Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and threatens our pluralistic democracy.

Shifting walking families away from Swanson is not going to stop the growth of low income in these other areas. We should spend this energy looking at the policies driving the growth of low income #s in these areas. It’s not because Swanson families are able to walk to their neighborhood school.

This is exactly right. The Swanson families did not create the segregation. That was created by South Arlington politicians like Tannia Talento and Nancy Van Doren who have been just fine with continuing to concentrate more affordable housing in South Arlington and giving North Arlington a pass. 22207 and 22213 can duke this out with 22204 and 22206. You know what would fix all of this stuff? If your two areas of the county each created islands and swapped kids. So until *that* map is in the list of "options" you are damn right that Westover is going to complain about putting our walkers on buses.

What are you talking about? Both Talento and VanDoren live in north Arlington (22205 and 22201, respectively).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever hear of the era of "robber barons"?
I love how the Washington area sucks all the money from the rest of the country and then complains about economic inequality in their own little sheltered communities.

And your point is what? That the era of robber barons was some golden age? Because that's where we're headed.

And yes, Arlington is sucking federal Title 1 money away from poorer rural communities elsewhere in VA and the country. Arlington wouldn't be eligible for this money, that is probably more needed in counties that are homogeneously poor, if we were integrated and our schools didn't meet the Title 1 threshold. I recognize the absurdity of this situation. Do you?

Yes, so we keep our schools above 40% FARMS intentionally to keep the Title 1 money coming in the door, but at the same time let South Arlington decide that 50% is "too high" a FARMS rate and therefore the Westover walkers shall suffer the consequences.

Seriously get a grip. You people are unreal. Schools with half or more poverty aren’t acceptable. YOUR FAMILY taking a bus is completely acceptable. It’s not screwing you. You will survive.

It is also acceptable for YOUR KIDS to take the bus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and threatens our pluralistic democracy.

Shifting walking families away from Swanson is not going to stop the growth of low income in these other areas. We should spend this energy looking at the policies driving the growth of low income #s in these areas. It’s not because Swanson families are able to walk to their neighborhood school.

This is exactly right. The Swanson families did not create the segregation. That was created by South Arlington politicians like Tannia Talento and Nancy Van Doren who have been just fine with continuing to concentrate more affordable housing in South Arlington and giving North Arlington a pass. 22207 and 22213 can duke this out with 22204 and 22206. You know what would fix all of this stuff? If your two areas of the county each created islands and swapped kids. So until *that* map is in the list of "options" you are damn right that Westover is going to complain about putting our walkers on buses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and threatens our pluralistic democracy.

Shifting walking families away from Swanson is not going to stop the growth of low income in these other areas. We should spend this energy looking at the policies driving the growth of low income #s in these areas. It’s not because Swanson families are able to walk to their neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever hear of the era of "robber barons"?
I love how the Washington area sucks all the money from the rest of the country and then complains about economic inequality in their own little sheltered communities.

And your point is what? That the era of robber barons was some golden age? Because that's where we're headed.

And yes, Arlington is sucking federal Title 1 money away from poorer rural communities elsewhere in VA and the country. Arlington wouldn't be eligible for this money, that is probably more needed in counties that are homogeneously poor, if we were integrated and our schools didn't meet the Title 1 threshold. I recognize the absurdity of this situation. Do you?

Yes, so we keep our schools above 40% FARMS intentionally to keep the Title 1 money coming in the door, but at the same time let South Arlington decide that 50% is "too high" a FARMS rate and therefore the Westover walkers shall suffer the consequences.

Seriously get a grip. You people are unreal. Schools with half or more poverty aren’t acceptable. YOUR FAMILY taking a bus is completely acceptable. It’s not screwing you. You will survive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever hear of the era of "robber barons"?
I love how the Washington area sucks all the money from the rest of the country and then complains about economic inequality in their own little sheltered communities.

And your point is what? That the era of robber barons was some golden age? Because that's where we're headed.

And yes, Arlington is sucking federal Title 1 money away from poorer rural communities elsewhere in VA and the country. Arlington wouldn't be eligible for this money, that is probably more needed in counties that are homogeneously poor, if we were integrated and our schools didn't meet the Title 1 threshold. I recognize the absurdity of this situation. Do you?

Yes, so we keep our schools above 40% FARMS intentionally to keep the Title 1 money coming in the door, but at the same time let South Arlington decide that 50% is "too high" a FARMS rate and therefore the Westover walkers shall suffer the consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever hear of the era of "robber barons"?
I love how the Washington area sucks all the money from the rest of the country and then complains about economic inequality in their own little sheltered communities.

And your point is what? That the era of robber barons was some golden age? Because that's where we're headed.

And yes, Arlington is sucking federal Title 1 money away from poorer rural communities elsewhere in VA and the country. Arlington wouldn't be eligible for this money, that is probably more needed in counties that are homogeneously poor, if we were integrated and our schools didn't meet the Title 1 threshold. I recognize the absurdity of this situation. Do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and th9reatens our pluralistic democracy.

Puhlease, neighborhoods have always been segregated by economic status. This is not new. Is our "pluralistic democracy" particularly at risk now?

I would argue that it is, as economic inequality has grown and economic mobility has suffered. And yeah, if the last few months haven't shown you what is at risk, I'm not sure what would. A demagogue was able to dog whistle himself into the presidency. But it's all good.

Anonymous wrote:Ever hear of the era of "robber barons"?
I love how the Washington area sucks all the money from the rest of the country and then complains about economic inequality in their own little sheltered communities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and th9reatens our pluralistic democracy.

Puhlease, neighborhoods have always been segregated by economic status. This is not new. Is our "pluralistic democracy" particularly at risk now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and th9reatens our pluralistic democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and threatens our pluralistic democracy.

Shifting walking families away from Swanson is not going to stop the growth of low income in these other areas. We should spend this energy looking at the policies driving the growth of low income #s in these areas. It’s not because Swanson families are able to walk to their neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 70s called and they want their school integration policies back.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I think it's sad that we're complacent about segregation because it's de facto rather than de jure. The end result is still the same, and threatens our pluralistic democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue of Williamsburg being only 4% FRL with everyone else 20% and above. At least the scenario with the Rosslyn island for Williamsburg brings it to 12%.

But isn't that the scenario with everyone under 50% FRL and almost 50% walking? I don't care if Williamsburg stays richy rich as long as the other schools are reasonable.