FCPS High School Poverty and Enrollment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:31% of FCPS students are on free lunch. You will never be able to even that out perfectly--or even close because of where the neighborhoods are located without massive busing.

I am not familiar with the neighborhoods anywhere near Langley, for example, that would enable them to get to 31%. In Tyson's maybe?

And, I don't see any neighborhoods near Lewis that could reduce that.

I taught in a bused school. It does not work. Those in the neighborhood left for private or moved, and the poor kids were taken out of their community which resulted in truancy and increased the lack of parental involvement.

This was many years ago--but I doubt the results would be different.

I posted about the red state that does have some bussing. I think that the numbers are not large, and it is application based, not random. The parents who apply want their kid at the specific school. Decades ago I taught at one of the small districts (3 elementaries, 1 MS, 1 HS) in a middle class community. I had a bussed student who was 3rd generation to that school district. Her young grandma was one of the original bussed students and her young mom also attened that school through bussing. She talked about how this was their "family" school and she hoped her kids would attend it. The bussed kids seemed to feel like they felt attached to the school community. But it was a small number and not a random program. It appeared to be successful because of the parent involvement and conscious choice of that family to be a part of a specific school community, as opposed to large scale random bussing with zero community component and limited parent involvement.

She was from a very poor community, btw, and regularly spoke of how she heard gunshots every night and could not go to the front of their house after dark because of stray bullets. So from a very poor community. By doing the math, her mom and grandma were both teen moms based on her being in high school and her grandma being one of the first bussed students. She is now an adult and I often wonder if her children ended up attending this small, suburban school.

If the numbers aren't large, how does bussing a few kids from Lewis to Langley or Woodson solve any problem?

I don't know how the program worked as there are dozens of school districts in that county.

This is just what I saw at this one smaller district. Local students did not leave the public school, unless it was Catholic kids attending Catholic school for religious reasons.

But this bussing program did not seem like a failure. I think it was because the numbers were small and the bussed kids parents were vested in the school. They chose the district, and had generational family connections to that district. It was very different from mass bussing to balance demographics. Looking back, I would say it was more like school choice decades before school choice was a thing.

If school choice is structured in a similar way, it would be a very good thing. But I don't think it would work as well with this bloated, county wide fcps district. FCPS is just too large. It needs to be divided into smaller, independent districts with county wide special ed and esol services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:31% of FCPS students are on free lunch. You will never be able to even that out perfectly--or even close because of where the neighborhoods are located without massive busing.

I am not familiar with the neighborhoods anywhere near Langley, for example, that would enable them to get to 31%. In Tyson's maybe?

And, I don't see any neighborhoods near Lewis that could reduce that.

I taught in a bused school. It does not work. Those in the neighborhood left for private or moved, and the poor kids were taken out of their community which resulted in truancy and increased the lack of parental involvement.

This was many years ago--but I doubt the results would be different.

I posted about the red state that does have some bussing. I think that the numbers are not large, and it is application based, not random. The parents who apply want their kid at the specific school. Decades ago I taught at one of the small districts (3 elementaries, 1 MS, 1 HS) in a middle class community. I had a bussed student who was 3rd generation to that school district. Her young grandma was one of the original bussed students and her young mom also attened that school through bussing. She talked about how this was their "family" school and she hoped her kids would attend it. The bussed kids seemed to feel like they felt attached to the school community. But it was a small number and not a random program. It appeared to be successful because of the parent involvement and conscious choice of that family to be a part of a specific school community, as opposed to large scale random bussing with zero community component and limited parent involvement.

She was from a very poor community, btw, and regularly spoke of how she heard gunshots every night and could not go to the front of their house after dark because of stray bullets. So from a very poor community. By doing the math, her mom and grandma were both teen moms based on her being in high school and her grandma being one of the first bussed students. She is now an adult and I often wonder if her children ended up attending this small, suburban school.

If the numbers aren't large, how does bussing a few kids from Lewis to Langley or Woodson solve any problem?

