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

[Anonymous]

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

[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.

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.

But the Title I program recognizes 40% as a significant point at which extra resources from a federal program are needed.

If you re-do boundaries systemwide, you can incorporate north arlington schools in ways to help move the ED populations across schools without SA having to shoulder the entire responsibility for SED. In combination with effective locations for choice programs, you can move boundaries up and over. People are gonna have to move, that's all there is to it. Schools are close together and crowded everywhere.

VPI policies allowing students to continue on at the school, regardless whether it is a choice or neighborhood (have they extended that to neighborhoods or is it just for choice?) is only one small drop in the admissions policy toolbox. Seat set-asides of 25-30% in all option programs, including HB, can be much more impactful. Outreach, awareness, and locations of programs will help ensure those seats are filled. Montessori needs to ensure it aligns with the 2/3 ED of the program pedagogy. It has not - and I believe, the Montessori definition does not align with FRL eligibility criteria and therefore can meet a 2/3 ED quota with families that have higher incomes than FRL eligible families.

Every school does not need to reflect the county average. Steel bullets are a huge improvement, don't have to be silver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

So you are saying : Randolph is a lost cause. Please just make sure Drew becomes the next Henry. Gee I wonder where you live...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

So you are saying : Randolph is a lost cause. Please just make sure Drew becomes the next Henry. Gee I wonder where you live...

Nope. I'm saying create an environment that can attract UMC families to bring resources and balance to a school in the medium term. For Randolph to improve, Barcroft Apts needs to be zoned to at least three different schools so that parents in SFH will send their kids there instead of option schools. For Drew To be title I but not spiral up to a 70% farms rate, Oakridge needs to keep its low income housing; Nauck itself has enough already and even without the CAFs units near Drew it has the highest poverty rate of any census unit in the county, even Buckingham. It'll be title I by a large margin without any of the AH in Oakridge. The problem with creating segregated schools is not just that they are bad for everybody, it's that they create severe overcrowding in adjacent schools that aren't so disadvantaged. That crowding the leads to lobbying and gnashing of teeth when rezoning happens. This is why Oakridge and Henry are so crowded. Because Randolph is so segregated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

So you are saying : Randolph is a lost cause. Please just make sure Drew becomes the next Henry. Gee I wonder where you live...

Nope. I'm saying create an environment that can attract UMC families to bring resources and balance to a school in the medium term. For Randolph to improve, Barcroft Apts needs to be zoned to at least three different schools so that parents in SFH will send their kids there instead of option schools. For Drew To be title I but not spiral up to a 70% farms rate, Oakridge needs to keep its low income housing; Nauck itself has enough already and even without the CAFs units near Drew it has the highest poverty rate of any census unit in the county, even Buckingham. It'll be title I by a large margin without any of the AH in Oakridge. The problem with creating segregated schools is not just that they are bad for everybody, it's that they create severe overcrowding in adjacent schools that aren't so disadvantaged. That crowding the leads to lobbying and gnashing of teeth when rezoning happens. This is why Oakridge and Henry are so crowded. Because Randolph is so segregated.

I don’t disagree with you, but Breaking up Barcroft apts has been suggested several times on DCUM, and people lost their minds every time. They had a lot of great talking points about walkability. Funny. Walkability is always the winning argument when you want to keep what’s yours...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

UMC families packed into Hoffman Boston and Henry AFTER those zones lost some % affordable housing. UMC don’t just decide to start sending kids. You need to look at stats from before 2011. Those areas have gentrified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

So you are saying : Randolph is a lost cause. Please just make sure Drew becomes the next Henry. Gee I wonder where you live...

Nope. I'm saying create an environment that can attract UMC families to bring resources and balance to a school in the medium term. For Randolph to improve, Barcroft Apts needs to be zoned to at least three different schools so that parents in SFH will send their kids there instead of option schools. For Drew To be title I but not spiral up to a 70% farms rate, Oakridge needs to keep its low income housing; Nauck itself has enough already and even without the CAFs units near Drew it has the highest poverty rate of any census unit in the county, even Buckingham. It'll be title I by a large margin without any of the AH in Oakridge. The problem with creating segregated schools is not just that they are bad for everybody, it's that they create severe overcrowding in adjacent schools that aren't so disadvantaged. That crowding the leads to lobbying and gnashing of teeth when rezoning happens. This is why Oakridge and Henry are so crowded. Because Randolph is so segregated.

I don’t disagree with you, but Breaking up Barcroft apts has been suggested several times on DCUM, and people lost their minds every time. They had a lot of great talking points about walkability. Funny. Walkability is always the winning argument when you want to keep what’s yours...

Barcroft doesn't all go to the same school now. It's split between Randolph and Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

UMC families packed into Hoffman Boston and Henry AFTER those zones lost some % affordable housing. UMC don’t just decide to start sending kids. You need to look at stats from before 2011. Those areas have gentrified.

