The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

Ah there it is - the smug responses from people who feel exactly the same way but had enough money to buy in NA and pretend they are somehow morally superior because they don’t have to advocate for such measures, they can can just buy their way out of it.

[Anonymous]

We’re not smug. We’re resigned. You will be too eventually. You’ll move if you can (to a smaller crappier house) or just accept the “fine” schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

Ah there it is - the smug responses from people who feel exactly the same way but had enough money to buy in NA and pretend they are somehow morally superior because they don’t have to advocate for such measures, they can can just buy their way out of it.

No, just not a hypocrite. And not someone who expects everyone else to contort themselves so that I get what I want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

No. Completely wrong assumption and conclusion there.
If the premise is to put all the ELL and ED students together in order to concentrate the support services they need into a few schools for them, then it is quite logical that students who do not fit that profile are the outliers and are not the focus of the school. Therefore, they should not have to attend and should be able to attend a school that specifically does not design its entire administration and instruction and resources to a specific, different population. You don't send a kindergartner to middle school; so you shouldn't send a non-ELL/non-ED student who doesn't need all those community wraparounds to a school that is designed for those community wraparounds.
Now, if thos wraparounds were merely a PART of array of services at the school because APS is providing the supports ALL of its students need at EVERY school, then fine. But that's NOT what they're trying to do and it is not what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone heard about McKinley and ATS working together? That's why I'd do if I were one those fringe McKinley families who doesn't want it to move to Reed.

Other idea. We save McKinley in name: McKinley Elementary at the Reed School. Like Hamm Middle at the Stafford Building. Everyone happy now?

Why do they need the "Reed" name at all. Just move the name with the majority of the school population/all the staff and be done with it. the "save McKinley" people are ridiculous. It was obvious with a neighborhood school at Reed that McKinley would get broken up -- they've been complaining for ages about being overcrowded. Now, APS proposed to fix the overcrowding, keep as much of the school as possible together, and give them a new building. Oh, poor McKinley. I guess they wanted the overcrowding fixed but meant by sending away other kids not theirs because only other people must adjust to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

No. Completely wrong assumption and conclusion there.
If the premise is to put all the ELL and ED students together in order to concentrate the support services they need into a few schools for them, then it is quite logical that students who do not fit that profile are the outliers and are not the focus of the school. Therefore, they should not have to attend and should be able to attend a school that specifically does not design its entire administration and instruction and resources to a specific, different population. You don't send a kindergartner to middle school; so you shouldn't send a non-ELL/non-ED student who doesn't need all those community wraparounds to a school that is designed for those community wraparounds.
Now, if thos wraparounds were merely a PART of array of services at the school because APS is providing the supports ALL of its students need at EVERY school, then fine. But that's NOT what they're trying to do and it is not what they are doing.

+1 It's a totally different situation for the district to overtly say they are designing these schools expressly to support ELL/ED students. If that's the case, maybe those need to be "option" schools rather than neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

Ah there it is - the smug responses from people who feel exactly the same way but had enough money to buy in NA and pretend they are somehow morally superior because they don’t have to advocate for such measures, they can can just buy their way out of it.

No, just not a hypocrite. And not someone who expects everyone else to contort themselves so that I get what I want.

There’s nothing hypocritical about advocating for both poor kids and their middle class peers. I’m not asking any one to “contort” themselves. Don’t worry, yi have no interest in trying to rezone you out of the white upper SES neighborhood you’re mortgaged up to you eyeballs in. If going to a school with a few poor kids in it requires you to contort yourself then I’d rather you stay where you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

No. Completely wrong assumption and conclusion there.
If the premise is to put all the ELL and ED students together in order to concentrate the support services they need into a few schools for them, then it is quite logical that students who do not fit that profile are the outliers and are not the focus of the school. Therefore, they should not have to attend and should be able to attend a school that specifically does not design its entire administration and instruction and resources to a specific, different population. You don't send a kindergartner to middle school; so you shouldn't send a non-ELL/non-ED student who doesn't need all those community wraparounds to a school that is designed for those community wraparounds.
Now, if thos wraparounds were merely a PART of array of services at the school because APS is providing the supports ALL of its students need at EVERY school, then fine. But that's NOT what they're trying to do and it is not what they are doing.

