Student Achievement at FCPS Title I Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To OP: Anecdotally speaking, my kids attended high FARMs elementary and middle schools (>60%). They did very well, are taking all honors classes, and will stick with their IB schools. The greatest indicator of success is parental involvement. You sound like an involved parent, so it's likely your kid(s) will be just fine at any FCPS school. Don't listen to the pearl clutchers. You've said the teachers have been great. Your experience has been great. if others are leaving because they haven't had a great experience, then you already disagree with their perception, so why would you follow their lead now?

To everyone else: If you're so concerned about tipping points, do you support changing boundaries to spread FARMs students more equitably across schools or is your thought that as long as you can get your kids out of the supposedly-horrible schools, that's all that matters to you?

OP again, thanks PP for this. The school isnt perfect. Both of my kids are lower elementary. One kid seems to like the school, the other not so much though he likes his teachers and likes to learn. He complains about the things that parents usually worry about (classroom behaviors, time spent on catching other kids up, etc) and the feedback from 2 teachers is that he is correct. I have a meeting with his teachers this year coming up. But what has me concerned is the recent uptick in families leaving not because of eg, jobs but specifically the school. I don't know if their perceptions are justified. Also I don't know if I should I should be concerned as we move higher up in grades.

I lived in both a an excellent and then too a bad school district (school shootings). I know our FCPS is far better than the bad one, but that doesn't stop me from being concerned. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

To all posters what is happening in OP elementary school is happening in countless schools

Again for me the solution is people shouldn't give up on their neighborhood school. Get rid of AAP and boundary exceptions etc.

Otherwise we are on a crash course for a North South County Arlington situation. Where about half of the clusters are great and the other half all the "higher quality" people are pulled out

ask yourself this question what happens to the "leftover kids" who end up with lower employment, lower SES, more crime, etc. That's right "we" all do with higher taxes and the cycle goes to the next generation.

[Anonymous]

I don't know. I hear you about moving high achieving kids out of lower performing schools but I also think that more people are willing to move into less affluent neighborhoods if they have the option to go to good private schools and advanced academic programs. I also think Fairfax needs to do more to even out the school systems through boundary adjustments and even out the number of apartments they approve in any given area. They also need to revitalize some of the older neighborhoods that are starting to show a lot of wear.

[Anonymous]

Also, it's not like AAP schools are so far away from neighborhood schools. Typically they are just one or two schools away from the base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd pull your kid and put him or her in private. It's just too risky at a Title I school or any school with a FARMs rate north of 20 percent - really, even a school north of 10 percent makes me nervous. Sure, your child COULD hypothetically succeed despite the poverty that surrounds him, but he will stand a much, much better chance at a school without the FARMs kids soaking up all the oxygen.

You do know that the average FARMS rate in FCPS is about 27% for this school year, right?

You also do know that a lot of McLean area schools have FARMS rates of about 5%, right?

What this means is that FCPS average FARMS rates, when you remove McLean schools, are like 35% or so.

So in your mind, no one should attend FCPS schools unless they are the McLean schools? OK...

Weird. PP never said they are in McLean. Do you think McLean is the only part of the county with low FARMS schools?

[Anonymous]

I've had these same thoughts and questions. Our school is about 70% FARMs and obviously Title 1. I actually planned to ask the teacher point blank this year if kids without the low income and ESOL issues can get an equivalent education to other parts of the county. I don't want it to sound condescending though. My oldest will be in the advanced class after 2nd (llIV/III) but it is my younger one who is a good, not advanced student I worry about. I've read the studies that indicate that reading levels and critical thinking skills are lower across the board for kids at schools with high % of low income. But I also love our school, the teachers have been amazing, I like the diversity in student background, and frankly I like the lack of homework. Currently we hope to move to a better school district by middle school (6th grade) but want to make sure the kids aren't behind by then.

[Anonymous]

40% is the sweet spot IMO. If I had my way we would bus kids as far as it took, to make sure no school had above 40% FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Wow didnt know fcps has such a high farm rate. I assumed it was lower since this area is so expensive.