I looked up those stats. Between the 2005 and 2006 school years both Oakridge and Henry's farms rates dropped by about 15 points, to 45%. An overnight change. Why? Rezoning? Old complex get torn down at the height of the housing bubble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

So you are saying : Randolph is a lost cause. Please just make sure Drew becomes the next Henry. Gee I wonder where you live...

Nope. I'm saying create an environment that can attract UMC families to bring resources and balance to a school in the medium term. For Randolph to improve, Barcroft Apts needs to be zoned to at least three different schools so that parents in SFH will send their kids there instead of option schools. For Drew To be title I but not spiral up to a 70% farms rate, Oakridge needs to keep its low income housing; Nauck itself has enough already and even without the CAFs units near Drew it has the highest poverty rate of any census unit in the county, even Buckingham. It'll be title I by a large margin without any of the AH in Oakridge. The problem with creating segregated schools is not just that they are bad for everybody, it's that they create severe overcrowding in adjacent schools that aren't so disadvantaged. That crowding the leads to lobbying and gnashing of teeth when rezoning happens. This is why Oakridge and Henry are so crowded. Because Randolph is so segregated.

I don’t disagree with you, but Breaking up Barcroft apts has been suggested several times on DCUM, and people lost their minds every time. They had a lot of great talking points about walkability. Funny. Walkability is always the winning argument when you want to keep what’s yours...

Barcroft doesn't all go to the same school now. It's split between Randolph and Barcroft.

It needs to split by about 6-7 schools.

[Anonymous]

To start fixing the poverty issue in South Arlington schools, you need to go back to the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan and Form Based Code.

https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/03/Columbia-Pike.pdf

The plan was designed to ensure that South Arlington never gentrifies. The goals of the Neighborhood Plan state:

a) Retain or replace all (100%) of the current market rate affordable units (MARKS) with rents affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) within the next 30 years. This equates to approximately 3,000 units based on the County’s 2010 Rent & Vacancy Survey.
b) Retain or replace all (100%) of the current MARKS with rents affordable to households earning between 60% and 80% of the AMI within the next 30 years. This equates to approximately 3,200 units based on the County’s 2010 Rent & Vacancy Survey.
c) Retain or replace all existing committed affordable
housing units (i.e. CAF’s).

And the plan allowed for the transfer of development/density rights from complexes like the Barcroft Apartments (which are designated a "conservation area") to areas like the Penrose developments.

Rezoning schools to address high concentrations of poverty is like attempting to bail out the Titanic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Barely. It was closer to 40 than 50. It was just before they lost Title I status.

Henry lost its title I status because UMC families packed into the zone. You can look at historical farms stats and see that the number of farms students has not really changed at all since 2011, when the school was 46%. It added over 100 non farms students since then. It's now at 32%. This kind of turnaround was possible because The apartments in the zone aren't more numerous than SFH. The same thing happened at Oakridge - farms unchanged, an increasing number of UMC children crowded the school and brought the farms rate down.

The lesson is clear: if low income housing dominates a particular schools zone, it will lead to high farms rates. Even a little out of balance the wrong way can have amplified effects: witness how virtually no one living in a SFH in Douglas park - a huge, picturesque neighborhood with large lots - send their kids to the most walkable elementary school in the county. On the other hand, the right balance can attract UMC families and their resources in a way that can meaningfully improve the school, as was the case with Henry. Rather than focusing on changing the next year's farm rate to some arbitrary "good" or "fair" number, we should focus on creating more Henrys over a 5-10 year window and avoid at all costs creating another Randolph or carlin springs at Drew.

The best way to achieve this would be to balance high density low income housing with SFH/condos/town homes.

UMC families packed into Hoffman Boston and Henry AFTER those zones lost some % affordable housing. UMC don’t just decide to start sending kids. You need to look at stats from before 2011. Those areas have gentrified.

I looked up those stats. Between the 2005 and 2006 school years both Oakridge and Henry's farms rates dropped by about 15 points, to 45%. An overnight change. Why? Rezoning? Old complex get torn down at the height of the housing bubble?

For Oakridge, it was the tearing down of the majority of Arna Valley's low income housing to make way for condos and townhouses. That's what kicked off the turnaround. Not sure what happened at Henry. Not as familiar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The middle class S Arlington hate is unnerving. You shouldn’t have to be richor poor and brown to live in Arlington and have an opinion or desire for a good walkable school. Live right vote left by N Arlington is alive and well. Moving to N Arlington or Fairfax is not a viable solution. I doubt it will happen but I do hope the Board finds some balls and just starts drawing east west crazy boundaries.

The board are politicians. They respond to the incentives that politicians do, which is votes. Funfact: this supposed entity, the "white UMC SA parent" is a pretty rare bird. SA elementaries, including option schools, have only 1600 hundred white students, or about 30% of the total SA elementary student population. About 500 of those students are in option schools and the vast majority of them live in south Arlington and are zoned for a SA neighborhood school. Now subtract Oakridge and Henry, neither of which is a title 1 school. You're left with 460 "white SA UMC" kids, some of whom are certainly not "UMC", not by Arlington standards anyway. In contrast, there almost 5,000 white, UMC kids in NA elementaries. They make up 65% of all NA elementary students.

