Anonymous wrote:10:16,
your post makes me want to avoid all white ATS parents forever in case I come across you and your racism.

Do you really think your white kids pull up the brown kids scores? No. They VPI parents and others who get their kids into ATS jumped through the same hoops you did. Furthermore, they are likely over educated for the jobs they have here if they are migrants.

I now feel a little ill.

Speaking as a white person who bought a house in south Arlington, I'm going to throw up if one more white person in north Arlington tells me that I did so because I wanted a nicer house than I could afford in north Arlington. I can't believe people who have paid a real estate premium of hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure that they are districted for a neighborhood school that draws exclusively from an extremely affluent demographic have the nerve to criticize anyone else.

10:16,
your post makes me want to avoid all white ATS parents forever in case I come across you and your racism.

Do you really think your white kids pull up the brown kids scores? No. They VPI parents and others who get their kids into ATS jumped through the same hoops you did. Furthermore, they are likely over educated for the jobs they have here if they are migrants.

I now feel a little ill.

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a like button!

I liked that one too and it wasn't even me who wrote it. I was trying to express that thought but just didn't get it right.

It's not peer group per se, it's the entire thing that poor kids will benifit from.

I grew up very poor in an affluent school. Some parts of it suck but now I am highly educated and have a SFH in ARL. I appreciate all aspects of the debate but really like bringing logic to a system that's outdated.

As a non-affluent North Arlington parent with a kid at ATS, the actual underprivileged kids in South Arlington already do get better odds in the lottery - through the VPI preschool program. (which will have 2 preschool classes next year – 32 kids, about a third of the class.)

But if you completely fill ATS with underprivileged kids, you would create a Title I school that would then have to serve fewer kids because Title I schools have smaller class sizes. So you'd shrink the population actually served by 20%.

You'd also end up turning ATS into an average school; we have enough of those. ATS's test scores are so high because the middle class white kids (from both S and N Arl) whose parents are very active and involved are pulling the scores up. If the bulk of kids were poor and/or ESL, you would see scores more similar to those of Barcroft, Randolph or Carlin Springs, not Jamestown, Discovery or Nottingham.

You'd also decimate the PTA and the activities that make it a close-knit community; I see the same parents volunteering at every event and they are not the poor parents or the ESL parents.

The parents who call for changes to ATS are not the parents of underprivileged kids; they're the white middle class folks who wanted a better house than they could afford in a good North Arlington school district. They either didn't do their research or they shrugged off demographics to which others paid attention. If you moved into the county 4 years ago when you had a kid and started thinking about schools, nothing has changed dramatically since then. I bought in 2011 and looked at some seriously awesome houses in various South Arlington neighborhoods. But when I saw that a school was 70% Hispanic and 60% FARMS, I assumed those numbers would not decrease. Those houses were more affordable because the schools were considered lesser. So instead I bought a lesser house in a better school district, assuming I would use our home ES. By sheer random luck, I got one of 22 spots for new non-VPI families in a year when 289 families applied. Our home school was fine, but I loved ATS when I visited. I loved what it stood for. I also loved that it had more diversity than our home school. I think it’s sour grapes when families who have a similar or higher HHI than mine gripe about North Arlington families in ATS.

Perhaps a similar program could be started in South Arlington that gives preference to South Arlington families. I doubt North Arlington parents would protest. Or passionate parents willing to put in the time could make a concerted effort to replicate the success of the program in an existing South Arlington school. More affordable housing in the Northern parts of the county will have an effect, too. Moving the program to Madison, at the very northern edge of the county, would only punish the South Arlington kids and their parents by making them cross the entire county; at least the current location is a bit more central, and fairly well served by buses.)

The demographics of ATS don’t include a lot of AA kids because the county doesn’t have a lot of AA kids. Only 9.3% of ES students in Arlington are AA; ATS has 7.5% AA population. (15% hispanic, 14% asian.) AA families are less likely to settle in the county than in other parts of the area, probably because they’d have to spend a buttload on a house for their kid not to have many AA friends.

Sorry this was long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting ATS at Reed only delays the problem b/c won't help when the area around Reed needs a school YET AGAIN b/c Discovery did nothing to help it and McKinley, Tuckahoe & Glebe will still have trailer parks.

