Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Barcroft isn't even 60% fr/l - it is 67%, per the new stats.

I have gone to SB office hours. They have all but told me that the FR/L rate holds no sway. I don't even really think it matters to them for Drew, but they are afraid to say anything that could be perceived as anti-African American. Yet, they are perfectly willing to let Barcroft and all of its immigrant students reach the same numbers as Randolph and Carlin Springs. It is ok for Drew, but not ok for Barcorft.

They want a poverty corner so they can minimize the number of schools dealing with poverty and let wealthier parents have the rest. Those remaining UMC families in Barcroft will further abandon the school. And the SB is fine with that.

People need to start challenging them and vote them out.

When are you launching your campaign?

Anonymous wrote:And Barcroft isn't even 60% fr/l - it is 67%, per the new stats.

I have gone to SB office hours. They have all but told me that the FR/L rate holds no sway. I don't even really think it matters to them for Drew, but they are afraid to say anything that could be perceived as anti-African American. Yet, they are perfectly willing to let Barcroft and all of its immigrant students reach the same numbers as Randolph and Carlin Springs. It is ok for Drew, but not ok for Barcorft.

They want a poverty corner so they can minimize the number of schools dealing with poverty and let wealthier parents have the rest. Those remaining UMC families in Barcroft will further abandon the school. And the SB is fine with that.

People need to start challenging them and vote them out.

And Barcroft isn't even 60% fr/l - it is 67%, per the new stats.

I have gone to SB office hours. They have all but told me that the FR/L rate holds no sway. I don't even really think it matters to them for Drew, but they are afraid to say anything that could be perceived as anti-African American. Yet, they are perfectly willing to let Barcroft and all of its immigrant students reach the same numbers as Randolph and Carlin Springs. It is ok for Drew, but not ok for Barcorft.

They want a poverty corner so they can minimize the number of schools dealing with poverty and let wealthier parents have the rest. Those remaining UMC families in Barcroft will further abandon the school. And the SB is fine with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The racist South Fairlington parents ruined any chance at unity. I no longer want to live in the same county as them.

Elitist behavior was certainly not limited to South Fairlington. It needs to be pointed out they fought to stay at an ok school with a 47% FRL rate, as opposed to those fighting to stay at a blue ribbon school with a 28% FRL rate.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The racist South Fairlington parents ruined any chance at unity. I no longer want to live in the same county as them.

Elitist behavior was certainly not limited to South Fairlington. It needs to be pointed out they fought to stay at an ok school with a 47% FRL rate, as opposed to those fighting to stay at a blue ribbon school with a 28% FRL rate.

Still, everybody seem fine with Barcroft, Randolph, and Carlin Springs and the kids attending those schools being left behind. I don't believe the "tipping point" is always 40% fr/l. But it's clear from test scores and transfer rates and people cheering about being moved or possibly being moved out of some zones that some schools are really struggling and the kids at those schools, all of them, do not have access to the same opportunities. And yet, not only aren't the boundaries helping the fr/l rates to go down marginally at those schools, but they are pushing them way up in the case of Barcroft. It's disgusting. It's disgusting to think that a school that's already 60% fr/l won't be negatively impacted if they go even higher. They absolutely will. And it's going to be the kids whose families can't make other choices who will be most affected.

Anonymous wrote:

The racist South Fairlington parents ruined any chance at unity. I no longer want to live in the same county as them.

Elitist behavior was certainly not limited to South Fairlington. It needs to be pointed out they fought to stay at an ok school with a 47% FRL rate, as opposed to those fighting to stay at a blue ribbon school with a 28% FRL rate.

The racist South Fairlington parents ruined any chance at unity. I no longer want to live in the same county as them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I don't think it's possible to unite. These processes are set up by APS in ways that incentivize different schools to fight against each other.

I think the word you're looking for there is "incent."

Seriously? You want to unite and this is where you start?

We need to UNITE FARMS to the smallest number of schools. This is what the CB and SB are doing. The democrats have a plan. Just ride the Blue Wave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I don't think it's possible to unite. These processes are set up by APS in ways that incentivize different schools to fight against each other.

I think the word you're looking for there is "incent."

Seriously? You want to unite and this is where you start?

I didn't start the thread. I'm not that naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I don't think it's possible to unite. These processes are set up by APS in ways that incentivize different schools to fight against each other.

I think the word you're looking for there is "incent."

Seriously? You want to unite and this is where you start?

FWIW: I tried both incentivize and incent and now use "put incentives in place." Longer, more cumbersome, but then grammarians don't bother me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FR/L stats are out. Barcroft is at 67.65% this year, so before Map 6 kneecaps it by taking Alcova.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2228256494124079/

Exactly. Here comes the next 80% school. Staff tried to warn us, but we had to have pretty maps.

TBF what the Staff first tried to do was tank Drew for reasons unknown. This theory that the Staff really thought Map 2 was the best, but only issued the subsequent maps to show us how wrong we really were about Columbia Heights, is called into question when you recall the Staff's first proposal was Map 1.

Map 1 was the path of least resistance. Map 2 was more fair to all schools, but makes some people in the community feel like they can yell, "forced busing," when all they were doing was moving bus riders from one school to to another. Map 6 is the answer to the blowback from the 1500 voters of SF.

And so the rest of us have to settle for those 1500 winning?
FWIW, I think Staff knew map 1 wouldn't be the answer. That map was a clear attempt to balance priorities and keep current communities happy - and more importantly, to show SB what would happen to Drew and to Barcroft next round if that's the approach they chose to take. Map 2 proved Staff listened to community and SB feedback (to do something about the Drew FRL). Map 5 illustrated how Staff is on the collar-end of the SB's leash, a leash controlled by people who are purely reactionary and change whims according to the political climate and degree and nature of community feedback and who suddenly no longer cared about Drew's demographics. Nobody knows where map 6 came from.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I don't think it's possible to unite. These processes are set up by APS in ways that incentivize different schools to fight against each other.

I think the word you're looking for there is "incent."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FR/L stats are out. Barcroft is at 67.65% this year, so before Map 6 kneecaps it by taking Alcova.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2228256494124079/

Exactly. Here comes the next 80% school. Staff tried to warn us, but we had to have pretty maps.

TBF what the Staff first tried to do was tank Drew for reasons unknown. This theory that the Staff really thought Map 2 was the best, but only issued the subsequent maps to show us how wrong we really were about Columbia Heights, is called into question when you recall the Staff's first proposal was Map 1.

Map 1 was the path of least resistance. Map 2 was more fair to all schools, but makes some people in the community feel like they can yell, "forced busing," when all they were doing was moving bus riders from one school to to another. Map 6 is the answer to the blowback from the 1500 voters of SF.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, I don't think it's possible to unite. These processes are set up by APS in ways that incentivize different schools to fight against each other.

Yeah, and unlike in N. Arlington (where this still occurs, of course) the stakes are really high. No one wants their kid to be an experiment in a school that could be great in 5 years but is a total unknown right now. And rightly so, IMO.