Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The middle class S Arlington hate is unnerving. You shouldn’t have to be richor poor and brown to live in Arlington and have an opinion or desire for a good walkable school. Live right vote left by N Arlington is alive and well. Moving to N Arlington or Fairfax is not a viable solution. I doubt it will happen but I do hope the Board finds some balls and just starts drawing east west crazy boundaries.

The board are politicians. They respond to the incentives that politicians do, which is votes. Funfact: this supposed entity, the "white UMC SA parent" is a pretty rare bird. SA elementaries, including option schools, have only 1600 hundred white students, or about 30% of the total SA elementary student population. About 500 of those students are in option schools and the vast majority of them live in south Arlington and are zoned for a SA neighborhood school. Now subtract Oakridge and Henry, neither of which is a title 1 school. You're left with 460 "white SA UMC" kids, some of whom are certainly not "UMC", not by Arlington standards anyway. In contrast, there almost 5,000 white, UMC kids in NA elementaries. They make up 65% of all NA elementary students.

Whose parents do you think the SB is going to listen to in county wide debates over things like school boundaries, diversity, and proximity? It's about the numbers. South Arlington gets the shaft because it's not as big, and because a comparatively large percentage of its residents can't or don't vote.

Then you aren’t seeing the loom tide. Maybe the strollers in Douglas Park, Alcova Heights, and Barcroft won’t matter. Maybe those familes will do as previous generations have done- move or go private...
But I doubt it. The commutes downtown are worse every year..I wouldn’t count on past trends. The numbers will probbaly never surpass NA, but it may grow large enougni the next 10 years to make everything more painful and nasty than it already is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

This kind of thing might be fun to fantasize about but it would never happen.

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The middle class S Arlington hate is unnerving. You shouldn’t have to be richor poor and brown to live in Arlington and have an opinion or desire for a good walkable school. Live right vote left by N Arlington is alive and well. Moving to N Arlington or Fairfax is not a viable solution. I doubt it will happen but I do hope the Board finds some balls and just starts drawing east west crazy boundaries.

The board are politicians. They respond to the incentives that politicians do, which is votes. Funfact: this supposed entity, the "white UMC SA parent" is a pretty rare bird. SA elementaries, including option schools, have only 1600 hundred white students, or about 30% of the total SA elementary student population. About 500 of those students are in option schools and the vast majority of them live in south Arlington and are zoned for a SA neighborhood school. Now subtract Oakridge and Henry, neither of which is a title 1 school. You're left with 460 "white SA UMC" kids, some of whom are certainly not "UMC", not by Arlington standards anyway. In contrast, there almost 5,000 white, UMC kids in NA elementaries. They make up 65% of all NA elementary students.

Whose parents do you think the SB is going to listen to in county wide debates over things like school boundaries, diversity, and proximity? It's about the numbers. South Arlington gets the shaft because it's not as big, and because a comparatively large percentage of its residents can't or don't vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This, exactly. The teaching quality is absolutely equal, if not better. But the goalpost becomes the least common denominator rather than the same high goalpost kids at the other schools are being pushed toward. Pace of instruction is definitely different, as well as instructional opportunities like group projects, independent projects, or even just projects in general. These elementary schools don't put on theatrical productions or musicals. They aren't doing independent research papers or building science projects. Not because the students aren't capable - but because they have to spend more time being taught to the test and don't have time for more interesting or engaging academic instruction. They don't go as deep into subject matter because they are focused on that least common denominator. Therefore, those already above that denominator are not being pushed to their potential.

I got a NA school (ASFS) and most of those things don't happen at our school either. There is no musical -- I just checked out Glebe's website and that does not happen at our school either. The PTA funds a reflex math account for every child. You can look at the budget, but I don't think there is that much more really aiding instruction.

There is a lego club that on the order of 10 students period get to join, there is also an aquarium club that cleans the school's aquarium. There's the fancy lab, but again, my kids only spend on average 20 minutes a week in it -- I don't think that they are getting something significant out of that time that it puts them at an advantage. We also had a sand pit for a field this past year.

I don't think that there is a higher goal post my kids are being pushed towards that doesn't come from my pushing them. Maybe I'm being naive, but I worry that we are imagining at least part of the disparity.

Anonymous wrote:
This, exactly. The teaching quality is absolutely equal, if not better. But the goalpost becomes the least common denominator rather than the same high goalpost kids at the other schools are being pushed toward. Pace of instruction is definitely different, as well as instructional opportunities like group projects, independent projects, or even just projects in general. These elementary schools don't put on theatrical productions or musicals. They aren't doing independent research papers or building science projects. Not because the students aren't capable - but because they have to spend more time being taught to the test and don't have time for more interesting or engaging academic instruction. They don't go as deep into subject matter because they are focused on that least common denominator. Therefore, those already above that denominator are not being pushed to their potential.

Anonymous wrote:The middle class S Arlington hate is unnerving. You shouldn’t have to be richor poor and brown to live in Arlington and have an opinion or desire for a good walkable school. Live right vote left by N Arlington is alive and well. Moving to N Arlington or Fairfax is not a viable solution. I doubt it will happen but I do hope the Board finds some balls and just starts drawing east west crazy boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Particular cases aside, the N/S differences in teacher retention should be a concern for APS.

All Arlington schools are great!

You really just can’t go wrong with any of them.

Especially Discovery, which is presumably why a certain senior APS administrator paid a premium to live in that schools zone a couple years ago.

