Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also if we live in S Arlington we really don’t want to be isolated at school with only N Arlington folk. Sorry I want my kid at a decent school but we chose S Arlington over N Arlington in part for the down to earth feel and economic and racial diversity.

Dp- So you were always planning to send jr to the neighborhood school? You are just advocating for a better mix through out the county and in south Arlington in particular?
If yes- I get that.
Someone up thread was saying that spreading out poverty through out sa ( all elementary schools farms % around 50) didn’t address NA- implying it wasn’t an acceptable solution. I think that’s a great way to keep Henry, Hoffman Boston, and Oakridge from being Tittle 1. If that’s your goal.... we get it.

Title I threshold is 40%. And why would anyone want to make all south Arlington schools Title I? Spreading out the poverty across just south Arlington has to be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on this forum. And there have been some doozies.

I’m sure you have a genius and completely realistic scenario that spreads the poverty evenly into Jamestownland? Why don’t you have another drink...

If someone from NA actually came up with such a plan, you’d piss all over it anyway simply because it came from NA.

Oh so that’s why you’re keeping your incredible plan all to yourself! Talk about stupid comments on this thread...

No, the stupid comment was thinking pp was saying she actually had a plan instead of realizing it was commentary on your lousy attitude.

You are the problem with Arlington.

People who are tired of getting slapped down and insulted when they try to help others are the problem. Sure. Okay. You go with that, I'm sure it'll get you far.

People like who don’t see the benefit to having a 50% poverty rate spread where it is feasible are a HUGE problem. Protecting Henry or wherever makes you no better than Yorktown trolls.

Poster you're telling to take another drink here. I am not self-serving here. We're done with the lower levels of schooling; but my kids went to a 65% FRL elementary school. It's simply absolutely assanine to even suggest that all the FRL south of 50 must remain south of 50 and be spread evenly across all south arlington schools. I never suggested jamestown has to have an equal %FRL, or any other school, for that matter - unlike the person suggesting all south Arlington schools should be 50% FRL. Why should every school in SA be Title I? If you're going to move kids around anyway, they can just as easily - if not more easily - inch upward north of 50. Henry would gladly take a higher % again - but I don't think they should take it all the way back to 50 again. Oakridge could take more again, too. But when you have high-performing schools with actual healthy percentages of economic diversity, why should you ruin it? There are other FEASIBLE ways to help the highest concentrations of poverty. And don't ask what "my grand plan" is because countless ideas and suggestions have been proposed and argued to death in countless strings on this forum and you know it. Every single one of them is mocked and rebuked and dismissed by people like you.

TLR
“ my school is doing great and shouldn’t have to take more FRL kids. I’m enjoying my soaring property values thankyouverymuch. Let Randolph and Bracroft solve their own problems.”
North Arlington and south Arlington really aren’t that different.

BS. The poster said, explicitly, that he/she would be fine increasing the farms percentage but not to a tipping point where poverty would dominate. Time and again, I hear you accusing SA parents of being the assh@le you are. Very distinctive. Why the hate? my guess is you're an Arlington Forest type. NA - but barely. You've got more common cause with SA than you think.

Not to mention that TL DR up there also missed that the poster sent her kids to a 65% FRL elementary school.

[Anonymous]

TLR
“ my school is doing great and shouldn’t have to take more FRL kids. I’m enjoying my soaring property values thankyouverymuch. Let Randolph and Bracroft solve their own problems.”
North Arlington and south Arlington really aren’t that different.

BS. The poster said, explicitly, that he/she would be fine increasing the farms percentage but not to a tipping point where poverty would dominate. Time and again, I hear you accusing SA parents of being the assh@le you are. Very distinctive. Why the hate? my guess is you're an Arlington Forest type. NA - but barely. You've got more common cause with SA than you think.

Not to mention that TL DR up there also missed that the poster sent her kids to a 65% FRL elementary school.

Of course I saw that. Give me a break. So they used to be zoned to a school with lousy demographics and don’t want to go backwards? Please...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

This is exactly the problem with absolute contiguity and proximity being the sole controlling factors in boundary decisions. Locating immersion in the midst of the highest concentration of FRL-eligible families also could be a significant help because more lower-income students would likely attend the program and boundaries shift around - in multiple directions - for the other schools. Kids who are going to be bused to school no matter do not have to be bussed to the closest school and they don't have to be bused to the farthest school, either. They can go somewhere in the middle that at least attempts to address better SED balance. Shift boundaries around clockwise and strategically locate the choice programs with SED draw. Some inconvenience of change and going to a school a little farther away for some families (north and south) is worth the academic and social benefits for all families.

