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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

So, the first step is to get them to 50%, right? Once you do that with boundaries, buy-in becomes a much easier proposition for many UMC families.

That has been my point multiple times on this thread. Then I’m called stupid by someone from north Arlington.

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

I don’t think you are being realistic. Making sure some schools get to stay under 40% isn’t going to be enough to get the percentages down at Randolph, Barcroft, Drew, and Carlin Springs. Not with where the affordable housing is located. If it can be done- great! But I don’t see it. If south Arlington wants to prove they care about integration, they are going to have to walk the walk. That means no child left behind in a school with 50% or above FARMS. If you did that, you’d actually have some capital to bring with you for the next boundary shift. Then you could ask for a choice school in the NW quadrant with 30% reserved for FR/L. It will take much more work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

So, the first step is to get them to 50%, right? Once you do that with boundaries, buy-in becomes a much easier proposition for many UMC families.

That has been my point multiple times on this thread. Then I’m called stupid by someone from north Arlington.

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

It seems likely to me that Oakridge will have a lower farms rate after the Drew boundary is redrawn. This is because it is politically much easier to move the AH in arna valley and at the Berkeley (which is being doubled in size as we speak) to Drew even though both are in the Oakridge walk zone). Easier than movingit will be to send UMC kids from north of Oakridge elementary in SFH to Hoffman Boston, which would allow the lower income kids south of the school to remain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

Randolph won't ever be under 50% while Barcroft Apts stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

So, the first step is to get them to 50%, right? Once you do that with boundaries, buy-in becomes a much easier proposition for many UMC families.

That has been my point multiple times on this thread. Then I’m called stupid by someone from north Arlington.

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

It seems likely to me that Oakridge will have a lower farms rate after the Drew boundary is redrawn. This is because it is politically much easier to move the AH in arna valley and at the Berkeley (which is being doubled in size as we speak) to Drew even though both are in the Oakridge walk zone). Easier than movingit will be to send UMC kids from north of Oakridge elementary in SFH to Hoffman Boston, which would allow the lower income kids south of the school to remain.

Dp- all I’m saying, is that if we don’t actually get together and make some sacrifices during this next shift, there is no way. In hell. North Arlington. Will EVER take us seriously moving forward re:diversity and integration. This is our chance to prove our stuff. If everyone moves to protect what they have... then south Arlington deserves all of the short ends of all the sticks coming our way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

So, the first step is to get them to 50%, right? Once you do that with boundaries, buy-in becomes a much easier proposition for many UMC families.

That has been my point multiple times on this thread. Then I’m called stupid by someone from north Arlington.

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

It seems likely to me that Oakridge will have a lower farms rate after the Drew boundary is redrawn. This is because it is politically much easier to move the AH in arna valley and at the Berkeley (which is being doubled in size as we speak) to Drew even though both are in the Oakridge walk zone). Easier than movingit will be to send UMC kids from north of Oakridge elementary in SFH to Hoffman Boston, which would allow the lower income kids south of the school to remain.

Dp- all I’m saying, is that if we don’t actually get together and make some sacrifices during this next shift, there is no way. In hell. North Arlington. Will EVER take us seriously moving forward re:diversity and integration. This is our chance to prove our stuff. If everyone moves to protect what they have... then south Arlington deserves all of the short ends of all the sticks coming our way.

I'm not optimistic. It's not accidental or incidental that Oakridge and Henry are the most overcrowded schools in the county. They are that way because parents looking for a good school in a more or less integrated region of south Arlington which they can afford don't have any other options, except rolling the dice and hoping they fare well in the option school lottery. They bought in those neighborhoods for that reason. I do not expect them to now volunteer to be sent to the title i school next door they were avoiding when they bought their home. Fwiw, I'm in SA and when I bought a house 5 years ago could not afford either neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

So, the first step is to get them to 50%, right? Once you do that with boundaries, buy-in becomes a much easier proposition for many UMC families.

That has been my point multiple times on this thread. Then I’m called stupid by someone from north Arlington.

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

I don’t think you are being realistic. Making sure some schools get to stay under 40% isn’t going to be enough to get the percentages down at Randolph, Barcroft, Drew, and Carlin Springs. Not with where the affordable housing is located. If it can be done- great! But I don’t see it. If south Arlington wants to prove they care about integration, they are going to have to walk the walk. That means no child left behind in a school with 50% or above FARMS. If you did that, you’d actually have some capital to bring with you for the next boundary shift. Then you could ask for a choice school in the NW quadrant with 30% reserved for FR/L. It will take much more work.

