Anonymous wrote:Ugh, you people are awful. Come November you will happily vote for Erik Gutshall and the increase in affordable housing, but fight tooth and nail so that it doesn't affect your precious snowflakes. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't need a lot of social science to tell me that an upper middle class child in Arlington Virginia is not going to be permanently harmed by riding a bus to attend a middle school two miles from home with some kids who are poor and some kids who live in houses valued between $500K and $750K instead of $750K and $1M.
I don't need a lot of statistics to tell me that a house in a close-in suburb in an overall high-performing school district in the eighth wealthiest county in the country where home prices have risen 20 percent in the last decade is going to hold its value.
It is quite amusing that your own example shows a 250K effect on housing prices due to differences in middle school. Perhaps it would be better if you did know social sciences and statistics.
Anonymous wrote:
I don't need a lot of social science to tell me that an upper middle class child in Arlington Virginia is not going to be permanently harmed by riding a bus to attend a middle school two miles from home with some kids who are poor and some kids who live in houses valued between $500K and $750K instead of $750K and $1M.
I don't need a lot of statistics to tell me that a house in a close-in suburb in an overall high-performing school district in the eighth wealthiest county in the country where home prices have risen 20 percent in the last decade is going to hold its value.
Anonymous wrote:Let's see if I get this right by abstracting from all these distance, building quality, blah blah blah issues.
Person N's kid currently goes to a school with a low FARMS rate and does not want to be transferred to a high FARMS rate school. Person S calls Person N a racist for this choice.
Person S would like person N's kid to be transferred to S's kids so that S's school's FARMS rate will be lower, thereby making S's school better. Why doesn't person S call him/herself a racist as well? After all, both are motivated by the desire to have their kids go to a school with a lower FARMS rate and both clearly think that FARMS rates are inversely correlated with school performance.
Next, let us look at the blah blah blah issues.
Person A would rather his/her kid go to the overcrowded, rat-infested shithole school S over the newly constructed, Taj Mahal-like school K with smaller class sizes. Perhaps A's kid has a shorter walk to S or A thinks S's gym teacher is cute or some other reason. Person B, on the other hand, thinks that Person A is full of shit when coming up with his/her personal rankings between S and K's desirability as schools for his/her (that is A's) kid. So, person B petitions the School Board for boundaries that will force A's kid to school K for the good of A's kid over the wishes of A. Do we have a word for that? Perhaps it is "fascism."[/quote/]
LOL. Or perhaps it isn't "fascism". Person B is not petitioning the school board to change boundaries. Boundaries need to be changed because schools are overcrowded.
It seems like this wouldn't have been an issue if the new middle school was built to hold more than 1000 students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Because it's one school system, the quality of the schools and the teachers are the same, well-off children perform the same no matter what school they go to, and it's better not to concentrate poverty for any number of well-documented reasons. You're not hurting your child, you're not really hurting your property values (which some have brought up), and you are helping other kids and helping reduce segregation which, in case you haven't noticed, is a problem in our society.
The bolded are statements of opinion and not supported argument.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yup...Reed pretty much puts a nail in this coffin. McKinley families south of I66 enjoy Kenmore.
I think that is why some MM and DH families were actually against the Reed School. They knew their boundaries would change and didn't like it.
Anonymous wrote:Yup...Reed pretty much puts a nail in this coffin. McKinley families south of I66 enjoy Kenmore.
There are only two scenarios where wms would have double digits. Otherwise, the SB seems just fine having wms at 2%-4% in all the other blended scenarios while leaving 3 other middle schools in the 40s. I would bet good money that they will have wms in the single digits.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Where are you getting that Kenmore goes to 20 or 25 % FARMS? The scenarios I saw had it at 40 or 45%, which is the tipping point in the social science research.
We should be getting it to 25%. We shouldn't be near any "tipping point." Arlington is an extremely wealthy community.
How are people not appalled by this?
Because the only way to get it to 25% is to bus the entire County (a la Single Factor Map 1G). But that would require breaking into 77% white/4% FARMS Williamsburg.
Get your facts straight. WMS is not great, but they are currently at 10% FARMS and 69% white. The 4% plan is only one of the proposals by APS. No one at WMS is asking for that plan and many people I talk to are concerned about that idea.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Where are you getting that Kenmore goes to 20 or 25 % FARMS? The scenarios I saw had it at 40 or 45%, which is the tipping point in the social science research.
We should be getting it to 25%. We shouldn't be near any "tipping point." Arlington is an extremely wealthy community.
How are people not appalled by this?
Because the only way to get it to 25% is to bus the entire County (a la Single Factor Map 1G). But that would require breaking into 77% white/4% FARMS Williamsburg.