Just so you know, people in this County HAVE been advocating for affordable housing in NA. But until NA stops objecting and finding ways to avoid or limit it and the CB and APAH and AHC and other developers choose to actually listen, it isn't going to happen. In the meantime, APS needs to take steps to mitigate the harmful impacts of "the Arlington Way" on schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

This is exactly the problem with absolute contiguity and proximity being the sole controlling factors in boundary decisions. Locating immersion in the midst of the highest concentration of FRL-eligible families also could be a significant help because more lower-income students would likely attend the program and boundaries shift around - in multiple directions - for the other schools. Kids who are going to be bused to school no matter do not have to be bussed to the closest school and they don't have to be bused to the farthest school, either. They can go somewhere in the middle that at least attempts to address better SED balance. Shift boundaries around clockwise and strategically locate the choice programs with SED draw. Some inconvenience of change and going to a school a little farther away for some families (north and south) is worth the academic and social benefits for all families.

Just so you know, people in this County HAVE been advocating for affordable housing in NA. But until NA stops objecting and finding ways to avoid or limit it and the CB and APAH and AHC and other developers choose to actually listen, it isn't going to happen. In the meantime, APS needs to take steps to mitigate the harmful impacts of "the Arlington Way" on schools.

It will never happen. A significant portion of NA is deeply conservative: they have theirs, and don't want to change or share ina meaningful way; they will happily pay for AH, of course, as long as it's not in NA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TLR
“ my school is doing great and shouldn’t have to take more FRL kids. I’m enjoying my soaring property values thankyouverymuch. Let Randolph and Bracroft solve their own problems.”
North Arlington and south Arlington really aren’t that different.

BS. The poster said, explicitly, that he/she would be fine increasing the farms percentage but not to a tipping point where poverty would dominate. Time and again, I hear you accusing SA parents of being the assh@le you are. Very distinctive. Why the hate? my guess is you're an Arlington Forest type. NA - but barely. You've got more common cause with SA than you think.

Not to mention that TL DR up there also missed that the poster sent her kids to a 65% FRL elementary school.

Of course I saw that. Give me a break. So they used to be zoned to a school with lousy demographics and don’t want to go backwards? Please...

Still zoned. Kids are through. School still high FRL Title I. Not a matter of going backwards. Rather, a matter of going forward - improving the SED of the highest FRL schools without making every SA school Title I. Doing that is going backwards. I don't need every school in arlington to be 30%. But I do care if half of the schools are Title I, especially when all those schools are intentionally kept south of 50 - because I'm sure while you're at it, you might as well help Barrett by sending some of their poverty south. Wouldn't want any outliers in the north. Then you could shift around the wealth so that every NA school is less than 10%. People have cited the extra resources the schools get for being Title I - yes, that's great. But when you have a Pres Trump and a Secretary DeVos, you can't count on those extra resources remaining. Guess where the extra resources will then need to come from, NA. Then maybe you will start to see the benefits and efficiencies of reasonable SED %s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

This is exactly the problem with absolute contiguity and proximity being the sole controlling factors in boundary decisions. Locating immersion in the midst of the highest concentration of FRL-eligible families also could be a significant help because more lower-income students would likely attend the program and boundaries shift around - in multiple directions - for the other schools. Kids who are going to be bused to school no matter do not have to be bussed to the closest school and they don't have to be bused to the farthest school, either. They can go somewhere in the middle that at least attempts to address better SED balance. Shift boundaries around clockwise and strategically locate the choice programs with SED draw. Some inconvenience of change and going to a school a little farther away for some families (north and south) is worth the academic and social benefits for all families.

Just so you know, people in this County HAVE been advocating for affordable housing in NA. But until NA stops objecting and finding ways to avoid or limit it and the CB and APAH and AHC and other developers choose to actually listen, it isn't going to happen. In the meantime, APS needs to take steps to mitigate the harmful impacts of "the Arlington Way" on schools.

What does that map look like to you? It doesn't have to be perfect, we don't have all of the data the staff does, but we have enough to at least sketch a concept? Which neighborhoods or planning units move where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TLR
“ my school is doing great and shouldn’t have to take more FRL kids. I’m enjoying my soaring property values thankyouverymuch. Let Randolph and Bracroft solve their own problems.”
North Arlington and south Arlington really aren’t that different.

BS. The poster said, explicitly, that he/she would be fine increasing the farms percentage but not to a tipping point where poverty would dominate. Time and again, I hear you accusing SA parents of being the assh@le you are. Very distinctive. Why the hate? my guess is you're an Arlington Forest type. NA - but barely. You've got more common cause with SA than you think.

Not to mention that TL DR up there also missed that the poster sent her kids to a 65% FRL elementary school.

