Of course it would move the needle. Giving the lower income kids access to more classroom materials and technology, more educational clubs, more enrichment, more this and more that exposes them to new things. Why do you think NA schools enjoy them - they are enriching! They raise expectations and help kids understand the possibilities in the world. If a kid with parents lacking even a high school education is exposed to the enrichment and resources money brings - they are more likely to work hard and study to get that dream for themselves. It isn't handed to them on a silver platter in SA, it is in most of NA. The immigrant children in lower income housing want the American dream, they want it bad. Expose them to it to help them get there. They will work to the bone to get there - that is what makes America GREAT!

Says the grandchild of immigrants who got exposure to that American dream and then worked to the bone to get it. There is not a single person on that side of my family who is now anything but educated with advanced degrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

I agree that the needs of the Title I schools are many, and the spending is justified. But call a spade a spade - those schools are consuming more resources that those with well-funded PTAs. The PTA spending is in the noise.

PTA spending that you say is "in the noise" exacerbates the differences.

Giving the title I schools $$$ equivalent to NA PTA spending wouldn’t move the needle. Based on the challenges faced by the populations served by the title I schools, it’s like peeing in the ocean.

I think tracking will give some relief, allowing the kids who need the most help to get it without the other kids sitting around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

I agree that the needs of the Title I schools are many, and the spending is justified. But call a spade a spade - those schools are consuming more resources that those with well-funded PTAs. The PTA spending is in the noise.

PTA spending that you say is "in the noise" exacerbates the differences.

Giving the title I schools $$$ equivalent to NA PTA spending wouldn’t move the needle. Based on the challenges faced by the populations served by the title I schools, it’s like peeing in the ocean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

I agree that the needs of the Title I schools are many, and the spending is justified. But call a spade a spade - those schools are consuming more resources that those with well-funded PTAs. The PTA spending is in the noise.

PTA spending that you say is "in the noise" exacerbates the differences.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

well-explained. thank you.

Anonymous wrote:County per pupil spending is the same the same throughout Arlington. Title I schools get some extra - why, because they have huge needs for resources to help large numbers of lower income kids.

To kids throughout Arlington benefit from the same amount of resources, of course not. As discussed earlier in this thread, Title I schools do not have PTAs with large budgets. Wealthy schools are not spending what extra money they do have to ensure that the kids have meals over the holidays and warm clothes - Title I schools do.

People on this website sure like to disregard inequality in schools. If it were not such a big issue, there would be no fodder for this website.

Actually, they very much acknowledge the inequalities in schools - but north of 50 is content with the differences and then refers to more resources and higher $ amount per pupil in the southern schools as though that's supposed to equalize things - "see, we're not getting equal in the north!" - yet if those extra resources resulted in equality, the north/south divide wouldn't exist. The fact that there is a north/south divide very much reflects the acknowledgement of inequality. Resources SHOULD be spent according to need, not according to strict "equality." People just pick the argument that suits their purpose when they need it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:County per pupil spending is the same the same throughout Arlington. Title I schools get some extra - why, because they have huge needs for resources to help large numbers of lower income kids.

To kids throughout Arlington benefit from the same amount of resources, of course not. As discussed earlier in this thread, Title I schools do not have PTAs with large budgets. Wealthy schools are not spending what extra money they do have to ensure that the kids have meals over the holidays and warm clothes - Title I schools do.

People on this website sure like to disregard inequality in schools. If it were not such a big issue, there would be no fodder for this website.

And, title I is federal dollars. Stuff it with the takers and makers bs.

So it's okay to consider PTA spending as an inequitable source of outside spending but Title I $$$ is disregarded?

PTA dollars are hyperlocal. Title I is federal, and in no way local. So, yes.

Anonymous wrote:I have been following these threads for a bit and probably shouldn't engage, but I feel compelled. Reading these threads fills me with an odd mixture of bewilderment, amusement, and dread. Maybe it's basic human instinct, but I just don't understand the need to demonize parents simply based on which side of Rt. 50 they live. I don't understand how something as seemingly simple as quality education for all our children brings out the very worst in people. Maybe it's the anonymity, but I cringe reading some of the terrible things stated here.

