Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the comment was viewed as offensive because it used FARMS as a noun.

Oh dear god. He actually said it was racist because of assumptions I made about FARMS kids which are actually just data, and are directly spoken of by the PTA in a Post article, but whatever. Live in whatever world pleases you.

and you assume I"m a "he". Is that because I have a doctoral degree or run a company?

Again, back to facts. nationally, poverty is a white issue. Your racist assumptions are false and I call you out for what you are. Yes, I"m a outlier...and I want the outliers in ARL to thrive. I want you to leave.

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the comment was viewed as offensive because it used FARMS as a noun.

Oh dear god. He actually said it was racist because of assumptions I made about FARMS kids which are actually just data, and are directly spoken of by the PTA in a Post article, but whatever. Live in whatever world pleases you.

I suspect the comment was viewed as offensive because it used FARMS as a noun.

Anonymous wrote:Holly Crap PP:

Watch the racism. I was a FARMS, speak (only) English, have a doctoral degree, run a company, AND have time to debate APS school policy.

And FARMS is a FEDERAL program, not state, not local. did you even go to college? Did you sleep through high school civics class?

Nation wide, there are far more white people on the dole than non english speakers of any color. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your blatant racism.

For example

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-district-removes-a-popular-principal-drawing-protests-from-parents/2016/08/06/a6b67570-5a7a-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?utm_term=.a92b9a2f7bb9

"Randolph — which has a sizable population of English­-language learners and students living in poverty"

“We firmly believe that the leadership of an elementary school should be judged on a wide range of factors, with student achievement being a critical, but not sole, element,” they wrote in the letter.

They pointed out that Randolph’s demographics differ significantly from the rest of the county: 74 percent of children qualified for free- and reduced-price meals, and nearly 80 percent of kindergartners through fifth-graders were considered “limited English proficient” last school year, according to state data.

Is the PTA racist for pointing out that nearly 80% of the students are "limited English proficient" at Randolph?

Anonymous wrote:Holly Crap PP:

Watch the racism. I was a FARMS, speak (only) English, have a doctoral degree, run a company, AND have time to debate APS school policy.

And FARMS is a FEDERAL program, not state, not local. did you even go to college? Did you sleep through high school civics class?

Nation wide, there are far more white people on the dole than non english speakers of any color. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your blatant racism.

Racism? I don't think I mentioned race, skin color, or anything at all like that. Race actually has absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a socioeconomic problem.

You can choose to ignore facts if you think that discussing statistics is racist, but that doesn't actually help solve any problems. The demographics of our country, and Arlington, are easily analyzed, and it's patently obvious that on average. FARMS kids are:

1) lower income (by definition)
2) more likely to be from households that don't speak English as a first language
3) are more likely to have parents who must work longer hours, in lower paying jobs

This isn't about being racist, it's about understanding how socioeconomic realities affect a school. It's foolish to pretend any of this is not true, and that these factors don't mean that schools with high concentrations of FARMS kids don't face challenges that schools without them do not, and that it won't affect the education of ALL the students assuming the same resources per child at all schools.

So I'm glad that you are an English speaking FARMS kid who did great. I am sure there are also non-FARMS kids who come from non-primarily-English speaking households. You are a single data point. You don't represent the average FARMS kid.

Holly Crap PP:

Watch the racism. I was a FARMS, speak (only) English, have a doctoral degree, run a company, AND have time to debate APS school policy.

And FARMS is a FEDERAL program, not state, not local. did you even go to college? Did you sleep through high school civics class?

Nation wide, there are far more white people on the dole than non english speakers of any color. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your blatant racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

First of all, SA schools are good too. The only reason people think NA schools are better is because there is fewer FARMS. But in terms of teacher quality and resources, there is no difference. Second, only a few SA families will be able to move, it is expensive and there is a shortage of housing supply. So what will happen if they eliminate option schools is that all of the middle income SA families will start attending the neighborhood schools and the school's average test scores will improve. It's actually good for everyone.

FARMs require more resources. They don't speak English, they are more likely to have behavior problems, they are less likely to have parents actively engaged in their education.

That leaves fewer resources for everyone else. That's the problem.