I don't know how the program worked as there are dozens of school districts in that county.

This is just what I saw at this one smaller district. Local students did not leave the public school, unless it was Catholic kids attending Catholic school for religious reasons.

But this bussing program did not seem like a failure. I think it was because the numbers were small and the bussed kids parents were vested in the school. They chose the district, and had generational family connections to that district. It was very different from mass bussing to balance demographics. Looking back, I would say it was more like school choice decades before school choice was a thing.

If school choice is structured in a similar way, it would be a very good thing. But I don't think it would work as well with this bloated, county wide fcps district. FCPS is just too large. It needs to be divided into smaller, independent districts with county wide special ed and esol services.

again, how does bussing a small number of kids achieve anything other than helping out those kids? Even then, you said that they were bussed for generations, so maybe it didn't give them the way out that you think it did. Aside from not having residents of Great Falls having to support Rt 1 (so small classrooms in Forestville, but sorry Mt Vernon Woods) what does smaller districts accomplish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley 3%
Herndon 50%

These two pyramids are right next to each other.

+1
Not to mention, voters in Herndon are allowing the policies that create these poverty zones. You get what you vote for.

Ummm … Fairfax County voters have created a lot of the problem. Some place has to step in. The sh!t really hits the fan though when it comes to schooling and suddenly everyone becomes conservative. Fairfax County is a so-called sanctuary yet doesn’t have a real solution for schools.

"Voting Blue No Matter Who" is the problem. But unfortunately, many of the people complaining will never actually change the way they vote.

Can you point out to how policies in red states or counties deal with the issue? Is there less poverty? Less of an achievement gap? Less undocumented immigrants? Give examples.

I recently visited family from a very red state. Not quite Alabama, but ruby red.

Their kid goes to school in a large public school district with similar demographics to FCPS. Here are a few things I noticed that are different than FCPS;

There are multiple school districts in the county, not just one mammoth school district. This allows school districts to tailor rapidly to their unique nedds, from snow days to calendars to curriculum and enrichment.

That school district is the 2nd largest one in the suburban county, with 4 high schools.
The largest school district has only 5 high schools. A handful have 2 high schools. Most diatricts have just 1 high school.

There are no split feeders in that city. The focus is on neighborhood schools, with the approach that a smaller, local community and parents know what is best for the children of the community.

However, the special school district is a separate, joint district that includes all county and city schools. The special school district provides all in school specialists required by FAPE, and also all immersion schools for the highly disabled students, respite care for parents and a separate dedicated school for the severely emotionally disturbed kids who cannot function in a regular school. This approach ensures the most efficient use of special ed funds, and also means that FAPE needs are met equally no matter where a student attends school in that city or county.

At their kids' elementary school, the class sizes ranged from 12 for the smallest classes (kindergarten and some of the special classes) to 22 students for the "big" classes. One of their kids was talking about how their class was "huge" last year. It was 21 kids.

Because the focus is on localized control across the entire red state, each school district is able to prioritize what is important to their community. For my family's community, their district prioritizes smaller classses in elementary school.

FCPS is too big, and fails to meet the needs of many. It needs to be broken into smaller, separate districts, with one county wide special school district.

Their red state focus on localizing control of schools as much as possible, and using larger systems only when effective and necessary, is a much better approach to schools than our behemoth blue county approach.

Well, we all know that the southeast part of Fairfax County would be cast off as a district of its own, left to suffer under its burden of poverty. We know that is a dream for the wealthier sections of the county.

That part of the county would actually receive more services and funds through the county wide special school district due to the disproportionate number of esol and special needs students.

I also forgot to add that districts with high failure rates on state exams are taken over by the state. So Lewis and MV would be run at a county or state level until things are corrected.

Their red area also allows parents school choice, so they can transfer their kids out of failing schools.

There is bussing from the failing city schools to the county through an application program. I don't know how it works, but do know that they try to funnel the bussed kids into the same schools their parents might have been bussed to decades earlier, in order to maintain a "community" focus and continuity for the students. The hope is that the receiving school is their "family" school, in the way that a private school family might identify as a generational Bishop Ireton or Gonzaga family.