SA needs to walk the walk? It's been doing that for decades. I just wholeheartedly disagree that it is entirely SA's responsibility to fix the problem. If "walking the walk" includes Oakridge and Henry advocating to maintain their existing FRL% as a minimum and Oakridge particularly advocating for boundaries that increase it back up to 30-35%, then I'll accept that part of the walk. If Oakridge elite prove to fight for their own self-interests and allow a drop in their current FRL%, then I would see them as being just as hypocritical as northern elites lauding diversity as long as it doesn't negatively impact them or make them move to a different school. Some people already refer to 22206 as south-north arlington. So I agree with you to that extent re. taking on more FRL and walking the walk.

A basic cause of the whole problem has been the longstanding north/south divide (which, btw, nobody has ever denied, in answer to the title of the original post). The solution, even an interim step, should not be all on the shoulders of every school south of 50. It needs to be a combination of boundaries overall, admissions policies, and location of choice programs. It is a huge mistake for the SB to limit this round of boundary changes to certain schools, like they always do. Managing the system as several sub-systems has been an equal contributor to our problems as the unbreakable north/south divide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

Randolph won't ever be under 50% while Barcroft Apts stands.

Moving Claremont immersion to Carlin Springs, along with Campbell nearby, then shifting boundaries northward and clockwise rather than just eastward south of 50 could help significantly. Getting Randolph (and Carlin Springs) to approach 50% would be a tremendous step in the right direction. We don't have to equalize across every school; but it is embarrassing and shameful that our system ranges from 1% to 80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
...so how do we fix it?

I mean, I am probably one of those naive people you are talking about. For every CAF though, more market rate housing is being built. I can't imagine everyone buying 1million + townhouses is going private...


There are 800 sfh’s in Douglas Park ( there about)
There are over 3,000’s low rent apts- and another 1000 more being planned for Barcroft apts...
I was naive too. I bought in DP right as they were finishing the renovations on West Village ( I think that’s that name/ corner of 4mile and Walter Reed). I was so cute back then. I thought the plan was to renovate all the way to South George Mason. I mean why wouldn’t they? Barcroft apts are old and crumbling. Certainly there was demand for more middle class housing? I’d laugh if I wasn’t crying. Not only is there no plan to upgrade those shitty apts, they have zoned them into perpetuity and are working on adding to them. Even if every single family household sent a kid to elementary school at Randolph ( not ever possible anywhere) it could never NEVER keep pace with those apts. They have 6 months leases and new families move in every day.
They would have to do something extreme to fix the Randolph/Barcroft elementary school boundary. I think they should. But whatever ...


What's the plan for adding 1000 AH to Barcroft apts? When/where? That has to be stopped.
There was an advocacy effort to restrict adding CAFs to school zones with more than 45% FRL One CB was willing to restrict in zones higher than 65%; but nobody else was interested in any moratorium because "what if another Presbyterian Church opportunity comes along?" Well, that's THE POINT! Those areas don't NEED another Presbyterian Church opportunity! MAKE opportunities in the 0-15% school zones.

It's in the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan. It would be infill development within the Barcroft Apartments property on the S side of Columbia Pike. There are no specific proposals right now, but the Plan has laid the blueprint for future development. Not sure that it will ever come to pass, but the plans they have only further concentrate the density and poverty where it already exists.



Time to update the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan. And this time, the process should not be led by APAH, AHC, VOICE, and other AH advocates like it was the last time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

All schools would benefit, sure. But you won't see drastic turnarounds or 180-perception changes from the outside community that still looks at those stats - until those test scores top their own school's scores. One thing to remember about Hoffman Boston is how small the enrollment is. High poverty schools do better when they are small, which was one of the legitimate bases of complaints from some members of the Barcroft community when they were facing an addition to bring the school to 750 students. Highly unlikely the additional 200 (at the time) students were going to all be wealthy and fluent English speakers.

The real turnarounds are Oakridge and Henry. They have both the academic record and the public perception of high quality schools. That happened because of commitment and buy-in of families and leadership; but also corresponded to their decreasing FRL% rates - and not at 50%, rather as they approached 40% and lower. Abingdon is around 50% and is a fine school. But it does not have the reputation and recognition of Oakridge or Henry. And it's quite clear how people here feel about Barcroft, Randolph, and Carlin Springs at 60% and higher. Interestingly, Barrett never gets ragged on and its FRL is now higher than Barcroft's. But I still don't hear anyone angling to be redistricted to Barrett.

At least this gets to the heart of it. Most people aren’t willing to see their school
Slide backwards even a tiny bit. If they paid for a GS 8, they will be damned before they see it slip to a 6, even if only for a couple of years. Not even amongst parents in south Arlington, who claim they care about integrated schools.

To be honest, I don't think they should be willing to slide backwards; but I dearly hope they aren't willing to put up with continuing slipping FRL rates. They've worked hard and have made it. There's no reason people living in the south shouldn't get to enjoy top schools, too. And I wouldn't blame them if they were willing to but fear that it won't just last a few years - what basis do you have to think it would be temporary, let alone so short-lived temporary?

