Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Right, but there is a way to not take the Barcroft Apartments or Columbia Hills, or the high rises along the Pike with high housing voucher utilization. It may be a better strategy to balance demographics than trying to move South Fairlington, since the SB already rejected that idea. Ultimately, some Abingdon PUs have to move. I’d prefer they move ones that don’t negatively affect Drew, and that the SB will support.

I just told you, that plan mostly avoided those apartments. People underestimate the poverty there and in green valley. Lots of people living free and clear in homes where grandma paid off the mortgage 30 years ago.

Here’s another data point for you. PU 36030 is the only Columbia Forest Unit without a large apartment complex. It’s mostly SFH and geographically the largest PU in the neighborhood. It also has only 50 students, half which opt out of abindgon. And 15 of the 50 are FRL (30 percent), and it’s probably not the FRL kids opting out so you can be fairly sure that the percentage FRL from that unit is more like 50 percent. And that’s the least impoverished CF PU. Now you see the problem. Even the least poor unit in CF would make things worse at drew, and moving it probably wouldn’t help reduce overcrowding much at Abington anyway. You can find these tables of PU data on the APS website.

It’s going to be hard to make contiguous boundaries for drew/abingdon while trying to balance demographics. I 100% understand why they made drew a neighborhood school based on the history but 2 more demographically balances schools could be created if Claremont was moved to drew and Claremont took Claremont and Columbia forest and abingdon took fairlington and green valley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Right, but there is a way to not take the Barcroft Apartments or Columbia Hills, or the high rises along the Pike with high housing voucher utilization. It may be a better strategy to balance demographics than trying to move South Fairlington, since the SB already rejected that idea. Ultimately, some Abingdon PUs have to move. I’d prefer they move ones that don’t negatively affect Drew, and that the SB will support.

I just told you, that plan mostly avoided those apartments. People underestimate the poverty there and in green valley. Lots of people living free and clear in homes where grandma paid off the mortgage 30 years ago.

Here’s another data point for you. PU 36030 is the only Columbia Forest Unit without a large apartment complex. It’s mostly SFH and geographically the largest PU in the neighborhood. It also has only 50 students, half which opt out of abindgon. And 15 of the 50 are FRL (30 percent), and it’s probably not the FRL kids opting out so you can be fairly sure that the percentage FRL from that unit is more like 50 percent. And that’s the least impoverished CF PU. Now you see the problem. Even the least poor unit in CF would make things worse at drew, and moving it probably wouldn’t help reduce overcrowding much at Abington anyway. You can find these tables of PU data on the APS website.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are finally addressing the false claim that options schools help poorer neighborhoods. In areas with a lot of families qualifying for FRL, it's not the more needy families applying to ATS, it's the ones with more means. Thank you, LS, for saying that publicly.

I agree and disagree with that. I don’t think the answer to SA’s schools is to keep putting option schools there to entice the Middle and UMC. That doesn’t solve anything and creates more problems.

On the other hand, take away even the possibility of lucking into an option school, middle class families would be less likely to buy and rent in those more vulnerable neighborhoods, and the cycle of poverty and segregation continues.

Dude, it’s over. SA is never going to gentrify. The cycle of poverty is permanent, and the county leadership is actively supporting it by building more AH. Every SA school except fleet and Oakridge is poorer than it was in the 1990s. And with amazons money, it’ll get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are finally addressing the false claim that options schools help poorer neighborhoods. In areas with a lot of families qualifying for FRL, it's not the more needy families applying to ATS, it's the ones with more means. Thank you, LS, for saying that publicly.

I agree and disagree with that. I don’t think the answer to SA’s schools is to keep putting option schools there to entice the Middle and UMC. That doesn’t solve anything and creates more problems.

On the other hand, take away even the possibility of lucking into an option school, middle class families would be less likely to buy and rent in those more vulnerable neighborhoods, and the cycle of poverty and segregation continues.

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are finally addressing the false claim that options schools help poorer neighborhoods. In areas with a lot of families qualifying for FRL, it's not the more needy families applying to ATS, it's the ones with more means. Thank you, LS, for saying that publicly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So after 73 pages...it still seems like it’s a toss up as to whether the move happens.

I’m imagining Jim Carrey in “Dumb and Dumber” saying “so you’re saying there’s a chance!”

Got the votes? We’ll see.

At least four, probably five. Three us all it takes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So after 73 pages...it still seems like it’s a toss up as to whether the move happens.

I’m imagining Jim Carrey in “Dumb and Dumber” saying “so you’re saying there’s a chance!”