Since we're talking about red states, I'll go ahead and assumer that there is just enough paperwork combined with hard deadlines that the wrong kids are never able to take advantage of it

How arrogant, racist and classist to assume poor and brown parents don't care enough about their kids to complete and submit paperwork on time.

Sure, why would anyone ever assume that southern school districts are racist.

The racism and classism is the person who thinks that poor people and minority parents won't complete paperwork or meet deadlines.

Then what is the problem? FCPS school facilities, curriculum, teachers are same county wide, only difference is the student body. If poor and minority parents are equally vested in their child's education then outcomes between Lewis and Langley should not be that different. If poor and minority parents care as much then how do you explain outcomes in schools with high FARM numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we aiming for socialism? Everyone monetarily equal? Last I checked USA was a market democratic economy.

You are the problem. Why are you even associating public education with wealth? So only the wealthy deserve good public schools? Absolutely terrible logic and pure selfishness. And yet you'll probably find someone else to blame for all of America's problems with youth and K-12 education.

We all deserve good public schools. But, shifting neighborhoods to enable scores to go up does not help those who need the help. It just covers up the negligence of not teaching the poorer kids.

The answer is good instruction where the students are. Maybe, just maybe, that would improve things.

DP. You could have the best teachers but I suspect little would change until attitudes surrounding the value of an education change at home.

This is the most important component to a successful education and the least talked about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we aiming for socialism? Everyone monetarily equal? Last I checked USA was a market democratic economy.

You are the problem. Why are you even associating public education with wealth? So only the wealthy deserve good public schools? Absolutely terrible logic and pure selfishness. And yet you'll probably find someone else to blame for all of America's problems with youth and K-12 education.

We all deserve good public schools. But, shifting neighborhoods to enable scores to go up does not help those who need the help. It just covers up the negligence of not teaching the poorer kids.

The answer is good instruction where the students are. Maybe, just maybe, that would improve things.

DP. You could have the best teachers but I suspect little would change until attitudes surrounding the value of an education change at home.

This is the most important component to a successful education and the least talked about.

+1

Does anyone have truancy stats for the schools? I bet there is a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - the simple fact is that the gap between certain neighboring schools in FCPS has become so large that the prospect of boundary changes is essentially off the table.

West Springfield - Lewis - not going to happen. Langley - Herndon - not going to happen. Woodson - Annandale - not going to happen.

And then you have West Potomac and Mount Vernon - it could have happened. A boundary change made perfect sense. Extra space at Mount Vernon and too many students at West Potomac. Both schools have a pretty high F/R lunch rate, but West Potomac's is a bit lower and it has a better reputation (and AP courses). If they didn't change those boundaries, you better believe they are never going to make those other changes.

Up until 2000, maybe 2005, you could probably have made any of those changes. Parents would have grumbled but would have sucked it up and moved on. Now it would implode parents' minds.

Let it implode parents’ minds! No one should feel entitled to attend a particular school. The School Board wastes taxpayer money by adding on to “good” schools while other schools have plenty of space. They promote “equity” but have no actual intention of doing anything to resolve the situation or upset the status quo. They just want to keep their Board seat and maybe move up to higher office. Meanwhile our taxes continue to increase while many of our schools stagnate or decline.

If you pay premium to live in jurisdiction for particular school, you should feel entitlement.

If the border change to problem school housing value go down.

there is no law that says the school board cannot change school boundaries. there should be no entitlement to any resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we aiming for socialism? Everyone monetarily equal? Last I checked USA was a market democratic economy.

You are the problem. Why are you even associating public education with wealth? So only the wealthy deserve good public schools? Absolutely terrible logic and pure selfishness. And yet you'll probably find someone else to blame for all of America's problems with youth and K-12 education.

We all deserve good public schools. But, shifting neighborhoods to enable scores to go up does not help those who need the help. It just covers up the negligence of not teaching the poorer kids.

The answer is good instruction where the students are. Maybe, just maybe, that would improve things.

DP. You could have the best teachers but I suspect little would change until attitudes surrounding the value of an education change at home.

This is the most important component to a successful education and the least talked about.

It's very much talked about, usually in the context of why nothing can be done or why nothing should be done.

[Anonymous]

there is no law that says the school board cannot change school boundaries. there should be no entitlement to any resident.

For all the talk, most boundaries were defined by location--as they should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

there is no law that says the school board cannot change school boundaries. there should be no entitlement to any resident.

For all the talk, most boundaries were defined by location--as they should be.

Langley says hello. Boundaries extend all the way to Loudoun and could hardly be more gerrymandered to exclude any low or even moderate-income housing. And the segregationists like Elaine Tholen keep it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why AP is preferred over IB?

AP is more flexible and portable. You can pick the classes you want to take a la carte, such as AB chemistry but regular honors history, or multiple AP history and English classes but no AP math. They can take 1 AP class in high school or multiple AP classes each year. This means that kids can focus on their strengths. It also provides opportunities for kids who are less proficient in English to still earn college credit in a class like AP calculus. You can jump in and out of AP classes if you move high school.

IB is a writing heavy, comprehensive program that is taken in its entirety over the 4 years of high school and is not a la cart. It is all, or nothing, which shuts out military kids who move later in high school, smart kids who struggle with with writing, and kids who are uneven in their skill sets. It is a terrible program for most of the schools that FCPS put IB into as those are mostly ESOL heavy schools where student do not have the English language proficiency to handle the heavy writing components or extra time for the service components. IB in those schools essentially shuts a large number of students out from accessing advanced curriculum or college credits in high school.

You are spreading misinformation. IB is not "all or nothing" and it begins junior year. Kids can also take individual classes - there is no requirement to enroll in the full Diploma course load if they don't want to.

The writing components should be seen as excellent benefits of taking IB classes. Do you not want your kids to read and write often? Why such disdain for writing and literacy embedded deeply into courses?

DP. You can get the benefits of IB through AP classes that emphasize writing. The optics of IB have backfired in FCPS because, first, the full diploma program, which is demanding, is held out as the main goal (not just taking individual IB courses a la carte) and, second, because IB has been marketed as creating a “school within a school,” which begs the question as to why students would want to isolated from the other kids at those schools. And the fact that there’s no systematic review in FCPS as to whether IB has been a net benefit or detriment to the schools that were switched over to IB 15-20 years ago just underscores how FCPS neglects some pyramids.

And AP doesn't result in a school within a school?

+1 It's the exact same dynamic--because if you are a kid who takes a suite of core AP classes, you are also taking upper level foreign language. Your electives are even more likely to be scheduled with the same top 10-20% of kids because you are all taking similar core. There is literally no difference in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why AP is preferred over IB?

AP is more flexible and portable. You can pick the classes you want to take a la carte, such as AB chemistry but regular honors history, or multiple AP history and English classes but no AP math. They can take 1 AP class in high school or multiple AP classes each year. This means that kids can focus on their strengths. It also provides opportunities for kids who are less proficient in English to still earn college credit in a class like AP calculus. You can jump in and out of AP classes if you move high school.

IB is a writing heavy, comprehensive program that is taken in its entirety over the 4 years of high school and is not a la cart. It is all, or nothing, which shuts out military kids who move later in high school, smart kids who struggle with with writing, and kids who are uneven in their skill sets. It is a terrible program for most of the schools that FCPS put IB into as those are mostly ESOL heavy schools where student do not have the English language proficiency to handle the heavy writing components or extra time for the service components. IB in those schools essentially shuts a large number of students out from accessing advanced curriculum or college credits in high school.

This is not accurate. You can take individual IB courses and receive the same weighting as AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why AP is preferred over IB?

