Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

There has to be a better option, but like you said, it's always to the extremes.

Look at the CC.

Not necessarily. Moving the immersion programs to Barcroft/Carlin Springs while having Ashlawn cross 50 seemed like a promising step, and the idea seemed to have support from many corners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

DP. I think, unfortunately, that ideas in the middle will sound terrible on paper. We all want kids to succeed. It is very hard for English learners to succeed without help. It is hard for students that know English to succeed when they have to wait for the others to catch up. There's probably a way to catch up English learners and mainstream them. That's probably happening on some level. But the other kids still have to wait and have to go to a school where the resources are focused on that. In theory, you could test kids and send them to schools that "fit" their needs, but all that results in is segregation. There would be an UMC "academy" and a English learning "bootcamp" or something. (and it would not fly)

There has to be a better option, but like you said, it's always to the extremes.

Look at the CC.

This. This is the hard truth. It's a driving force behind school segregation. It's why Henry and Oakridge are the most overcrowded schools in the county while Randolph, Barcroft and carlin are still at or just below capacity. Immersion was introduced in 1986 at key to address the problem and I guess you could say it worked on a small scale. It's their closest thing we have to integrated schools. Choice schools are necessary because some kids will always be a mismatch for their zoned school, and not just in SA. They are necessary because we don't do in school tracking and because personalized learning is blather. The reality is that NA schools instruction is ahead of SA because teachers have to pace their instruction to just below the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

DP. I think, unfortunately, that ideas in the middle will sound terrible on paper. We all want kids to succeed. It is very hard for English learners to succeed without help. It is hard for students that know English to succeed when they have to wait for the others to catch up. There's probably a way to catch up English learners and mainstream them. That's probably happening on some level. But the other kids still have to wait and have to go to a school where the resources are focused on that. In theory, you could test kids and send them to schools that "fit" their needs, but all that results in is segregation. There would be an UMC "academy" and a English learning "bootcamp" or something. (and it would not fly)

There has to be a better option, but like you said, it's always to the extremes.

Look at the CC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

DP. I think, unfortunately, that ideas in the middle will sound terrible on paper. We all want kids to succeed. It is very hard for English learners to succeed without help. It is hard for students that know English to succeed when they have to wait for the others to catch up. There's probably a way to catch up English learners and mainstream them. That's probably happening on some level. But the other kids still have to wait and have to go to a school where the resources are focused on that. In theory, you could test kids and send them to schools that "fit" their needs, but all that results in is segregation. There would be an UMC "academy" and a English learning "bootcamp" or something. (and it would not fly)

There has to be a better option, but like you said, it's always to the extremes.

Look at the CC.

Not necessarily. Moving the immersion programs to Barcroft/Carlin Springs while having Ashlawn cross 50 seemed like a promising step, and the idea seemed to have support from many corners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

DP. I think, unfortunately, that ideas in the middle will sound terrible on paper. We all want kids to succeed. It is very hard for English learners to succeed without help. It is hard for students that know English to succeed when they have to wait for the others to catch up. There's probably a way to catch up English learners and mainstream them. That's probably happening on some level. But the other kids still have to wait and have to go to a school where the resources are focused on that. In theory, you could test kids and send them to schools that "fit" their needs, but all that results in is segregation. There would be an UMC "academy" and a English learning "bootcamp" or something. (and it would not fly)

There has to be a better option, but like you said, it's always to the extremes.

Look at the CC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

DP. No one ever offers concrete suggestions in the middle. All rhetoric, no ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Always the extreme examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

u

Because they can’t convince a parent with a kid who walks to Discovery that a bus to Randolph is a better option.

Anonymous wrote:Why should SA accept the status quo?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a good example of part of the problem. When people are branded wholesale as assholes regardless of what they say or do, they tend to check out and not want to make personal sacrifices to help the people spitting on them.

And to honest, I'd rather be helping the ESL kids in Title I schools than the white pseudo-SJW trying to piggy-back off their pain.

Wanna help? Move there. Oh, you'd rather stay in a high performing school zone and just throw money at the problem? THAT is the problem, not SA parents agitating for integrated schools.

Nope, moving there wouldn't help the ESL kids at all. It would help the SA homeowners with buyer's remorse who bought in Title 1 school zones.

Yes, it would. The problem is the status quo: the belief that SA should stay how it is, so that NA can stay how it is. It's only with that mindset that the PP comment about buyers remorse makes sense. That somehow SA homeowners have no right to buy a house there and agitate for better schools. That somehow, "you get what u pay for." And nothing can change, ever. That's a mindset that makes perfect sense to NA people who paid a premium to avoid socioeconomically integrated schools and perceive SA efforts to have that very thing as underhanded, a short cut, a bail out etc. they think SA parents want the same thing they did and paid for. We don't. We want something different, and frankly, better for everyone.

I firmly believe that I pay the same for my $850-900K house that homeowners in north Arlington pay for their $850-900K house. So I don't buy the rationale behind the argument that you get what you pay for and that North Arlington has paid for "more" or "better." So I guess I simply GET less for my $850-900K because there are so many more rental units and homes that cost so much less in the south; and it's the people living in THOSE homes that are "getting what they paid for." Yet, I don't, merely because I purchased property south of route 50?

What NA has actually "bought" is a wealthy homogeneous voice that guarantees they will never have to give-up anything, including their sense of entitlement and superiority.

Plenty of people in NA (myself included) who paid much less than you did. It all depends on when they bought. What I paid doesn't matter. What you expect me to do to validate your housing decision? That matters.

You only support my argument that it isn't " you get what you pay for." People have paid a lot north and south; and people have paid less north and south. But people in north and south are not receiving the same.