Are option schools in Arlington reducing or exacerbating FARMS distribution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had the same thought as you OP and was going to post this morning. I have thought this for a while about option schools and now have numbers to show it. Look at drew zoned numbers. Believe they are 100% non-fr/l transfers.

I left Drew and Hoffman-Boston off b/c of the preschool problem. The official FARMS report includes preschoolers. The data APS published last night is just k-5. So when you look at the Drew and Hoffman-Boston data, they actually have a higher FARMS rate then there 'resident' FARMS rate. I don't think they are importing FARMS students I think it is the additional preschoolers.

But can’t you just use the 9/26 K-5 data and get the numbers? The Staff published 2017 numbers for resident students excluding option students and then same figure including option students. There was no change for Drew’s fr/l students. Does that not mean no low income option students from Drew in 2017?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So that means all of these schools would have a lower overall FARMS rate with no transfers, correct? I had no idea the transfer rate was so high. That's another problem with drawing boundaries.

That's why the way Staff is calculating FRL in the boundary change proposal is a problem. It's "projecting" a lower FRL than will actually be in the schools. Staff is accounting for residential developments that will open in the 2019-20 timeframe; but they are not projecting a FRL associated with those additional students. When they KNOW the development is a CAF - and they have an estimated # of students to be generated by that CAF - they should be counting them as FRL for the "new boundary FRL" estimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But yes- this data strongly suggests that the option schools are exacerbating segregration, not reducing it. Because it allows the more resourced families who live in the high FARMS area to transfer out- leaving the FARMS rate even higher.

yes and no - exacerbating segregation in the neighborhood schools; but creating some integrated programs, namely the immersion programs. You can also argue that Campbell is integrated relative to its primary feeder neighborhood school, Carlin Springs.

And even though I supported the change in neighborhood preferences for admissions to option programs, I simultaneously feared the real impact on the high FRL schools that already have a huge portion of non-FRL opting out. More seats opening for whom? More MC or more ED and ELL? I think APS should publish the expected FRL rate if nobody opted out with the final proposal so that more MC families will view their neighborhood option more positively and maybe not be so urgent or desperate to avoid it.

[Anonymous]

Dang! Barcroft has almost as many transfers as it does K-5 students. They need to move the option there.

[Anonymous]

One look at ATS over the past 5 years for FARMS shows you are likely correct. They often trend well below the county average FARMS rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that means all of these schools would have a lower overall FARMS rate with no transfers, correct? I had no idea the transfer rate was so high. That's another problem with drawing boundaries.

That's why the way Staff is calculating FRL in the boundary change proposal is a problem. It's "projecting" a lower FRL than will actually be in the schools. Staff is accounting for residential developments that will open in the 2019-20 timeframe; but they are not projecting a FRL associated with those additional students. When they KNOW the development is a CAF - and they have an estimated # of students to be generated by that CAF - they should be counting them as FRL for the "new boundary FRL" estimate.

Its a huge problem. It is both leading to effectively undercounting their FARMS percentage, but more seriously it will also lead to a seat distribution problem. They are assuming that people transfer out at equal numbers across the county. But we all know that is not true. So it means that for schools that have a higher transfer rate- e.g. Barcroft, they are going to have a ton of empty seats whereas schools with a lower transfer rate will be overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this has been well-known for a while. When people argue for expanding option programs, most of the time what they’re really arguing for is giving more ways for UMC whites in SA to get away from their less-affluent brown/black peers.

Nice try white hater,. Affluent people of all colors leave high farms because the farms drag down the entire school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But yes- this data strongly suggests that the option schools are exacerbating segregration, not reducing it. Because it allows the more resourced families who live in the high FARMS area to transfer out- leaving the FARMS rate even higher.

Or, the opposite. The problem at Drew is because Montessori is moving out and leaving just the neighborhood program. Having the option program there was making that school much more diverse (racially and SES-wise) than it otherwise would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But yes- this data strongly suggests that the option schools are exacerbating segregration, not reducing it. Because it allows the more resourced families who live in the high FARMS area to transfer out- leaving the FARMS rate even higher.

Or, the opposite. The problem at Drew is because Montessori is moving out and leaving just the neighborhood program. Having the option program there was making that school much more diverse (racially and SES-wise) than it otherwise would be.

Right but it wasn't an integrated program. It was two parallel programs that shared a cafeteria and PE and art teachers. I agree that having Montessori there helped the overall % and was good for things like school fundraising and the like, but the kids in non-Montessori weren't benefiting by being in class together with Montessori.

[Anonymous]

I’m considering reporting this thread. It’s misleading and gives credibility to faulty and dishonest data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m considering reporting this thread. It’s misleading and gives credibility to faulty and dishonest data.

By all means feel free to report it if you think that appropriate. But you will get further if you explain how you think it is misleading, or is giving credibility to faulty or dishonest data. I'm the OP and I certainly don't think I am presenting dishonest data- I'm using the data that APS released last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m considering reporting this thread. It’s misleading and gives credibility to faulty and dishonest data.

How so?

[Anonymous]

I thought we were discussing the fact that the data IS misleading...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m considering reporting this thread. It’s misleading and gives credibility to faulty and dishonest data.

By all means feel free to report it if you think that appropriate. But you will get further if you explain how you think it is misleading, or is giving credibility to faulty or dishonest data. I'm the OP and I certainly don't think I am presenting dishonest data- I'm using the data that APS released last night.

APS DATA. Not yours. You are not the bad actor, and I apologize For casting dispersions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought we were discussing the fact that the data IS misleading...

I think a new thread should be created tiled as such.