It's simple. Rich people north of 50 think they have grounds for clamoring for good schools, but somehow their culturally equivalent slightly less wealthy peers in SA are supposed to F off. Move or shut up, don't threaten the political compact that says NA is for the rich, SA for the poor.

I have been following these threads for a bit and probably shouldn't engage, but I feel compelled. Reading these threads fills me with an odd mixture of bewilderment, amusement, and dread. Maybe it's basic human instinct, but I just don't understand the need to demonize parents simply based on which side of Rt. 50 they live. I don't understand how something as seemingly simple as quality education for all our children brings out the very worst in people. Maybe it's the anonymity, but I cringe reading some of the terrible things stated here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! This is the best. Some Northies really don't understand how good they've got it. It's like mitt Romney making that 100k bet.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you use the word “northies?”

It’s also hard to take them seriously when you know they’re people who could afford to buy into better schools further out but would prefer to stay in South Arlington and have everyone else cortort around them to give their children “ideal” educations. The parents in South Arlington who really don’t have better options, with the kids who enter school barely speaking English and parents who can’t engage with the school because they’re working two jobs to afford their “affordable” housing, aren’t coming here to post in perfect English about how their high school might not have a pool. And when they express their views on what they want for their kids, it’s often not the same as what the UMC whites would prefer, so when the latter come on here claiming to advocate for the former, be very skeptical because they’re really just using the former as props for their own ends.

THIS.

I do not fully understand the angst, and animosity, directed at others based on which side of Route 50 they live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL! This is the best. Some Northies really don't understand how good they've got it. It's like mitt Romney making that 100k bet.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you use the word “northies?”

It’s also hard to take them seriously when you know they’re people who could afford to buy into better schools further out but would prefer to stay in South Arlington and have everyone else cortort around them to give their children “ideal” educations. The parents in South Arlington who really don’t have better options, with the kids who enter school barely speaking English and parents who can’t engage with the school because they’re working two jobs to afford their “affordable” housing, aren’t coming here to post in perfect English about how their high school might not have a pool. And when they express their views on what they want for their kids, it’s often not the same as what the UMC whites would prefer, so when the latter come on here claiming to advocate for the former, be very skeptical because they’re really just using the former as props for their own ends.

THIS.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

I agree that the needs of the Title I schools are many, and the spending is justified. But call a spade a spade - those schools are consuming more resources that those with well-funded PTAs. The PTA spending is in the noise.

Yes, it is. title I spending is used only for certain purposes and it is provided because of the Overwhelming need of those schools. A school needs to be about 38% poor kids to qualify guess how many of those kids are English learners. If Title I spending made schools “equal” or better then families would be clamoring to go to those schools. title I helps bridge what would otherwise be even a larger and more unacceptable divide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:County per pupil spending is the same the same throughout Arlington. Title I schools get some extra - why, because they have huge needs for resources to help large numbers of lower income kids.

To kids throughout Arlington benefit from the same amount of resources, of course not. As discussed earlier in this thread, Title I schools do not have PTAs with large budgets. Wealthy schools are not spending what extra money they do have to ensure that the kids have meals over the holidays and warm clothes - Title I schools do.

People on this website sure like to disregard inequality in schools. If it were not such a big issue, there would be no fodder for this website.

And, title I is federal dollars. Stuff it with the takers and makers bs.

So it's okay to consider PTA spending as an inequitable source of outside spending but Title I $$$ is disregarded?

Anonymous wrote:County per pupil spending is the same the same throughout Arlington. Title I schools get some extra - why, because they have huge needs for resources to help large numbers of lower income kids.

To kids throughout Arlington benefit from the same amount of resources, of course not. As discussed earlier in this thread, Title I schools do not have PTAs with large budgets. Wealthy schools are not spending what extra money they do have to ensure that the kids have meals over the holidays and warm clothes - Title I schools do.

People on this website sure like to disregard inequality in schools. If it were not such a big issue, there would be no fodder for this website.

And, title I is federal dollars. Stuff it with the takers and makers bs.