But the current ATS location will pull current kids from McKinley and Glebe - a lot of them - alleviating the stress at McKinley and Glebe. Then some Tuckahoe kids would get moved to McKinley since it will be freed up.

moving ATS to Reed to make ATS a neighborhood school is silly. Those schools are just not that far apart. A neighborhood school at Reed would pull kids out of Tuckahoe and McKinley primarily. A neighborhood school at ATS would pull kids out of Ashlawn and McKinley primarily. In 2020 Ashlawn is expected to be short about 100 seats and Tuckahoe short 50- http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/11/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf

All in all not enough of a difference to justify the difficulty of moving a school.
I can see arguments on both sides of making Reed neighborhood and making it Choice. (And I say this as someone who would almost certainly be in the Reed district if it was a neighborhood school.)

I understand your logic but it is built on a capacity assessment that is likely faulty. Take Ashlawn for example. Do you see the massive development around Ashlawn of high-density housing that is in development right now? Yes. Does this model take that development into consideration? I doubt it.

Anonymous wrote:


I wrote the post about the different reasons a south Arlington child would benefit from being placed at ATS. I don't know about deep shame, but they should at least take a moment to recognize that their privledged child has taken the place of child who has little resources and options. Even if all Arlington schools are good, we know there is a difference. That's why there is such extreme over crowding in certain zipcodes. Your child will not suffer from being taught in a trailer, or switching elementary school buildings at some point. A disadvantaged child will suffer from not being exposed to a strong peer group. Plenty of research supports that. Certainly, not all of ATS can or should be poor. It needs a blend, but if an affluent parent is considering the program, it should really be about what their family could bring to that program, not the other way around.

Does this include affluent parents in south Arlington?

Someone needs to provide the "strong peer group." And that strong peer group is a necessary part of the equation, so who is taking what from whom?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, setting aside the class wars...call me crazy but honestly it doesn't sound to me like they are talking about creating a new choice program. The CIP identifies the most pressing elementary need in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. The identified solution is a 725 seat school at Reed.

Of course a county wide lottery school like ATS would draw some kids from that area, but not a ton. However, moving one of the existing choice programs, and then using that building as a (possibly expanded) neighborhood school? That would respond to the problem identified in the CIP.

But would it really solve the problem? Take ASF-- it isn't a county-wide "choice" school like ATS. It is really a neighborhood school that is bundled into a team with Key, Jamestown, and Taylor. So moving the ASF program to Reed doesn't solve the overcrowding issue in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor unless most of the current ASF kids move with the school to Westover-- and there is no indication that any of them want to do that. You could end up with the same overcrowded school building in Clarendon, just with a different program. On ArlNow, people are advocating to use the Buck site on Quincy St. instead for a new Ballston elementary school near W-L, which would make more sense as a location if you are targeting the Rosslyn-Ballston area. And by 2020/21, both Ashlawn and Nottingham are projected to be over-enrolled by over 100 students each-- and then you could still put Reed back on the table as a neighborhood elementary school and a potential solution to the west end overcrowding. Buck would be a more expensive investment up front, but realistically we're going to end up spending the money anyway in the next decade, so why not really adopt a 10 year plan? From what I understand, the issue is that the County Board has to okay the use of the Buck site as a school, which it hasn't done yet-- similar to the hang-ups over the VHC site as a potential new high school.

I think what she is saying is - move ATS to Reed school, convert ATS back to a neighborhood school (with an addition). ATS' current location is located in the middle of the overcrowding.
My opinion is that the county is not saying Reed would be a new choice school, but rather moving an existing one there.

I'm the first poster- I live near Reed, I most definitely am not advocating for moving ATS there. My child will essentially be walking through the neighborhood almost to Reed so that they can ride the bus to a different school. But moving one of the existing choice programs seems more likely to me for some reason, particularly given the short time frame. I agree with you about ASFS to some extent- in effect, it has become a neighborhood school. I don't know as much about where Key is drawing from. ATS obviously draws from everywhere so that's the most obvious candidate. I don't disagree with you about the Buck site, although I'm just not sure how realistic it is at this point.

My point really was just that there seems to be a disconnect between the needs identified in the CIP, and the solution of a NEW all lottery choice school at Reed. If we're building at Reed to relieve overcrowding in Rosslyn-Ballston, a new lottery program doesn't really directly address that. If we're building at Reed in order to move APS away from neighborhood schools and toward a busing model, I wish APS would be transparent about that. I think one reason the neighbors are fired up is because it seems- like last year - that APS is using Reed to free up space for a neighborhood school elsewhere in the county, even though the schools kids in Westover attend remain very overcrowded, and are predicted to remain so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immersion works better when it's located near native speakers. I don't think that's the case for the Reed site. You would be bussing in 50% of the school from south Arlington- which has overcrowding issues as well, but doesn't help the north side much.

I agree- however, there is a pretty substantial hispanic population in Westover in all of the Westover garden apartments. There are several dedicated affordable housing units there right now as well.

