperbole, but they also aren't getting the same academic experience as children at schools that are more balanced, nor will they have a large cohort in the beginning (of kids who were equally prepared for K, because that takes either resources or educational familiarity, which many disadvantaged families or families new to this country don't have). There will be fewer extracurriculars, fewer and less "extravagant" field trips, basically, a lot less of everything extra. Nearly all the resources are used to provide things that other schools consider basic, because there is no other way. Honestly, it does a disservice to poor and non-poor students alike. The teachers are excellent, top notch. And the students will have a lot of positives (exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking), but it's a tough sell for most families who have choices to choose to send their kids to a school where their child will be an extreme minority, whether that be a POC avoiding Yorktown or UMC avoiding high poverty schools. That's why having policies that don't work harder to resist the pull of residential segregation are so harmful. Many kids aren't being given the opportunities they deserve, assuming you believe all children are equally deserving.

Perhaps it's not so bad? I still have a really hard time believing the fr/l numbers are going to be so high for Drew. If it's true, it really does mean that Montessori doesn't have any significant number of students who qualify for fr/l, and isn't serving the population who could benefit most from two years of preschool prior to Kindergarten. Perhaps this will be the silver lining? If more space is made for disadvantaged kids in the Montessori program, maybe the fr/l numbers at nearby neighborhood schools won't be so high.

[Anonymous]

NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

Montessori is not 2/3 fr/l. It is 2/3 low income, or below about $88k for application purposes. The fr/l cut is a lot lower. I made that mistake myself when I first started looking at all these numbers, but that explains why Drew is relatively well off now. The Montessori program is supposed to and does serve lower income folks and yet its numbers are still a boon to Drew.

I have heard as well that the centralized process was a problem, and in fact many class sizes are much smaller than in years past. I don't know exactly why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Katie Cristol is ambitious enough to send her kids to Randolph or Barcroft. She’s getting into Congress one way or the other.
If she sees her star fizzle you better believe her future kid will Miraculously win an ATS slot.
Just like other CB members...

The concern, well founded, that MC parents have with majority poor schools, is that their kid won't be challenged, or worse, will be ignored because they come to school with a winter coat and the ability to read, while most of the other students have some non-academic obstacle in their home lives impeding their classroom achievement. No teacher at any school is going to ignore a sitting board member's kid. She can send them anywhere without reservation.

If you think for an instant she's sending her kids to Randolph, you're out of your mind. She'll go Montessori, ATS, private, or move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

AEM is a joke!

But yeah those parents looked really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what about the other middle class kid? What happens to them?

I think it depends. If it's a school where over 80% of the students are ELL and/or living in poverty with very little academic preparation prior to Kindergarten, I think the claims that they are ignored are hyperbole, but they also aren't getting the same academic experience as children at schools that are more balanced, nor will they have a large cohort in the beginning (of kids who were equally prepared for K, because that takes either resources or educational familiarity, which many disadvantaged families or families new to this country don't have). There will be fewer extracurriculars, fewer and less "extravagant" field trips, basically, a lot less of everything extra. Nearly all the resources are used to provide things that other schools consider basic, because there is no other way. Honestly, it does a disservice to poor and non-poor students alike. The teachers are excellent, top notch. And the students will have a lot of positives (exposure to other cultures and ways of thinking), but it's a tough sell for most families who have choices to choose to send their kids to a school where their child will be an extreme minority, whether that be a POC avoiding Yorktown or UMC avoiding high poverty schools. That's why having policies that don't work harder to resist the pull of residential segregation are so harmful. Many kids aren't being given the opportunities they deserve, assuming you believe all children are equally deserving.

Perhaps it's not so bad? I still have a really hard time believing the fr/l numbers are going to be so high for Drew. If it's true, it really does mean that Montessori doesn't have any significant number of students who qualify for fr/l, and isn't serving the population who could benefit most from two years of preschool prior to Kindergarten. Perhaps this will be the silver lining? If more space is made for disadvantaged kids in the Montessori program, maybe the fr/l numbers at nearby neighborhood schools won't be so high.

Why do you find it hard to believe? Carlin Springs is over 80 percent FARMs, in actual attending students. Drew will be that high too. Nauck is poor. It's the poorest census tract in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

Montessori is not 2/3 fr/l. It is 2/3 low income, or below about $88k for application purposes. The fr/l cut is a lot lower. I made that mistake myself when I first started looking at all these numbers, but that explains why Drew is relatively well off now. The Montessori program is supposed to and does serve lower income folks and yet its numbers are still a boon to Drew.

I have heard as well that the centralized process was a problem, and in fact many class sizes are much smaller than in years past. I don't know exactly why.

The conspiracy theorist in me says montessori at Henry will be short lived and that aps is trying to wind it down. The Henry building will be demolished soon to make way for the 4th high school. Surrounding neighborhoods are already screaming bloody murder about how the high school won't have the amenities the others do. Maybe they'll accondafe the montessori program on site, maybe they won't. But you have to ask, where - like literally, at what address - will the montessori program be in 10 years. No one knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

I did! I got a lovely reply from Reid Goldstein. It was a very long and thoughtful response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

Montessori is not 2/3 fr/l. It is 2/3 low income, or below about $88k for application purposes. The fr/l cut is a lot lower. I made that mistake myself when I first started looking at all these numbers, but that explains why Drew is relatively well off now. The Montessori program is supposed to and does serve lower income folks and yet its numbers are still a boon to Drew.

