Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.
H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.
So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.
To be perfectly clear- she would be going under Route 50- Carlin Springs goes under Route 50 and has wide sidewalks along this underpass-- not crossing it. Similar to how she is currently crossing 66.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.
H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.
So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.
To be perfectly clear- she would be going under Route 50- Carlin Springs goes under Route 50 and has wide sidewalks along this underpass-- not crossing it. Similar to how she is currently crossing 66.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.
H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.
So it's ok for an 11 year old to walk 1.5 miles using the bike trail so she can cross Rt 50 (before sunrise for part of the year), rather than walk the 0.5 miles to the school next to their house? That scenario should really help the traffic around Kenmore and Swanson. No way I'm letting my daughter make that walk.
Anonymous wrote:
Like I said, I support H. It evens out Kenmore without overburdening either TJ or Gunston. My conclusion from comparing all the maps is that fr/l rates are projected to rise in the south overall. That is a function of geography and of non-school policy choices made years before. This looks to me like the best we can do without some artificial island. It is certainly the best we can do of the proposals on the table. Whether the SB will swoop in with some made-up hybrid option at the last minute is a different story, of course.
H isn't without real costs - see the Swanson parent poster, who I genuinely feel for. I don't have a middle schooler so I can't say that this is a small thing to that small group of families. We aren't in the walk zone for any school, in fact. On balance, I'd vote to sacrifice the interests of that small group in walking in favor of what I believe to be best for about half the county's students. Not to say it's a free choice though.
Anonymous wrote:
I haven't complained on this thread. I support H. We are zoned TJ in all scenarios. We will never walk anywhere.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
What is the "concrete cost" to your own kid, though? I think people really exaggerate (in their minds, anyhow) the negative effects of going to a school with, say, 33% of kids on FARMS, like Gunston. A third of the kids at W-L are on FARMS and it appears to be the highest performing high school in Arlington the last few years. Yet the benefits of having less segregation -- for ALL KIDS -- are pretty well documented. And another 5-10 minutes on the car or bus, while a pain, is not the end of the world.
Cool
- well you go argue that with the mommies and daddies of the rarified north. See how far it gets you.
Yes, segregation is bad. 33% is totally fine.
If you've been following any of this you would know it's a lost cause. We'll get raked over the coals in the press. No one will care.
Which scenario do you support? If none, what do you propose? Or do you just like to sit around and complain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
What is the "concrete cost" to your own kid, though? I think people really exaggerate (in their minds, anyhow) the negative effects of going to a school with, say, 33% of kids on FARMS, like Gunston. A third of the kids at W-L are on FARMS and it appears to be the highest performing high school in Arlington the last few years. Yet the benefits of having less segregation -- for ALL KIDS -- are pretty well documented. And another 5-10 minutes on the car or bus, while a pain, is not the end of the world.
Cool
- well you go argue that with the mommies and daddies of the rarified north. See how far it gets you.
Yes, segregation is bad. 33% is totally fine.
If you've been following any of this you would know it's a lost cause. We'll get raked over the coals in the press. No one will care.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
What is the "concrete cost" to your own kid, though? I think people really exaggerate (in their minds, anyhow) the negative effects of going to a school with, say, 33% of kids on FARMS, like Gunston. A third of the kids at W-L are on FARMS and it appears to be the highest performing high school in Arlington the last few years. Yet the benefits of having less segregation -- for ALL KIDS -- are pretty well documented. And another 5-10 minutes on the car or bus, while a pain, is not the end of the world.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
What is the "concrete cost" to your own kid, though? I think people really exaggerate (in their minds, anyhow) the negative effects of going to a school with, say, 33% of kids on FARMS, like Gunston. A third of the kids at W-L are on FARMS and it appears to be the highest performing high school in Arlington the last few years. Yet the benefits of having less segregation -- for ALL KIDS -- are pretty well documented. And another 5-10 minutes on the car or bus, while a pain, is not the end of the world.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
I don't follow your point, unless it is that my UMC children will turn out just fine going through the south arlington schools, of which the lowest FARMS rate is Gunston at 33% and apparently projected to rise to around 40%, and I'm selfish for not wanting to help the other kids in the system who may not fare as well. If that is your point, it's taken, but in response all I can say is, the situation is what it is, not everyone agrees with you and me on the need for diversity, and many, many people don't agree with it when it comes at a concrete cost to their own kid. I'm doing the best I can for my family. I'm happy to advocate for increased diversity, but I don't think it's realistic or even necessarily fair, depending on how you look at it, to sacrifice literally all other factors in service of diversity.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These maps with the #s are so much more helpful. I'm in South Arl, zoned for Gunston under almost any scenario. Based on these maps/numbers, H is my preference. Honestly, I don't care about Williamsburg and its numbers. They have their own issues. Let's just do the best with the situation we have in the south, which appears to me to be H.
A PP who pointed out that the Alignment map would crush Jefferson was right on - not only would it be over 50% FARMS, it would be the second most over-capacity in just a few more years. Not a good solution. Plus that Arl Heights area is already getting hosed in the HS debate.
Wow, a bit heavy, don't you think? I thought only parents in N. Arl. were seemingly this selfish? You mean to say that even parents in the Southern part only care about their own backyard? So you say the stated need for diversity is all a ruse???
Dp- is reading hard for you? I don't want to insult you if you have some sort of developmental delay...
The above post is obviously saying that we should do the best we can within reason. If that means that Williamsburg becomes under capacity, all white, and rich- so be it. The county has created some borderline insurmountable problems. We can only do so much. If there is a solution that solves most of our issues, but Williamsburg ends up not shouldering their fair share- so be it.
I'm not looking for a pound of flesh as a south Arlington parent. Just a reasonable plan.
Thanks PP. I'm the original PP, also a south arl parent, and just responded below. It sounds we'd agree with each other IRL. Except maybe for the developmental delay comment, that was kind of mean