+1 It's a totally different situation for the district to overtly say they are designing these schools expressly to support ELL/ED students. If that's the case, maybe those need to be "option" schools rather than neighborhood.

Give up. Local dems are responsive to only the rich and the poor. Middle class people get uppity and don’t know when to sit down and be quiet. Even worse, they have a mind of their own and sometimes vote for people like JV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't disingenuous. Yes, housing policies are the most direct and influential factor. But even those policies were made from NIMBY desires and "protecting" MC and UMC neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the rationale that concentrating these populations in our schools so that we can efficiently provide wraparound services perpetuates the problem and precludes anyone from pursuing any policies to mitigate the impacts. There ARE things a school system can do to mitigate the impacts of those housing policies - it just won't ever happen in Arlington. And so we rationalize that it's a good thing to do because it better serves these populations. Except, it DOESN'T really serve them the best they can be served. What gets my goat even more is the people who justify this system adamantly denying that other kids "caught" in these schools are not being served as well as they could or should be and most certainly are not being served as well as their cohorts in those under 20% schools. And they will fall on their swords denying it because their kids aren't in these schools and will never be affected. If we're going to intentionally administer a segregated system and believe the low-income, ELL students are best served in this manner, then non low-income/non-ELL students districted to those schools should have a guaranteed opt-out to a neighborhood school with less than 25% FRL and ELL.

Ah, there it is.

Yes. The ones who are complaining are the UMC "caught" in high FARMS SA schools. They try to pretend they care about the high FARMS kids but they really care about the impact on their own kids. Apparently they would be totally find with the system as is as long as they can have a guaranteed opt out.

No. Completely wrong assumption and conclusion there.
If the premise is to put all the ELL and ED students together in order to concentrate the support services they need into a few schools for them, then it is quite logical that students who do not fit that profile are the outliers and are not the focus of the school. Therefore, they should not have to attend and should be able to attend a school that specifically does not design its entire administration and instruction and resources to a specific, different population. You don't send a kindergartner to middle school; so you shouldn't send a non-ELL/non-ED student who doesn't need all those community wraparounds to a school that is designed for those community wraparounds.
Now, if thos wraparounds were merely a PART of array of services at the school because APS is providing the supports ALL of its students need at EVERY school, then fine. But that's NOT what they're trying to do and it is not what they are doing.

+1 It's a totally different situation for the district to overtly say they are designing these schools expressly to support ELL/ED students. If that's the case, maybe those need to be "option" schools rather than neighborhood.

Give up. Local dems are responsive to only the rich and the poor. Middle class people get uppity and don’t know when to sit down and be quiet. Even worse, they have a mind of their own and sometimes vote for people like JV.

Yes. And they want to make NA for the wealthy and SA for the poor. It makes them feel good about themselves, but without having to come in contact with those they help.

[Anonymous]

We’re not smug. We’re resigned. You will be too eventually. You’ll move if you can (to a smaller crappier house) or just accept the “fine” schools.

One of my favorite bizarely untrue argument that keeps popping up is this crazy idea that all of us in South Arlington are rolling in these huge luxurious family homes and aren't moving to North Arlington because we don't want to sacrifice housing space yet are somehow being unreasonable for demanding schools that serve our kids. 

Its so strange. The non-apartment family housing stock between North and South is exactly the same. There are McMansions, small single family homes (cape cods, colonials, some ranch houses, split levels and bungalows) some of which have additions, townhouses, and those tiny brick duplexes. In the most cases its the same exact floor plan across the county.  THe only difference is there are way more new builds and nice townhouses in North Arlington and way more duplexes in South Arlington. From what I've seen in my years of house hunting the NA houses usually have nicer, bigger additions as well. The average NA house is much bigger and nicer with a larger lot than most SA houses.

The only difference is price. It seems like you all are mad at the 10 people who paid 1.2 for a SA new build instead of paying 1.2 for a small NA expanded colonial. But the majority of SA people spent half that for a small crappy house south of 50 cause they couldn't afford to spend an extra 100K for the same exact small crappy house north of 50. 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We’re not smug. We’re resigned. You will be too eventually. You’ll move if you can (to a smaller crappier house) or just accept the “fine” schools.