I have heard as well that the centralized process was a problem, and in fact many class sizes are much smaller than in years past. I don't know exactly why.

The conspiracy theorist in me says montessori at Henry will be short lived and that aps is trying to wind it down. The Henry building will be demolished soon to make way for the 4th high school. Surrounding neighborhoods are already screaming bloody murder about how the high school won't have the amenities the others do. Maybe they'll accondafe the montessori program on site, maybe they won't. But you have to ask, where - like literally, at what address - will the montessori program be in 10 years. No one knows.

That would Be the same neighborhoods who ( if things played out their way)
A) avoided Drew
B) avoided Wakefield
C) got themselves a new neighborhood high school with all the amenities

If they can pull all of that off, they’ve got some juice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

Montessori is not 2/3 fr/l. It is 2/3 low income, or below about $88k for application purposes. The fr/l cut is a lot lower. I made that mistake myself when I first started looking at all these numbers, but that explains why Drew is relatively well off now. The Montessori program is supposed to and does serve lower income folks and yet its numbers are still a boon to Drew.

I have heard as well that the centralized process was a problem, and in fact many class sizes are much smaller than in years past. I don't know exactly why.

The conspiracy theorist in me says montessori at Henry will be short lived and that aps is trying to wind it down. The Henry building will be demolished soon to make way for the 4th high school. Surrounding neighborhoods are already screaming bloody murder about how the high school won't have the amenities the others do. Maybe they'll accondafe the montessori program on site, maybe they won't. But you have to ask, where - like literally, at what address - will the montessori program be in 10 years. No one knows.

That would Be the same neighborhoods who ( if things played out their way)
A) avoided Drew
B) avoided Wakefield
C) got themselves a new neighborhood high school with all the amenities

If they can pull all of that off, they’ve got some juice.

What are you talking about? By and large, our neighborhood did NOT want the high school at the Career Center. It is outright insulting to say that we are trying to avoid Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Couple of observations:
1. There is an end game in staff's mind we don't know about. I know that is always suspected, but here literally there is a second act coming in a few years. As a sidenote, I would beware any promises made now because they can be forgotten or disregarded by then, too. Exhibit A: SAWG.
2. Montessori is two-thirds FRL. Period. If anything, it might be much more this year as there are several unfilled slots via lottery. Lottery is UMC 1/3rd...and not all slots filled. It could be really interesting to find out why. Rumor is it of a claim of breakdown in central registration (this was first year, and I know for a fact it was a mess). But does cutting overall population serve some other purpose?
3. Montessori put blood, sweat and tears and money into Drew. That was Montessori's school building for decades, along side the model program. Montessorians are beyond rapproach for what happens to Drew PTA now. Sure, you can say "wouldn't it be nice if they devoted some parents to helping Drew PTA get stood up." But it didn't happen before, and not for lack of trying. And, what school's PTA would be responsible for another's?
4. North Arlington: you're now on the hook for a generation of tax hikes to subsidize the lower-income enclaves you created in SA. This isn't a diversity rant or lament about fair. That's a fiscal reality check.

Montessori is not 2/3 fr/l. It is 2/3 low income, or below about $88k for application purposes. The fr/l cut is a lot lower. I made that mistake myself when I first started looking at all these numbers, but that explains why Drew is relatively well off now. The Montessori program is supposed to and does serve lower income folks and yet its numbers are still a boon to Drew.

I have heard as well that the centralized process was a problem, and in fact many class sizes are much smaller than in years past. I don't know exactly why.

The conspiracy theorist in me says montessori at Henry will be short lived and that aps is trying to wind it down. The Henry building will be demolished soon to make way for the 4th high school. Surrounding neighborhoods are already screaming bloody murder about how the high school won't have the amenities the others do. Maybe they'll accondafe the montessori program on site, maybe they won't. But you have to ask, where - like literally, at what address - will the montessori program be in 10 years. No one knows.

That would Be the same neighborhoods who ( if things played out their way)
A) avoided Drew
B) avoided Wakefield
C) got themselves a new neighborhood high school with all the amenities

If they can pull all of that off, they’ve got some juice.

What are you talking about? By and large, our neighborhood did NOT want the high school at the Career Center. It is outright insulting to say that we are trying to avoid Wakefield.

Spare us

[Anonymous]

To PP who corrected me on Montessori 2/3: thank you for info. We also are afraid of efforts, direct or inadvertent, to strangle Montessori. Killing it in the crib of Henry would be very convenient (although not painless in that there would still be a few hundred kids to redirect).
Still, the school boards before O'Grady joined were amazingly ignorant of the program - I don't mean they were insufficient cheerleaders, I mean they seemed to know nothing. And yet the program is one of the most successful in closing skills gap, diversity, etc. Also the oldest. Now, we wonder why there is a sudden registration issue dramatically under-filling slots? And why in the plan for Henry is it being capped at 400-something with no growth. Every other school, and especially choices, are expected to be 700ish and grow with school growth. If APS doesn't intend to try to kill it, they should know they are raising fears unnecessarily.