This is not even remotely relevant to this discussion. But go you, I guess. |
Agreed. I was the PP who said I don't understand why people feel the need to demonize those based simply on which side of 50 they live (07/21/2018 14:02). I think we are all trying to raise our children the best we can, North or South. I think you may be reading your own biases into what I'm saying. I'm not trying to stereotype or malign anyone. It's more, some people on these threads claim that those of us in SA are either poor, or don't value education, (the implication being, otherwise, why else would we live here?). The intention of my post was to say some of us choose to be here, for a variety of reasons. It's not that other values aren't reflected or important to parents in NA; of course they are. By virtue of where we live though, my children see a wide range of different kinds of people and different life situations. That gives me a lot of opportunities to teach and reinforce some of the values important to me, because the prompts for these discussions come up in their daily life. To bring it back to schools though, just as my kids benefit from living here, I hope that my kids are also contributing to the benefit of their classmates. Not to get too much into my background, but books taught me to dream; it was the few middle class kids (and their parents) in my early life who showed me my dreams could become a reality. It's why schools like Randolph and Carlin Springs make me sad. It's not that there aren't great teachers, loving parents, and wonderful students in those schools. There absolutely ARE. But some of the educational benefits are lost when the schools are so very segregated. |
Why do you think it makes you different from N.A. parents that you value things like kindness, hard work, empathy, family, community, etc.? It seems like you are stereotyping N.A. parents with the implication that all they care about is having the best schools at the expense of all of those other things. There’s been plentry of demonization on both sides of 50 in these discussions, and I hope you can appreciate that the stereotypes of N.A. families are just as inappropriate as the stereotypes of S.A. families. |
| I find it so interesting how in one breath people will rant about how toxic North Arlington families are, and then in the next breath will demand all of the schools be integrated across 50 to give more SES balance and improve South Arlington elementaries. Which is it, are they the devil incarnate or the only hope for saving South Arlington schools? If they’re so awful, why would you want your kids mixing with theirs? |
Option C: Neither. You're talking to multiple people and the issue isn't as either-or as you're portraying it. But you already knew that, so let's stop with the straw-man arguments. |
So which is it for you? |
Wow, did the point of my post go past you. The social agreement is with the poor families living in concentrated poverty in south Arlington and Buckingham. |
|
We could have bought in North Arlington, but every house we looked at needed more than we could have dealt with at the time. We had lived in South Arlington before and were coming back from living overseas. We just wanted to go home, so we bought there.
I really like my neighborhood and it's only gotten better in terms of social things. We checked out the school ratings on VA DoE and the school we were zoned to was all right. Not great, but all right, with an upward trajectory over the previous 5 years. Then the principal changed and a new group of students with high needs came in. I refer to Barcroft and Arlington Mill. I think the school will get better again. What the county needs to do, like so many people have said, is to build AH with a plan that's better than "cram it on the Pike, because there were poor people there before." Mixed income would be much better in terms of lifting people up, but I know that the resources would not all be in the same place. *sigh* |
I agree, but you are talking 80 years from now. It won’t help today. The county board dug us into this mess and celebrated all of their choices along the way. Now we have board members saying things like, “ let’s keep old people in their homes and excuse them from all taxes. It’s better to keep them, than see a young family with school aged kids move in.” - paraphrase! |
|
Barcroft resident here. Ditto PP. I moved in just as the new principal was leaving and new one came in. New one made a bad impression from the start and publicly expressed no idea how to accommodate the unexpected flood of kids from Arlington Mill that had been announced. We went choice because of that (while choice was still an option). I chose Barcroft for some of the same reasons you did, it was on an upward trajectory. Don't know if that will continue, particularly with Gillian Place - a CAF sold to the community as senior housing that is now going to be many, many, families.
Barrett too is about to get another influx too - the Red Cross site will be affordable family housing. |
Too true. 1) I do worry we cannot go choice, but then I hope that means that more UMC families will have to go to Barcroft. I assume that most of those families can move or afford private, while we can't. 2) Has it been officially announced that Gilliam Place will be mostly families? The original plan was for 2/3 seniors, but no of us believed that. |
We are a ethnically mixed family who bought in SA. I don't buy the narrative that all the kids on the other side of Route 50 are skiing in Aspen or spending summers at their family's beach house. We know too many families who are just like us: 2 working parents trying to make do. We could have afforded to buy in some - not all, but some - neighborhoods in NA. We chose SA because we did want a bit more racial diversity, i.e. more kids that looked like ours in the classroom. But that doesn't mean the kids in NA are racist, or wouldn't be welcoming. |
Where are you getting the idea that annual ski vacations and trust funds are the norm in North Arlington? Talk about wildly inaccurate stereotypes. |
You only support my argument that it isn't " you get what you pay for." People have paid a lot north and south; and people have paid less north and south. But people in north and south are not receiving the same. |
You assume correctly. |