One of my favorite bizarely untrue argument that keeps popping up is this crazy idea that all of us in South Arlington are rolling in these huge luxurious family homes and aren't moving to North Arlington because we don't want to sacrifice housing space yet are somehow being unreasonable for demanding schools that serve our kids. 

Its so strange. The non-apartment family housing stock between North and South is exactly the same. There are McMansions, small single family homes (cape cods, colonials, some ranch houses, split levels and bungalows) some of which have additions, townhouses, and those tiny brick duplexes. In the most cases its the same exact floor plan across the county.  THe only difference is there are way more new builds and nice townhouses in North Arlington and way more duplexes in South Arlington. From what I've seen in my years of house hunting the NA houses usually have nicer, bigger additions as well. The average NA house is much bigger and nicer with a larger lot than most SA houses.

The only difference is price. It seems like you all are mad at the 10 people who paid 1.2 for a SA new build instead of paying 1.2 for a small NA expanded colonial. But the majority of SA people spent half that for a small crappy house south of 50 cause they couldn't afford to spend an extra 100K for the same exact small crappy house north of 50. 

Then do what we did when we couldn’t buy in NA. We bought in FFX. houses are cheaper, schools are good. We prioritized schools over our comfortable commutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We’re not smug. We’re resigned. You will be too eventually. You’ll move if you can (to a smaller crappier house) or just accept the “fine” schools.


One of my favorite bizarely untrue argument that keeps popping up is this crazy idea that all of us in South Arlington are rolling in these huge luxurious family homes and aren't moving to North Arlington because we don't want to sacrifice housing space yet are somehow being unreasonable for demanding schools that serve our kids.

Its so strange. The non-apartment family housing stock between North and South is exactly the same. There are McMansions, small single family homes (cape cods, colonials, some ranch houses, split levels and bungalows) some of which have additions, townhouses, and those tiny brick duplexes. In the most cases its the same exact floor plan across the county. THe only difference is there are way more new builds and nice townhouses in North Arlington and way more duplexes in South Arlington. From what I've seen in my years of house hunting the NA houses usually have nicer, bigger additions as well. The average NA house is much bigger and nicer with a larger lot than most SA houses.

The only difference is price. It seems like you all are mad at the 10 people who paid 1.2 for a SA new build instead of paying 1.2 for a small NA expanded colonial. But the majority of SA people spent half that for a small crappy house south of 50 cause they couldn't afford to spend an extra 100K for the same exact small crappy house north of 50.


Then do what we did when we couldn’t buy in NA. We bought in FFX. houses are cheaper, schools are good. We prioritized schools over our comfortable commutes.

Move out of Arlington MC Poors! If you aren't super rich or poor enough to be grateful we don't want you here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We’re not smug. We’re resigned. You will be too eventually. You’ll move if you can (to a smaller crappier house) or just accept the “fine” schools.


One of my favorite bizarely untrue argument that keeps popping up is this crazy idea that all of us in South Arlington are rolling in these huge luxurious family homes and aren't moving to North Arlington because we don't want to sacrifice housing space yet are somehow being unreasonable for demanding schools that serve our kids.

Its so strange. The non-apartment family housing stock between North and South is exactly the same. There are McMansions, small single family homes (cape cods, colonials, some ranch houses, split levels and bungalows) some of which have additions, townhouses, and those tiny brick duplexes. In the most cases its the same exact floor plan across the county. THe only difference is there are way more new builds and nice townhouses in North Arlington and way more duplexes in South Arlington. From what I've seen in my years of house hunting the NA houses usually have nicer, bigger additions as well. The average NA house is much bigger and nicer with a larger lot than most SA houses.

The only difference is price. It seems like you all are mad at the 10 people who paid 1.2 for a SA new build instead of paying 1.2 for a small NA expanded colonial. But the majority of SA people spent half that for a small crappy house south of 50 cause they couldn't afford to spend an extra 100K for the same exact small crappy house north of 50.


Then do what we did when we couldn’t buy in NA. We bought in FFX. houses are cheaper, schools are good. We prioritized schools over our comfortable commutes.

Move out of Arlington MC Poors! If you aren't super rich or poor enough to be grateful we don't want you here.

That’s how it is in most urban places.

And let’s get real. The true MC is not in SA — houses are still $800k. The MC left a long time ago.