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

Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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. [b]If south Arlington wants to prove they care about integration, they are going to have to walk the walk. [/b]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics