APS Boundary tool--anyone get it to work yet?

[Anonymous]

What link are you guys looking at? I can't find anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What link are you guys looking at? I can't find anything.

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Data-by-Option-SB-Work-Session-11-09-16-rev.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

APS loves to tout its critical thinking skills, but its administration doesn't seem to have any. This isn't the first time number sense --or common sense --has been MIA. Once, when it was talking about the cost of something (iPads, maybe?), it said the cost had gone down 50% so they'd be able to buy 50% more for the same amount of money.

Maybe they could get some sixth-graders to help them with percentages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

APS loves to tout its critical thinking skills, but its administration doesn't seem to have any. This isn't the first time number sense --or common sense --has been MIA. Once, when it was talking about the cost of something (iPads, maybe?), it said the cost had gone down 50% so they'd be able to buy 50% more for the same amount of money.

Maybe they could get some sixth-graders to help them with percentages.

Jesus. WTH? They have really screwed this up.

[Anonymous]

If, like me, the SB members are just looking at the end numbers that staff provided to make their decisions, they need to have correct information. It seemed like at least two members made decisions, which may have been based on incorrect information, and asked for other options or more information based on incorrect information. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

PP here who you bolder above - I don't disagree with your number crunching; I was just commenting on my interpretation of their new stats. I would not be surprised in the least to discover that their numbers don't add up. This is a very hasty process and does not seem to be scientific or even sound. Honestly I'm tired of all the game playing. I believe they have had a preferred option from the beginning and are just playing the game so we feel like we have a voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

And in case you are wondering, the correct F/RL percentages for W-L under the proposed options are:

Option 1: 30%
Option 2: 31%
Option 3: 34%

Thank goodness there are others out there who can do math. It was driving me crazy how wrong these numbers are but my spouse told me to leave it alone.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Trump rounding up all of the illegals in his first 100 days? W-L will be under capacity and all this boundary change stuff will just have been a huge waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Trump rounding up all of the illegals in his first 100 days? W-L will be under capacity and all this boundary change stuff will just have been a huge waste of time.

Was thinking the same thing, give it time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Trump rounding up all of the illegals in his first 100 days? W-L will be under capacity and all this boundary change stuff will just have been a huge waste of time.

Was thinking the same thing, give it time.

Maybe the board was better at forecasting than we thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?


Regardless of these concerns regarding FARMS rates, let's be honest, they won't be sitting in the classroom with the new Students fron AF. The benefits claimed here are theoretically linked to being in the classroom together, not the halls of the school. Wakefield will be a tale of two high schools, just like the County is. The stats don't lie.

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

And in case you are wondering, the correct F/RL percentages for W-L under the proposed options are:

Option 1: 30%
Option 2: 31%
Option 3: 34%

Thank goodness there are others out there who can do math. It was driving me crazy how wrong these numbers are but my spouse told me to leave it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Trump rounding up all of the illegals in his first 100 days? W-L will be under capacity and all this boundary change stuff will just have been a huge waste of time.

Are you not paying attention? Trump is not going to do anything he said he was. You've been sold a bill of goods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?


Regardless of these concerns regarding FARMS rates, let's be honest, they won't be sitting in the classroom with the new Students fron AF. The benefits claimed here are theoretically linked to being in the classroom together, not the halls of the school. Wakefield will be a tale of two high schools, just like the County is. The stats don't lie.

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

And in case you are wondering, the correct F/RL percentages for W-L under the proposed options are:

Option 1: 30%
Option 2: 31%
Option 3: 34%

Thank goodness there are others out there who can do math. It was driving me crazy how wrong these numbers are but my spouse told me to leave it alone.

Let's be honest, the FARMS students won't be in class with the AF students. The benefits you all are seeking theoretically come from being in the same classroom. At this point in their lives, it isn't likely as the AF students will be taking more challenging courses (for the most part). Just walking the halls together gives no benefit to them. The test scores don't lie. If WF gets some AF students, it will be a tale of two schools, just like the Makeup of the County.

[Anonymous]

Needs to be option #3, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the estimated impact table on page 4 saying about W-L? Is it saying that under Option 1, F/RL percentage at W-L rises to 45%? That defies logic, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the table.

Okay, I think I am misreading it. I think it is saying that under Option 1, 45% of the students moving out of W-L are F/RL.

I actually think it is saying that if that particular option is taken, then the FARMS rate at W-L will become 45%. There is another column that shows the percentage of FARMS kids in each option -- that column includes that 62% number for one of the Wakefield options people were getting bent out of shape about. I think the new column is to show the overall impact on FARMS which will result from the options. Interesting thing is that Yorktown really doesn't change - 13-14% regardless of which option. And Wakefield doesn't change much - only a point or two up and down, which is the point the AF parents were making. It looks like W-L will have a higher percentage of FARMS with any option because they will be taking rich kids from W-L and sending them to Yorktown.

Mathematically, I don't see how this can be true, and looking at the chart on page 5 it seems to me they've made a mistake. Can somebody help me out here?


Regardless of these concerns regarding FARMS rates, let's be honest, they won't be sitting in the classroom with the new Students fron AF. The benefits claimed here are theoretically linked to being in the classroom together, not the halls of the school. Wakefield will be a tale of two high schools, just like the County is. The stats don't lie.

On page 5, the second to last column says that there will be 873 F/RL students at W-L if option 1 is implemented. That's how they've calculated the 45% F/RL rate for W-L under option 1 (873/1941=0.45).

But where does the 873 number come from? It looks to me like it is the sum of the current number of F/RL students at W-L (727) and the number of F/RL students who are moving out of W-L (146) under option 1. 727+146=873.

But those 146 students ARE MOVING OUT OF W-L. Shouldn't the number of F/RL kids in W-L under option 1 be 727 MINUS 146? That is, 581. So the percentage of F/RL students remaining at W-L under option 1 would be 581/1941=30%.

Happy to be corrected.

Me again. Looking at this more, I am sure I am right about the error. In the upper rows of this chart, it is correct to add the current number of F/RL students at Yorktown or Wakefield with the number of F/RL students who will be moving INTO those schools. So it's correct to say that, under option 1, there will be 1013 F/RL students at Wakefield--the current 881 plus the 132 who will be moving in (881+132=1013). But when you calculate the numbers for W-L, you need to SUBTRACT, not add.

I know people make mistakes all the time, but this isn't a computation error. This is a complete lack of numbers sense. Anyone with any numbers sense at all should have said, upon seeing W-L's F/RL rate go from 31% to 45%, "wait, how can that be true?" SMH.

And in case you are wondering, the correct F/RL percentages for W-L under the proposed options are:

Option 1: 30%
Option 2: 31%
Option 3: 34%

Thank goodness there are others out there who can do math. It was driving me crazy how wrong these numbers are but my spouse told me to leave it alone.

Let's be honest, the FARMS students won't be in class with the AF students. The benefits you all are seeking theoretically come from being in the same classroom. At this point in their lives, it isn't likely as the AF students will be taking more challenging courses (for the most part). Just walking the halls together gives no benefit to them. The test scores don't lie. If WF gets some AF students, it will be a tale of two schools, just like the Makeup of the County.

Please stop with this self-serving nonsense. Yes, it's true that students from lower-income families might be less likely to take advanced courses, but many here in Arlington do.