[Anonymous]

Pp who asks if people care about spreading out the poverty in achools vs just insulating their kid ... Ha ha ha! It is obviously the latter.

We live in md now and that school board occasionally has busing debates (busing FARMS kids to wealthier schools not requiring wealthy school kids to be bused necessarily). You should see the howls from the Betheada and CC folks who know their home values are tied up in keeping low income kids to a very limited number in their schools and leaving most in east county.

Cannot imagine the dynamic is much different here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who asks if people care about spreading out the poverty in achools vs just insulating their kid ... Ha ha ha! It is obviously the latter.

We live in md now and that school board occasionally has busing debates (busing FARMS kids to wealthier schools not requiring wealthy school kids to be bused necessarily). You should see the howls from the Betheada and CC folks who know their home values are tied up in keeping low income kids to a very limited number in their schools and leaving most in east county.

Cannot imagine the dynamic is much different here.

Other than a couple of areas, at least their school boundaries make sense and their housing is more diversified throughout the county. FCPS's boundaries do not make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who asks if people care about spreading out the poverty in achools vs just insulating their kid ... Ha ha ha! It is obviously the latter.

It was actually a rhetorical question. Sadly, I think we all knew the answer.

I agree with one of the other PPs - Fairfax should do more to spread the low income housing throughout the county. I think that areas within a school boundary with higher than average FARMs should not be permitted to have any new affordable rate units set aside for new construction. Moreover, I think that areas with lower than average FARMs elementary schools should be required to have a higher percentage of units set aside as affordable units for new construction than what is currently required. I think it's a better alternative to busing and/or boundary adjustments. For example, there are some new developments planned in Mason District (Stuart, Annandale and Edison pyramids) and according to county requirements, a certain percentage will have to be set aside as affordable units - why? The area already has more than its fair share of affordable units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who asks if people care about spreading out the poverty in achools vs just insulating their kid ... Ha ha ha! It is obviously the latter.

It was actually a rhetorical question. Sadly, I think we all knew the answer.

I agree with one of the other PPs - Fairfax should do more to spread the low income housing throughout the county. I think that areas within a school boundary with higher than average FARMs should not be permitted to have any new affordable rate units set aside for new construction. Moreover, I think that areas with lower than average FARMs elementary schools should be required to have a higher percentage of units set aside as affordable units for new construction than what is currently required. I think it's a better alternative to busing and/or boundary adjustments. For example, there are some new developments planned in Mason District (Stuart, Annandale and Edison pyramids) and according to county requirements, a certain percentage will have to be set aside as affordable units - why? The area already has more than its fair share of affordable units.

Exactly. Results of planning decisions end up becoming school decisions

[Anonymous]

I had asked the board about changing the boundaries so that students in poverty wouldn't be concentrated in one area, but was told no. Our school was surrounded by schools that had low poverty, but I guess they didn't want that fight. I'm talking about a 5-7 minute longer bus ride for some depending on the lights. And these schools had the room while our's was overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who asks if people care about spreading out the poverty in achools vs just insulating their kid ... Ha ha ha! It is obviously the latter.

It was actually a rhetorical question. Sadly, I think we all knew the answer.

I agree with one of the other PPs - Fairfax should do more to spread the low income housing throughout the county. I think that areas within a school boundary with higher than average FARMs should not be permitted to have any new affordable rate units set aside for new construction. Moreover, I think that areas with lower than average FARMs elementary schools should be required to have a higher percentage of units set aside as affordable units for new construction than what is currently required. I think it's a better alternative to busing and/or boundary adjustments. For example, there are some new developments planned in Mason District (Stuart, Annandale and Edison pyramids) and according to county requirements, a certain percentage will have to be set aside as affordable units - why? The area already has more than its fair share of affordable units.

I disagree on one point. Boundary adjustments still need to happen. Also, I think there is already a higher percentage of affordable housing required for new developments in some areas of the County such as at Tysons which is near Mclean and Vienna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:40% is the sweet spot IMO. If I had my way we would bus kids as far as it took, to make sure no school had above 40% FARMS.

The 60 40 rule works in many situations to make sure things aren't too one sided.