Sorry, I will disagree with you on resources. I send my kid to one of the maligned title I schools and we do not have nearly the resources my friends' kids have in their wealthy north arlington schools. The school grounds are not as well maintained. Fewer after school activities. Most of the parents are from a different culture, and while they are nice, they are not into play dates for their kids. We have kids at school who lack warm clothes and live a very different lifestyle from an UMC kid. There are huge cultural and language barriers that pervade everything at the school despite the excellent teachers and extra Title I money. My kid's experience is very different from many other schools and different from our former school.

You ask, why do I send my kid there? Because his dad left us and took everything and all I could afford is an apartment on the Pike. As soon as we can, as I save money with a new job in this area, we are out of this school. His elementary school experience is not the same as other schools, not by a long shot.

Anonymous wrote:PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

First of all, SA schools are good too. The only reason people think NA schools are better is because there is fewer FARMS. But in terms of teacher quality and resources, there is no difference. Second, only a few SA families will be able to move, it is expensive and there is a shortage of housing supply. So what will happen if they eliminate option schools is that all of the middle income SA families will start attending the neighborhood schools and the school's average test scores will improve. It's actually good for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

Well, that could solve the affordable housing shortage in Arlington.

No, it won't. Prices may flatline, but they won't crater. And that's less tax revenue for the county, and less money for all the kids who will be left behind in segregated schools that don't have PTAs that can make up the difference.

Anonymous wrote:PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

Well, that could solve the affordable housing shortage in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

Removing option schools is also a great way to eliminate the need for a fourth high school. It'll depress property values, discourage middle class families from moving to south Arlington. And it'll free up plenty of space at Wakefield to relieve overcrowding at Washington lee and Yorktown. Careful what you wish for, NA.

PP is absolutely right. Without option schools to avoid low performing neighborhood schools, a large percentage of UMC families of all races in SA will flee. Many of them in fact move to SA once their kid is in choice, because then they don't have to worry about schools until middle and high school (and not even that if immersion). I know at least 8 families that have done that, two living now on my block. (In addition to the two families around the bend now moving before kids are in K because it is now too hard to get into any of the option schools).

Only those families who care not about schools, are satisfied with the local school, or cannot afford to move will stay.

I hate to bring up the subject of property values, but eliminating option schools for SA families would probably cause a measureable drop in property values in SA and an increase in NA - or people just leave the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process seems to be shifting to emphasize ideal immersion location, and sidetracking from the basic task of allocating sufficient seats to all planning units. Maybe the vision of bringing the two immersion programs closer together needs to be reserved for another day, after Fleet and Reed go live and we see whether seats really are available north or south? If they can find enough space at that point to cluster two options in close proximity, then by all means.

Disagree. APS's materials point out that if we're going to be doing major boundary shifts, might as well do it all at once. If option school locations are a problem in allocating neighborhood seats, then it's the right time to consider their locations as well. I'm more and more coming around to the idea that we don't have the capacity for option schools any longer, but if they aren't going away then their locations are rightly on the table.

I"m in complete agreement and my kids are AT an option school. As a tax payer though, with an overcrowded "home" school, ARL can't afford this use of resources. The double-bussing is reason enough to cancel it from a fiscal perspective.

Eliminating option schools wont alleviate overcrowding, it'll make it worse by drawing a sharper line between "good" north Arlington schools and "bad" SA ones. The demand for option schools is highest among the SA middle class. Remove option schools and they'll either move out of the county or if they can, scrape together every last cent to move into a quasi NA school like Fleet/Henry or Oakridge or North Arlington itself. And newcomers won't even consider SA. That is why Fleet will open over capacity. All schools are choice schools, ya choose what you can afford. And there is more demand for "good" schools than supply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process seems to be shifting to emphasize ideal immersion location, and sidetracking from the basic task of allocating sufficient seats to all planning units. Maybe the vision of bringing the two immersion programs closer together needs to be reserved for another day, after Fleet and Reed go live and we see whether seats really are available north or south? If they can find enough space at that point to cluster two options in close proximity, then by all means.

Disagree. APS's materials point out that if we're going to be doing major boundary shifts, might as well do it all at once. If option school locations are a problem in allocating neighborhood seats, then it's the right time to consider their locations as well. I'm more and more coming around to the idea that we don't have the capacity for option schools any longer, but if they aren't going away then their locations are rightly on the table.

I"m in complete agreement and my kids are AT an option school. As a tax payer though, with an overcrowded "home" school, ARL can't afford this use of resources. The double-bussing is reason enough to cancel it from a fiscal perspective.