There's a delicate balance. Even the federal program policies reflect 40% as that tipping point because that's what it takes to qualify as a Title I school. It's not purely random. All the more reason that purposely making 8 neighborhood schools 50% isn't right.

[Anonymous]

Even if you took both Henry and Oakridge up to only 37% FARMS, still below the 40% threshold, that would put the average for the rest of SA at 53%. Draw the rest of the zones accordingly and you can have those two schools still be non-Title I while making substantial improvements in the rest.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure Henry was over 40% when it was awarded a blue ribbon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

All schools would benefit, sure. But you won't see drastic turnarounds or 180-perception changes from the outside community that still looks at those stats - until those test scores top their own school's scores. One thing to remember about Hoffman Boston is how small the enrollment is. High poverty schools do better when they are small, which was one of the legitimate bases of complaints from some members of the Barcroft community when they were facing an addition to bring the school to 750 students. Highly unlikely the additional 200 (at the time) students were going to all be wealthy and fluent English speakers.

The real turnarounds are Oakridge and Henry. They have both the academic record and the public perception of high quality schools. That happened because of commitment and buy-in of families and leadership; but also corresponded to their decreasing FRL% rates - and not at 50%, rather as they approached 40% and lower. Abingdon is around 50% and is a fine school. But it does not have the reputation and recognition of Oakridge or Henry. And it's quite clear how people here feel about Barcroft, Randolph, and Carlin Springs at 60% and higher. Interestingly, Barrett never gets ragged on and its FRL is now higher than Barcroft's. But I still don't hear anyone angling to be redistricted to Barrett.

At least this gets to the heart of it. Most people aren’t willing to see their school
Slide backwards even a tiny bit. If they paid for a GS 8, they will be damned before they see it slip to a 6, even if only for a couple of years. Not even amongst parents in south Arlington, who claim they care about integrated schools.

To be honest, I don't think they should be willing to slide backwards; but I dearly hope they aren't willing to put up with continuing slipping FRL rates. They've worked hard and have made it. There's no reason people living in the south shouldn't get to enjoy top schools, too. And I wouldn't blame them if they were willing to but fear that it won't just last a few years - what basis do you have to think it would be temporary, let alone so short-lived temporary?

There's a delicate balance. Even the federal program policies reflect 40% as that tipping point because that's what it takes to qualify as a Title I school. It's not purely random. All the more reason that purposely making 8 neighborhood schools 50% isn't right.

In APS, they only allocate full Title 1 funds to schools at or above 60% fr/l. Henry lost its Title 1 status before it dipped to under 40% fr/l. And they were scoring well before then, too.

To the previous points about option school locations, yes, yes, and yes! They need to game out any potential relocations and see what the implications for altering fr/l at neighboring schools would be. But it's not going to be a silver bullet. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the possibilities, and there's no scenario where this magically results in every school at the countywide average and no school increasing over 40% fr/l. Its just not possible with the geography. To the point about option school admission policies, I believe they have done that already. There are VPI classrooms in every option school, and the fr/l level is within 10% of the countywide average except for Montessori (they need to remove the financial barrier to enter at the 3 year-old-level if they want to have any fr/l qualified kids in that program; it needs to be free for them and they should increase the sliding scale at the top end to make up the difference).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, I think you were called stupid by someone in south arlington. More accurately, your proposal to make all south arlington schools 50% FRL stupid. It's not wise to raise the schools that have successfully turned around into 50% FRL again. I agree that Henry and Oakridge could use an increase in FRL; but I don't agree they should go to 50%. That merely starts to turn people away again. Once you've turned things around, you need to be very careful about how far you ratchet back. I don't believe either school would be concerned with a 30-37% max; but I suspect Oakridge in particular will start to have some panic attacks if it faces becoming Title I. We have multiple examples of what many have called "sweet spots" - schools in the 30-40% range that seem to appease parents on the academic side as well as the diversity side. The point is, if you raise them back to 50%, you're going to lose the buy-in rather than gain it. You've already got buy-in at those schools. You need to get it in the schools that are 50% and up. And that means boundaries and policies that lower %ages at those schools and raise it at schools that are 20% and below. There are enough of those schools within rippling-effect-of-thoughtful-boundaries-reach and the ability to relocate choice programs.

It seems likely to me that Oakridge will have a lower farms rate after the Drew boundary is redrawn. This is because it is politically much easier to move the AH in arna valley and at the Berkeley (which is being doubled in size as we speak) to Drew even though both are in the Oakridge walk zone). Easier than movingit will be to send UMC kids from north of Oakridge elementary in SFH to Hoffman Boston, which would allow the lower income kids south of the school to remain.