AP is more flexible and portable. You can pick the classes you want to take a la carte, such as AB chemistry but regular honors history, or multiple AP history and English classes but no AP math. They can take 1 AP class in high school or multiple AP classes each year. This means that kids can focus on their strengths. It also provides opportunities for kids who are less proficient in English to still earn college credit in a class like AP calculus. You can jump in and out of AP classes if you move high school.

IB is a writing heavy, comprehensive program that is taken in its entirety over the 4 years of high school and is not a la cart. It is all, or nothing, which shuts out military kids who move later in high school, smart kids who struggle with with writing, and kids who are uneven in their skill sets. It is a terrible program for most of the schools that FCPS put IB into as those are mostly ESOL heavy schools where student do not have the English language proficiency to handle the heavy writing components or extra time for the service components. IB in those schools essentially shuts a large number of students out from accessing advanced curriculum or college credits in high school.

You are spreading misinformation. IB is not "all or nothing" and it begins junior year. Kids can also take individual classes - there is no requirement to enroll in the full Diploma course load if they don't want to.

The writing components should be seen as excellent benefits of taking IB classes. Do you not want your kids to read and write often? Why such disdain for writing and literacy embedded deeply into courses?

DP. You can get the benefits of IB through AP classes that emphasize writing. The optics of IB have backfired in FCPS because, first, the full diploma program, which is demanding, is held out as the main goal (not just taking individual IB courses a la carte) and, second, because IB has been marketed as creating a “school within a school,” which begs the question as to why students would want to isolated from the other kids at those schools. And the fact that there’s no systematic review in FCPS as to whether IB has been a net benefit or detriment to the schools that were switched over to IB 15-20 years ago just underscores how FCPS neglects some pyramids.

And AP doesn't result in a school within a school?

+1 It's the exact same dynamic--because if you are a kid who takes a suite of core AP classes, you are also taking upper level foreign language. Your electives are even more likely to be scheduled with the same top 10-20% of kids because you are all taking similar core. There is literally no difference in this regard.

We’ve been at both an IB school and an AP school. Night and day. The IB school was all about how it was an IBO-recognized school and the small number of kids seeking the IB diploma. The AP school was all about the entire school and kids took as few or as many AP courses as they wanted. There was a lot less fanfare yet the overall results were better.

I know the IB boosters don’t want to hear this but it was our experience with FCPS and helped explain in retrospect why the AP schools were more desirable.

[Anonymous]

Robinson is an IB school and it doesn't have issues with enrollment or people choosing private. I don't think IB is the only issue or will necessarily fix the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why AP is preferred over IB?

AP is more flexible and portable. You can pick the classes you want to take a la carte, such as AB chemistry but regular honors history, or multiple AP history and English classes but no AP math. They can take 1 AP class in high school or multiple AP classes each year. This means that kids can focus on their strengths. It also provides opportunities for kids who are less proficient in English to still earn college credit in a class like AP calculus. You can jump in and out of AP classes if you move high school.

IB is a writing heavy, comprehensive program that is taken in its entirety over the 4 years of high school and is not a la cart. It is all, or nothing, which shuts out military kids who move later in high school, smart kids who struggle with with writing, and kids who are uneven in their skill sets. It is a terrible program for most of the schools that FCPS put IB into as those are mostly ESOL heavy schools where student do not have the English language proficiency to handle the heavy writing components or extra time for the service components. IB in those schools essentially shuts a large number of students out from accessing advanced curriculum or college credits in high school.

You are spreading misinformation. IB is not "all or nothing" and it begins junior year. Kids can also take individual classes - there is no requirement to enroll in the full Diploma course load if they don't want to.

The writing components should be seen as excellent benefits of taking IB classes. Do you not want your kids to read and write often? Why such disdain for writing and literacy embedded deeply into courses?

DP. You can get the benefits of IB through AP classes that emphasize writing. The optics of IB have backfired in FCPS because, first, the full diploma program, which is demanding, is held out as the main goal (not just taking individual IB courses a la carte) and, second, because IB has been marketed as creating a “school within a school,” which begs the question as to why students would want to isolated from the other kids at those schools. And the fact that there’s no systematic review in FCPS as to whether IB has been a net benefit or detriment to the schools that were switched over to IB 15-20 years ago just underscores how FCPS neglects some pyramids.

