Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| This all seems for naught. APS isn’t going to make all but Oakridge and Henry 50% or more FARl. I doubt that will realistically happen. Staff and the Board understand that it’s easier to have two high FARL schools than 5 schools. There just aren’t enough MC and UMC in S Arlington to fix the problems housing policy has created. There is no way to break up Randolph. You can zone to Drew but you can’t force attendance. To balance demographics you need the entire county and busing. Period. |
Anonymous
It's cute that you really think this is what it is. If you really believe this lie that if suddenly all the poor kids start testing well and there aren't rumors of behavior problems, UMC parents will send their kids to a school that is over 80% poor and majority minority, I have a bridge to sell you. It's what it's always been. It's gross, it's not fair, but that's exactly what it is. And before you yell at me, I have my kids in a different majority minority Title 1 school. But they aren't going to allow wide-scale transfers, so who will attend? Only those in the boundary. If you don't even draw any UMC neighborhoods into the boundary, how can families even opt to go there? They need to fix the boundary. Right now it's gerrymandered to avoid the few UMC neighborhoods adjacent to Nauck. |
Anonymous
They should aim to make them all just barely Title 1. Then they'd get all that Title 1 money, plus they'd have a better spread of PTA supplementary funds. It's actually a smarter fiscal strategy because they'd get more Federal money, plus they can rely on having parents to make up the differences. |
Anonymous
You're no more worldly than me, so drop the condescending tone. You're basically saying that results won't trump garden variety racism? Then why bother with this thread or arguing for boundaries that include UMC neighborhoods? Those "racists" will just opt out. Douglas park is full of 600-800k homes. Very few kids living in those houses go to Randolph. AS I SAID, boundaries are important but they don't matter if the school doesn't have a good rep. |
Anonymous
| I don't know what you guys are arguing about above, but I'm a PP on this thread and a Nauck resident. Some of us have kids at Drew already and others are ready to send our kids there. 80%+ low income with a b.s. boundary stretching all the way to the west Pike is going to scare UMC parents, no doubt. But 60% with a great new principal and a new curriculum is a different story. Give it a chance to succeed. There's a reason many of us chose to live where we did, and it's not because we can't afford North Arlington. |
Anonymous
+1 +1 +1 |
Anonymous
Bursting bubble in 3..2..1... 60% isn’t going to get you there. Please take a look at Barcroft. And don’t start with a bunch of BS about the year round calendar. That’s just the excuse UMC liberals use. If they change the Calendar, they’ll just not go and not have an excuse ( see: Douglas Park) Drew will have to be UNDER 55%. I think low 50’s and you’ll have a shot, but if 6 out of 10 kids are getting free lunch? No. You will not get a ground swell. You guys need to get shirts printed #NOAPSOVER50 No Schools Over Fifty Arlington can and should do better. |
Anonymous
As a goal, that is literally impossible without county-wide busing. I appreciate the snappiness of your slogan, but it's not realistic. All we're asking for is a proposal that works within APS's own criteria and doesn't have Drew come out the loser on literally every metric, seemingly in order to benefit other schools. Then we'll see if Drew can make it work at 60 with a great principal, or not. |
Anonymous
Of all the postings on any DCUM thread, I agree with this more than anything. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and I love the the "no schools over 50" campaign. I also agree with a PP about the need to SELL the new Drew, hype it up, bring in highly-valued staff from all of our other schools and get the community excited. And I don't mean the Nauck community excited and the PUs being sent there a little less distressed about going. I mean, get the entire south arlington community excited about and FOR Drew so that people who aren't even in contention for going wished they were. Now, that's most likely not even possible; but these numbers are the first step to generating optimism and buy-in. The Henry and Oakridge PUs are just going to be angry, upset, bitter, whatever because they don't want to leave their respective highly-valued schools with high achievement and good reputation and active community among neighbors and friends. But so what if the current families move or choice out somehow? Others will ultimately take their place as their kids age out or as they move out of the boundary. The transition isn't going to be immediate - it will take time; but it will only happen if APS does it right. |
Anonymous
You people aren't getting that THIS is what is "literally impossible." You can't make lemonade out of lemons without sugar. It is not possible to adhere to the 6 boundary principles and get what you're asking for. It doesn't require countywide busing in the sense you're suggesting. We already HAVE countywide busing - we're busing kids from all parts of the County to their neighborhood schools and we're busing kids from all over to option programs. But it does require re-establishing boundaries for the entire system at once and not in geogrpaphic pieces. "No schools over 50" does not equal "ALL schools 50." We just need to (a) change the boundary principles and/or (b) give the demographic principle greater weight than other principles like contiguity and stability that have less impact on academic outcomes; and (c) get enough schools in the mix to be able to balance the poverty and ELL concentrations across more schools without making them such a minority that they feel isolated within their school and also so that MCnon-minority english speaking kids don't feel isolated either, and NOBODY is in a school with different or lower expectations for its students - which IS happening now. |
Anonymous
I agree with the PP that you need 55 or below. Hoffman Boston has shed its past poor reputation; but its FRL has been below that 60 mark. it has also been a very small student body, which will now be doubled with families from Oakridge and will remain well below 60%. H-B doesn't instill the same level of dread as Drew does. Taking H-B's principal isn't enough -- she needs to start showing her stuff and getting out beyond the current school community, and advocate the Board for a reasonable SED mix. |
Anonymous
Yes, but keep in mind the backlash about "no schools over fifty" is as likely to come from AH advocates as it is from residents in attendance zones under 50 percent. 50 percent is the farms rate at Wakefield and about half of SA elementary students are disadvantaged. It's a good slogan but AH activist know quite well that it implies a cap on the disadvantaged student population, which, were it not for their efforts, would be in rapid decline, as opposed to holding steady and certainly growing in certain areas. The last thing you want is the scared of poor people NA parents allying with their buddies in the AH developer business. Those groups have to be courted, not antagonized. They run this town. |
Anonymous
No its not impossible. The 'diversity' map just including south arlington had school ranging from 35-64 with a 50 percent among the 8 schools. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Single-Consideration-Maps-Packet.pdf But if we are serious about this- we need to attack the problem now. We cannot hold walkability up as the number one value. As soon as you do that- Randolph is always at 80%. We absolutely cannot hold 'fake walkability' up as a value whatsoever (e.g. yes my kids are eligible for bus service, but maybe one day we will walk- I'm looking at you Fairlington South of 395.) |
Anonymous
How are Carlyn Spings stats. Are they still scoring in the upper 80s in math? |
Anonymous
Uh no. Carlin Springs scored below state average last year. |