Don't forget the SFHs from Henry south of the Pike that will be zoned to Drew - they will be too far from Fleet to really walk and were bus riders anyway. I think Drew stands to come out of this better - not every SFh at Oakridge will be spared and they shouldn't be. The SB should use this is as an opportunity to zone the new Drew into a more balanced school. At least then something will improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...so how do we fix it?

I mean, I am probably one of those naive people you are talking about. For every CAF though, more market rate housing is being built. I can't imagine everyone buying 1million + townhouses is going private...

There are 800 sfh’s in Douglas Park ( there about)
There are over 3,000’s low rent apts- and another 1000 more being planned for Barcroft apts...
I was naive too. I bought in DP right as they were finishing the renovations on West Village ( I think that’s that name/ corner of 4mile and Walter Reed). I was so cute back then. I thought the plan was to renovate all the way to South George Mason. I mean why wouldn’t they? Barcroft apts are old and crumbling. Certainly there was demand for more middle class housing? I’d laugh if I wasn’t crying. Not only is there no plan to upgrade those shitty apts, they have zoned them into perpetuity and are working on adding to them. Even if every single family household sent a kid to elementary school at Randolph ( not ever possible anywhere) it could never NEVER keep pace with those apts. They have 6 months leases and new families move in every day.
They would have to do something extreme to fix the Randolph/Barcroft elementary school boundary. I think they should. But whatever ...

Barcroft Apts only does month to month. They use it as a way to increase rent when they want and to evict at will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. Every generation of SA parents have to learn this lesson. You always think it is on the verge of turning around. And in the meantime, your kids are stuck in these schools.

To be fair it happened to Hoffman Boston. You just have to understand it’s not because of who moved in, it’s because of who moved out. I think UMC can make a difference AFTER there has been a meaningful shift around the 50% farms mark. So all these poster clutching their pearls at moving the frl rate of all elementary schools at or below 50% should relax. I believe all schools would benefit from more umc buy in from that, moving the needle further in the right direction.

All schools would benefit, sure. But you won't see drastic turnarounds or 180-perception changes from the outside community that still looks at those stats - until those test scores top their own school's scores. One thing to remember about Hoffman Boston is how small the enrollment is. High poverty schools do better when they are small, which was one of the legitimate bases of complaints from some members of the Barcroft community when they were facing an addition to bring the school to 750 students. Highly unlikely the additional 200 (at the time) students were going to all be wealthy and fluent English speakers.

The real turnarounds are Oakridge and Henry. They have both the academic record and the public perception of high quality schools. That happened because of commitment and buy-in of families and leadership; but also corresponded to their decreasing FRL% rates - and not at 50%, rather as they approached 40% and lower. Abingdon is around 50% and is a fine school. But it does not have the reputation and recognition of Oakridge or Henry. And it's quite clear how people here feel about Barcroft, Randolph, and Carlin Springs at 60% and higher. Interestingly, Barrett never gets ragged on and its FRL is now higher than Barcroft's. But I still don't hear anyone angling to be redistricted to Barrett.

At least this gets to the heart of it. Most people aren’t willing to see their school
Slide backwards even a tiny bit. If they paid for a GS 8, they will be damned before they see it slip to a 6, even if only for a couple of years. Not even amongst parents in south Arlington, who claim they care about integrated schools.

To be honest, I don't think they should be willing to slide backwards; but I dearly hope they aren't willing to put up with continuing slipping FRL rates. They've worked hard and have made it. There's no reason people living in the south shouldn't get to enjoy top schools, too. And I wouldn't blame them if they were willing to but fear that it won't just last a few years - what basis do you have to think it would be temporary, let alone so short-lived temporary?

There's a delicate balance. Even the federal program policies reflect 40% as that tipping point because that's what it takes to qualify as a Title I school. It's not purely random. All the more reason that purposely making 8 neighborhood schools 50% isn't right.

In APS, they only allocate full Title 1 funds to schools at or above 60% fr/l. Henry lost its Title 1 status before it dipped to under 40% fr/l. And they were scoring well before then, too.

To the previous points about option school locations, yes, yes, and yes! They need to game out any potential relocations and see what the implications for altering fr/l at neighboring schools would be. But it's not going to be a silver bullet. I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the possibilities, and there's no scenario where this magically results in every school at the countywide average and no school increasing over 40% fr/l. Its just not possible with the geography. To the point about option school admission policies, I believe they have done that already. There are VPI classrooms in every option school, and the fr/l level is within 10% of the countywide average except for Montessori (they need to remove the financial barrier to enter at the 3 year-old-level if they want to have any fr/l qualified kids in that program; it needs to be free for them and they should increase the sliding scale at the top end to make up the difference).

Re:option schools. I think within 10% isn’t going to be good enough. The choice schools need to ( at more minimum) reflect the county average of ED students.