And AP doesn't result in a school within a school?

+1 It's the exact same dynamic--because if you are a kid who takes a suite of core AP classes, you are also taking upper level foreign language. Your electives are even more likely to be scheduled with the same top 10-20% of kids because you are all taking similar core. There is literally no difference in this regard.

We’ve been at both an IB school and an AP school. Night and day. The IB school was all about how it was an IBO-recognized school and the small number of kids seeking the IB diploma. The AP school was all about the entire school and kids took as few or as many AP courses as they wanted. There was a lot less fanfare yet the overall results were better.

I know the IB boosters don’t want to hear this but it was our experience with FCPS and helped explain in retrospect why the AP schools were more desirable.

We've been at both too (LBSS and Robinson) and this was not our experience--nor does it seem Robinson or LBSS are any more or less desirable than the other. I think when a school has IB AND is high poverty and the placement nearby is in an AP school that is not high poverty, that's where the desirability for AP comes out. If it was the IB school that was wealthier, suddenly IB would be more desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why AP is preferred over IB?

AP is more flexible and portable. You can pick the classes you want to take a la carte, such as AB chemistry but regular honors history, or multiple AP history and English classes but no AP math. They can take 1 AP class in high school or multiple AP classes each year. This means that kids can focus on their strengths. It also provides opportunities for kids who are less proficient in English to still earn college credit in a class like AP calculus. You can jump in and out of AP classes if you move high school.

IB is a writing heavy, comprehensive program that is taken in its entirety over the 4 years of high school and is not a la cart. It is all, or nothing, which shuts out military kids who move later in high school, smart kids who struggle with with writing, and kids who are uneven in their skill sets. It is a terrible program for most of the schools that FCPS put IB into as those are mostly ESOL heavy schools where student do not have the English language proficiency to handle the heavy writing components or extra time for the service components. IB in those schools essentially shuts a large number of students out from accessing advanced curriculum or college credits in high school.

You are spreading misinformation. IB is not "all or nothing" and it begins junior year. Kids can also take individual classes - there is no requirement to enroll in the full Diploma course load if they don't want to.

The writing components should be seen as excellent benefits of taking IB classes. Do you not want your kids to read and write often? Why such disdain for writing and literacy embedded deeply into courses?

DP. You can get the benefits of IB through AP classes that emphasize writing. The optics of IB have backfired in FCPS because, first, the full diploma program, which is demanding, is held out as the main goal (not just taking individual IB courses a la carte) and, second, because IB has been marketed as creating a “school within a school,” which begs the question as to why students would want to isolated from the other kids at those schools. And the fact that there’s no systematic review in FCPS as to whether IB has been a net benefit or detriment to the schools that were switched over to IB 15-20 years ago just underscores how FCPS neglects some pyramids.

And AP doesn't result in a school within a school?

+1 It's the exact same dynamic--because if you are a kid who takes a suite of core AP classes, you are also taking upper level foreign language. Your electives are even more likely to be scheduled with the same top 10-20% of kids because you are all taking similar core. There is literally no difference in this regard.

We’ve been at both an IB school and an AP school. Night and day. The IB school was all about how it was an IBO-recognized school and the small number of kids seeking the IB diploma. The AP school was all about the entire school and kids took as few or as many AP courses as they wanted. There was a lot less fanfare yet the overall results were better.

I know the IB boosters don’t want to hear this but it was our experience with FCPS and helped explain in retrospect why the AP schools were more desirable.

We've been at both too (LBSS and Robinson) and this was not our experience--nor does it seem Robinson or LBSS are any more or less desirable than the other. I think when a school has IB AND is high poverty and the placement nearby is in an AP school that is not high poverty, that's where the desirability for AP comes out. If it was the IB school that was wealthier, suddenly IB would be more desirable.

The wealthier schools don’t want IB. Not sure how they snuck it in at Robinson.