Whose parents do you think the SB is going to listen to in county wide debates over things like school boundaries, diversity, and proximity? It's about the numbers. South Arlington gets the shaft because it's not as big, and because a comparatively large percentage of its residents can't or don't vote.

Then you aren’t seeing the loom tide. Maybe the strollers in Douglas Park, Alcova Heights, and Barcroft won’t matter. Maybe those familes will do as previous generations have done- move or go private...
But I doubt it. The commutes downtown are worse every year..I wouldn’t count on past trends. The numbers will probbaly never surpass NA, but it may grow large enougni the next 10 years to make everything more painful and nasty than it already is.

You're not doing the math. If every single kid in a DP SFH went to Randolph the school would still be title 1. Barcroft apartments is enormous and will be there in perpetuity.

You aren’t looking at the big picture or far enough down the road. If you are comparing all of NA and all of SA as voting blocks, you have to look down the road at all of the proposed development slated for Crystal city. Those buildings will have families and they will not quietly accept crappy schools. It’s going to get so much uglier in 10-20 years.

There is A LOT of wishful thinking rolled into your arguments.... y’all still waiting on the that Columbia pike trolly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The middle class S Arlington hate is unnerving. You shouldn’t have to be richor poor and brown to live in Arlington and have an opinion or desire for a good walkable school. Live right vote left by N Arlington is alive and well. Moving to N Arlington or Fairfax is not a viable solution. I doubt it will happen but I do hope the Board finds some balls and just starts drawing east west crazy boundaries.

The board are politicians. They respond to the incentives that politicians do, which is votes. Funfact: this supposed entity, the "white UMC SA parent" is a pretty rare bird. SA elementaries, including option schools, have only 1600 hundred white students, or about 30% of the total SA elementary student population. About 500 of those students are in option schools and the vast majority of them live in south Arlington and are zoned for a SA neighborhood school. Now subtract Oakridge and Henry, neither of which is a title 1 school. You're left with 460 "white SA UMC" kids, some of whom are certainly not "UMC", not by Arlington standards anyway. In contrast, there almost 5,000 white, UMC kids in NA elementaries. They make up 65% of all NA elementary students.

Whose parents do you think the SB is going to listen to in county wide debates over things like school boundaries, diversity, and proximity? It's about the numbers. South Arlington gets the shaft because it's not as big, and because a comparatively large percentage of its residents can't or don't vote.

Then you aren’t seeing the loom tide. Maybe the strollers in Douglas Park, Alcova Heights, and Barcroft won’t matter. Maybe those familes will do as previous generations have done- move or go private...
But I doubt it. The commutes downtown are worse every year..I wouldn’t count on past trends. The numbers will probbaly never surpass NA, but it may grow large enougni the next 10 years to make everything more painful and nasty than it already is.

You're not doing the math. If every single kid in a DP SFH went to Randolph the school would still be title 1. Barcroft apartments is enormous and will be there in perpetuity.

You aren’t looking at the big picture or far enough down the road. If you are comparing all of NA and all of SA as voting blocks, you have to look down the road at all of the proposed development slated for Crystal city. Those buildings will have families and they will not quietly accept crappy schools. It’s going to get so much uglier in 10-20 years.

There is A LOT of wishful thinking rolled into your arguments.... y’all still waiting on the that Columbia pike trolly?

So easy to be a snarky smart ass on DCUM. So hard to actually read about stuff.
https://www.arlnow.com/2018/07/06/report-arlington-will-add-24000-new-homes-through-2040/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To start fixing the poverty issue in South Arlington schools, you need to go back to the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan and Form Based Code.

https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/03/Columbia-Pike.pdf

The plan was designed to ensure that South Arlington never gentrifies. The goals of the Neighborhood Plan state:

a) Retain or replace all (100%) of the current market rate affordable units (MARKS) with rents affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) within the next 30 years. This equates to approximately 3,000 units based on the County’s 2010 Rent & Vacancy Survey.
b) Retain or replace all (100%) of the current MARKS with rents affordable to households earning between 60% and 80% of the AMI within the next 30 years. This equates to approximately 3,200 units based on the County’s 2010 Rent & Vacancy Survey.
c) Retain or replace all existing committed affordable
housing units (i.e. CAF’s).

And the plan allowed for the transfer of development/density rights from complexes like the Barcroft Apartments (which are designated a "conservation area") to areas like the Penrose developments.

Rezoning schools to address high concentrations of poverty is like attempting to bail out the Titanic.

I can not imagine the echo chamber involved with crafting that bullshit plan. I’ve gone to meetings with one of my neighbors who helped craft it. He’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with south Arlington.
That plan is nothing that someone who paid 800k for their home would agree to, but I don’t see it being amended any time soon.
I do think of all the UMC of south Arlington came together ( regardless of whichever neighborhood school) and said we don’t accept any school in south Arlington having a FRL rate above 50%, it would make an impact. It would also mean they would have to involve north arlignton in some way to make the numbers work.