Of course I saw that. Give me a break. So they used to be zoned to a school with lousy demographics and don’t want to go backwards? Please...

Still zoned. Kids are through. School still high FRL Title I. Not a matter of going backwards. Rather, a matter of going forward - improving the SED of the highest FRL schools without making every SA school Title I. Doing that is going backwards. I don't need every school in arlington to be 30%. But I do care if half of the schools are Title I, especially when all those schools are intentionally kept south of 50 - because I'm sure while you're at it, you might as well help Barrett by sending some of their poverty south. Wouldn't want any outliers in the north. Then you could shift around the wealth so that every NA school is less than 10%. People have cited the extra resources the schools get for being Title I - yes, that's great. But when you have a Pres Trump and a Secretary DeVos, you can't count on those extra resources remaining. Guess where the extra resources will then need to come from, NA. Then maybe you will start to see the benefits and efficiencies of reasonable SED %s.

You sound unhinged.
No one is suggesting keeping poverty out of NA! I’m a South Arlington parent looking for actual solutions, not wizards and unicorns. This upcoming bouandary shift isn’t going to involve Jamestown. I don’t know how many times it has to be stated that the elementary schools in the center of the county need to be part of that solution. But if we want APS and the county in general to take us serisouly when we say we want integrated schools, we need to put up or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

Why don't we just stop building CAFs entirely? They aren't going to be built north of Lee Highway, so at this point we're just working on building ghettos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

Why don't we just stop building CAFs entirely? They aren't going to be built north of Lee Highway, so at this point we're just working on building ghettos.

Or at least prohibit building them in school boundaries with high FARMs rates.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have more news on Barcroft? That county report way back mentioned the possibility of making it an option school so that people would actually go there, instead of all those kids zoned to it who go anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have more news on Barcroft? That county report way back mentioned the possibility of making it an option school so that people would actually go there, instead of all those kids zoned to it who go anywhere else.

*thud*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

Why don't we just stop building CAFs entirely? They aren't going to be built north of Lee Highway, so at this point we're just working on building ghettos.

Its an industry that is totally baked into our local politics. Its a system, not a line item. I'm not saying it's corrupt but a lot of people's livelihoods depend o it. It's totally institutionalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn’t. It’s one county. S Arlington is approximately 1/3 of the size of N Arlington. It’s an Arlington problem.

One that can't be addressed countywide without "busing." You can nibble at the edges with boundaries across 50, but not too much, and you will still probably end up with more schools closer to 50%. As I said before, this would be better than the current state of a couple of school (one of which IS in North Arlington) continuing to have poverty levels above 65%. Look at a map. You push SFH from Ashlawn into Carlin Springs, then you have to move some of the high density CAFs near Columbia Pike to an adjacent school. What are the adjacent schools? Barcroft (59%) or Abingdon (47%). I think it would have to be Anbjngdin if we're doing this for fr/l balancing. So, then you move some kids from Barcroft to Barrett? Well, the closest PUs to Barrett are the wealthiest part of Barcroft. So maybe you then push a few of the Buckingham PUs to Long Brach, bringing Barrett's fr/l percentage down from 65%, probably not all the way to 50% though, and Long Branch goes up a bit. But back to Barcroft, now who do you move into Barcroft to fill it? Can't move Alcova, they are already in the zone, for now. What else is adjacent? If you take some of Arlington Forest N to Barcroft, that takes higher income families out of Barrett. Then there's Randolph. Okay, so that's not going to help Barcroft with fr/l numbers. There is no way to move the kids around to adjacent boundaries that would get the numbers to the countywide averages, and if you're waiting for countywide busing, it'll never happen. I still say aiming for 50% for the current highest poverty schools is better than accepting a few outliers. 50% gives your school Title 1 money, plus 50% of the kids from non-disadvantaged homes. This is a good position to be in, and definitely better than a school that's around 80% fr/l with no PTA. If you want North Arlington to be part of this conversation, go to the CB and advocate for Affordable Housing in N Arlington outside of Buckingham, Courthouse, and Rosslyn. That's the only way this changes.

Why don't we just stop building CAFs entirely? They aren't going to be built north of Lee Highway, so at this point we're just working on building ghettos.

Its an industry that is totally baked into our local politics. Its a system, not a line item. I'm not saying it's corrupt but a lot of people's livelihoods depend o it. It's totally institutionalized.

That was hard for me to understand when I first moved here. Many young families are naive and assume their neighborhood school is going to naturally improve as more familes with kids move into Douglas Park, Alcova etc... as you become educated to the Arlington Way, you come to understand why that will never happen.
North Arlington homeowners are much more savvy when it come to this. That’s why Lee Highway has take so long to develop. They know what they are doing.