Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were told by our principal that it wasn’t allowed.

Policy guiding PTAs is to not provide things that require ongoing maintenance and maintenance costs. Playground equipment requires maintenance costs for APS, not the PTA.

Anonymous wrote:Every child in APS has the opportunity to enter the blind HB lottery and, in theory, has an equal shot at admission. The other schools only allow transfers if there’s space or if you were admitted to the immersion / IB programs.

Anonymous wrote:We were told by our principal that it wasn’t allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.

but it's GMU doing this not APS right? What role did APS have? Did it nominate certain schools or something?

Good point. GMU may choose schools based on a set percentage (a baseline) of students who are on the free lunch program.

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real benefit is not having to go through the application process.

I don't quite see why they couldn't offer this to all APS students? What is the downside in offering it across the board? Clearly George Mason must not have wanted to agree to that.

They could have offered it to all high schoolers who qualify for FRE, regardless of high school.

This would land a lot better. Lots of kids at W-L, Career Center, and Wakefield don't need this option and yes even a few at Yorktown or HB could use it.

It isn't about affordability. It's about "underrepresented populations" which includes lower income students, as well as students of color who aren't necessarily so impoverished as to qualify for free meals. Many of them still wouldn't necessarily be willing/as supported going through the complicated process of college searches and applications. This makes it simpler - with them KNOWING they are admitted and being able to just focus on that rather than finding and applying to other schools that are probably harder for them to access for reasons beyond finances. Just being able to live at home and commute to GMU makes college more financially accessible for a lot of students.

Affirmative action is illegal now dum dum

That's why they're doing it this way, dum-dum.

Any first year law student can see through this ,it won't last

Then let these schools and students enjoy it while they have the opportunity.

What are they enjoying?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real benefit is not having to go through the application process.

I don't quite see why they couldn't offer this to all APS students? What is the downside in offering it across the board? Clearly George Mason must not have wanted to agree to that.

They could have offered it to all high schoolers who qualify for FRE, regardless of high school.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's great and personally have zero problem excluding Yorktown and HB. That said, the lawyer in me thinks this poses a problem for APS even though it's a benefit being offered by an outside institution. It's arguably a significant educational opportunity to have a direct admissions pathway to college, and APS is required to make opportunities equally available to all students who reside within the school district. Now there have always been differences from one school to the next, so equal doesn't always mean identical. Maybe this is analogous to a private donor offering to make a donation just to Wakefield or WL? I suspect there are rules about when that can and can't be done.

Ages ago I recall a dispute about whether our PTA could permissibly buy a new picnic table for the playground at our elementary school. The concern was that wealthy schools would have more resources to make improvements and that wouldn't be equitable. It seemed a little over the top for just a picnic table, IMHO, but when something more significant than a picnic table is at stake, I assume there is a policy that governs?

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.

but it's GMU doing this not APS right? What role did APS have? Did it nominate certain schools or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.

but it's GMU doing this not APS right? What role did APS have? Did it nominate certain schools or something?

Anonymous wrote:But is it a permissible way to level the playing field? I have zero objection to any of this, but I’m curious how APS defends against claims that all APS students should have equal access to this type of benefit.