Can someone please translate this??

There’s a repeat poster who is personally offended that the Asst. Superintendent of Teaching and Learning lives in the Discovery zone.

I don’t think it’s just one poster. She has the right to live where it works best for her family, but I have to say it didn’t look great to me.
-Randolph parent

Which schools would have been acceptable? McKinley with its 9% FARMS? Ashlawn at 19%? If she'd moved to ASFS (23%) or Oakridge (25%), would that be enough or would anything less than 70% FARMS rate still be a slight?

Maybe one that wasn't the newest, most extravagant, and among the least integrated.

I think it's more a reflection of how well APS staff is paid.

Besides, I prefer an Asst Supt of Teaching and Learning who understands there are important differences between our schools. Why single her out? Why aren't you critics chastising all APS staff - and SB members - for not living in Title I school zones AND not sending their kids to their neighborhood Title I schools? Are we to implement some residency requirement mandating that all senior staff and elected SB members live in certain school zones and send their kids to those specific schools? I'm glad to have someone in her role who acknowledges, understands, and at least TRIES to advance solutions for those differences! And, sadly, those proposed solutions have greater credibility coming from someone who is not a white UMC parent in south Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Particular cases aside, the N/S differences in teacher retention should be a concern for APS.

All Arlington schools are great!

You really just can’t go wrong with any of them.

Especially Discovery, which is presumably why a certain senior APS administrator paid a premium to live in that schools zone a couple years ago.

Can someone please translate this??

There’s a repeat poster who is personally offended that the Asst. Superintendent of Teaching and Learning lives in the Discovery zone.

I don’t think it’s just one poster. She has the right to live where it works best for her family, but I have to say it didn’t look great to me.
-Randolph parent

Which schools would have been acceptable? McKinley with its 9% FARMS? Ashlawn at 19%? If she'd moved to ASFS (23%) or Oakridge (25%), would that be enough or would anything less than 70% FARMS rate still be a slight?

Maybe one that wasn't the newest, most extravagant, and among the least integrated.

I think it's more a reflection of how well APS staff is paid.

Besides, I prefer an Asst Supt of Teaching and Learning who understands there are important differences between our schools. Why single her out? Why aren't you critics chastising all APS staff - and SB members - for not living in Title I school zones AND not sending their kids to their neighborhood Title I schools? Are we to implement some residency requirement mandating that all senior staff and elected SB members live in certain school zones and send their kids to those specific schools? I'm glad to have someone in her role who acknowledges, understands, and at least TRIES to advance solutions for those differences! And, sadly, those proposed solutions have greater credibility coming from someone who is not a white UMC parent in south Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Particular cases aside, the N/S differences in teacher retention should be a concern for APS.

All Arlington schools are great!

You really just can’t go wrong with any of them.

Especially Discovery, which is presumably why a certain senior APS administrator paid a premium to live in that schools zone a couple years ago.

Can someone please translate this??

There’s a repeat poster who is personally offended that the Asst. Superintendent of Teaching and Learning lives in the Discovery zone.

I don’t think it’s just one poster. She has the right to live where it works best for her family, but I have to say it didn’t look great to me.
-Randolph parent

Which schools would have been acceptable? McKinley with its 9% FARMS? Ashlawn at 19%? If she'd moved to ASFS (23%) or Oakridge (25%), would that be enough or would anything less than 70% FARMS rate still be a slight?

Maybe one that wasn't the newest, most extravagant, and among the least integrated.

I think it's more a reflection of how well APS staff is paid.

Besides, I prefer an Asst Supt of Teaching and Learning who understands there are important differences between our schools. Why single her out? Why aren't you critics chastising all APS staff - and SB members - for not living in Title I school zones AND not sending their kids to their neighborhood Title I schools? Are we to implement some residency requirement mandating that all senior staff and elected SB members live in certain school zones and send their kids to those specific schools? I'm glad to have someone in her role who acknowledges, understands, and at least TRIES to advance solutions for those differences! And, sadly, those proposed solutions have greater credibility coming from someone who is not a white UMC parent in south Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Particular cases aside, the N/S differences in teacher retention should be a concern for APS.

All Arlington schools are great!

You really just can’t go wrong with any of them.

Especially Discovery, which is presumably why a certain senior APS administrator paid a premium to live in that schools zone a couple years ago.

Can someone please translate this??

There’s a repeat poster who is personally offended that the Asst. Superintendent of Teaching and Learning lives in the Discovery zone.

I don’t think it’s just one poster. She has the right to live where it works best for her family, but I have to say it didn’t look great to me.
-Randolph parent

Which schools would have been acceptable? McKinley with its 9% FARMS? Ashlawn at 19%? If she'd moved to ASFS (23%) or Oakridge (25%), would that be enough or would anything less than 70% FARMS rate still be a slight?

Maybe one that wasn't the newest, most extravagant, and among the least integrated.

I think it's more a reflection of how well APS staff is paid.

Besides, I prefer an Asst Supt of Teaching and Learning who understands there are important differences between our schools. Why single her out? Why aren't you critics chastising all APS staff - and SB members - for not living in Title I school zones AND not sending their kids to their neighborhood Title I schools? Are we to implement some residency requirement mandating that all senior staff and elected SB members live in certain school zones and send their kids to those specific schools? I'm glad to have someone in her role who acknowledges, understands, and at least TRIES to advance solutions for those differences! And, sadly, those proposed solutions have greater credibility coming from someone who is not a white UMC parent in south Arlington.