Got the votes? We’ll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are finally addressing the false claim that options schools help poorer neighborhoods. In areas with a lot of families qualifying for FRL, it's not the more needy families applying to ATS, it's the ones with more means. Thank you, LS, for saying that publicly.

I agree and disagree with that. I don’t think the answer to SA’s schools is to keep putting option schools there to entice the Middle and UMC. That doesn’t solve anything and creates more problems.

On the other hand, take away even the possibility of lucking into an option school, middle class families would be less likely to buy and rent in those more vulnerable neighborhoods, and the cycle of poverty and segregation continues.

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad they are finally addressing the false claim that options schools help poorer neighborhoods. In areas with a lot of families qualifying for FRL, it's not the more needy families applying to ATS, it's the ones with more means. Thank you, LS, for saying that publicly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB should hear other schools say

We support options schools, but they should not take priority over neighborhood schools, especially when data shows a neighborhood school was needed where Key sits when the revised the options policy, today and in the future.

Let’s not kid ourselves about diversity at option schools being the magic solution to demographics. While they look balanced, the create the imbalance at neighborhood schools, like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, Drew, Randolph (more?). If the can’t move then maybe they should cease to exist.

If more McKinley students can walk to Reed then to can walk to McKinley, common sense demands Reed is a shifted McKinley.

Option schools do not create the imbalance at the neighborhood schools you mention above. They are “imbalanced” because there’s just that many impoverished kids live in those zones. Take away option schools, those schools would still have massively high FRL. Poor people exist. Sorry if that inconveniences anyone.

It’s like saying option schools are to blame for the wealthiest North Arlington schools having practically no FRL rate.

Opting out clearly increases FARMS, may not fix, but don’t tell us they help. Check out the data yourself.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-CORRECTED-Data-Table-6-and-6-1-Nov.-30-2018-1.pdf

APS needs to provide the same info for next round for all schools. I’m ok supporting immersion. Still don’t understand ATS and shocked they weren’t mum, moving means they continue. IPP did find a place for shirts tucked in. They dodged a bullet.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-CORRECTED-Data-Table-6-and-6-1-Nov.-30-2018-1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So after 73 pages...it still seems like it’s a toss up as to whether the move happens.

I’m imagining Jim Carrey in “Dumb and Dumber” saying “so you’re saying there’s a chance!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB should hear other schools say

We support options schools, but they should not take priority over neighborhood schools, especially when data shows a neighborhood school was needed where Key sits when the revised the options policy, today and in the future.

Let’s not kid ourselves about diversity at option schools being the magic solution to demographics. While they look balanced, the create the imbalance at neighborhood schools, like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, Drew, Randolph (more?). If the can’t move then maybe they should cease to exist.

If more McKinley students can walk to Reed then to can walk to McKinley, common sense demands Reed is a shifted McKinley.

Option schools do not create the imbalance at the neighborhood schools you mention above. They are “imbalanced” because there’s just that many impoverished kids live in those zones. Take away option schools, those schools would still have massively high FRL. Poor people exist. Sorry if that inconveniences anyone.


It’s like saying option schools are to blame for the wealthiest North Arlington schools having practically no FRL rate.

Opting out clearly increases FARMS, may not fix, but don’t tell us they help. Check out the data yourself.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-CORRECTED-Data-Table-6-and-6-1-Nov.-30-2018-1.pdf

APS needs to provide the same info for next round for all schools. I’m ok supporting immersion. Still don’t understand ATS and shocked they weren’t mum, moving means they continue. IPP did find a place for shirts tucked in. They dodged a bullet.

correction “IPP didn’t”
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-CORRECTED-Data-Table-6-and-6-1-Nov.-30-2018-1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB should hear other schools say

We support options schools, but they should not take priority over neighborhood schools, especially when data shows a neighborhood school was needed where Key sits when the revised the options policy, today and in the future.

Let’s not kid ourselves about diversity at option schools being the magic solution to demographics. While they look balanced, the create the imbalance at neighborhood schools, like Carlin Springs, Barcroft, Drew, Randolph (more?). If the can’t move then maybe they should cease to exist.

If more McKinley students can walk to Reed then to can walk to McKinley, common sense demands Reed is a shifted McKinley.

Option schools do not create the imbalance at the neighborhood schools you mention above. They are “imbalanced” because there’s just that many impoverished kids live in those zones. Take away option schools, those schools would still have massively high FRL. Poor people exist. Sorry if that inconveniences anyone.

It’s like saying option schools are to blame for the wealthiest North Arlington schools having practically no FRL rate.

Anonymous wrote:So after 73 pages...it still seems like it’s a toss up as to whether the move happens.