Huh- well maybe then you're into something!

Anonymous wrote:Immersion works better when it's located near native speakers. I don't think that's the case for the Reed site. You would be bussing in 50% of the school from south Arlington- which has overcrowding issues as well, but doesn't help the north side much.

I agree- however, there is a pretty substantial hispanic population in Westover in all of the Westover garden apartments. There are several dedicated affordable housing units there right now as well.

Immersion works better when it's located near native speakers. I don't think that's the case for the Reed site. You would be bussing in 50% of the school from south Arlington- which has overcrowding issues as well, but doesn't help the north side much.

I actually think putting a 3rd immersion school at the Reed site would make a lot of sense.
Right now both Key and Claremont are forecast to be in the top 10 overcrowded schools in 2020. This would relieve some of the pressure on these schools, and also give an immersion option for people who are effectively cut out of immersion by not living in one of the guaranteed zones.
Choice schools are also somewhat more flexible- they can more easily redo admissions criteria to reduce overcrowding rather than redo boundaries.

On a further note that moving ATS to the Reed site is a spectacular stupid idea- ATS capacity is 465. They need 700 seats, and want a new 700 seat school. I don't think they can make the ATS site anywhere close to a 700 seat school.

I wish there was a like button!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the parents patting themselves on the back for sending their kids to "diverse" ATS should spend some time looking at the actual ATS demographics. The black and hispanic numbers look remarkably like nearby Ashlawn and Glebe. In other words, while it may be more diverse than Discovery, it is not a particularly diverse school compared to most of the other Arlington elementary schools (including others in North Arlington). And in fact, if you look at the most recent transfer report posted on the APS website, it looks like Glebe and Ashlawn transfers alone make up about 20% of the ATS student body.

Which parents were "patting themselves on the back?" Someone said they didn't understand why parents in top school zones would choose ATS and a PP gave a bunch of reasons. You may not like or agree with the answer but you shouldn't mis characterize it.

I doubt there's any other reason that there was a tiny chance of "winning the lottery" and now they get to feel special. I still think all of those parents in great school districts should feel deep shame for taking those spots from others who are not.

I wrote the post about the different reasons a south Arlington child would benefit from being placed at ATS. I don't know about deep shame, but they should at least take a moment to recognize that their privledged child has taken the place of child who has little resources and options. Even if all Arlington schools are good, we know there is a difference. That's why there is such extreme over crowding in certain zipcodes. Your child will not suffer from being taught in a trailer, or switching elementary school buildings at some point. A disadvantaged child will suffer from not being exposed to a strong peer group. Plenty of research supports that. Certainly, not all of ATS can or should be poor. It needs a blend, but if an affluent parent is considering the program, it should really be about what their family could bring to that program, not the other way around.

I agree that it makes a lot of sense to turn the ATS building back into a neighborhood elementary school. Look at the County's 2020/21 enrollment numbers--- Ashlawn is still projected to be over-capacity by 139 kids, even with the addition that they put on two years ago. And there were two planning units from Ashlawn that were supposed to move to McKinley, but they ended up keeping them at Ashlawn because McKinley was also already over-capacity (again, even with the addition). You could probably accomplish something similar by bringing Westover on-line as a neighborhood school, although it would take more dramatic boundary changes to impact the projected overcrowding at ASF, Key, and Long Branch. However, I still think the ATS program has dubious educational value-- everyone holds it up like it is helping all these South Arlington kids, but if you look at the transfer enrollment numbers on the APS website, it predominantly draws from N. Arlington schools which suggests that most S. Arlington families aren't even applying for it. They should take the money earmarked for the Reed renovation and use it to move ATS to South Arlington if that is the population that will most benefit from the educational program. You can still let the N. Arlington families apply into the school if they want choice, although I suspect most from 22207 would not follow the program to S. Arlington. And yes, I get that these families have the right to apply under the current system-- but I am saying that the current system needs to change, and I do plan on expressing that to the School Board as do many of my neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting ATS at Reed only delays the problem b/c won't help when the area around Reed needs a school YET AGAIN b/c Discovery did nothing to help it and McKinley, Tuckahoe & Glebe will still have trailer parks.

But the current ATS location will pull current kids from McKinley and Glebe - a lot of them - alleviating the stress at McKinley and Glebe. Then some Tuckahoe kids would get moved to McKinley since it will be freed up.

Not how it works. If it was not a true lottery, then maybe but it is so that is not it works.

Can you imagine if they moved ATS, but then gave neigborhood preference to Westover? People all over Arl would lose their minds. It's as ridiculous as Key not having a real neighborhood school.