Are option schools in Arlington reducing or exacerbating FARMS distribution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized with the new data that APS published last night on 'resident' FARMS students, that I could reverse out the number of FARMS students who transfer as compared to the number of non-FARMS students who transfer out of a given zone. I thought others might be interested.

Abingdon- 114 FARMS transfers- 432 total transfers.

Barcroft- 56 FARMS Transfers- 322 total transfers.

Henry 25 FARMS Transfers- 110 total transfers.

Long Branch- 17 FARMS transfers 181 total transfers

Oakridge 42 FARMS transfers 220 total transfers

Randolph 1 FARMS transfer 166 total transfers

Can you describe your arithmetic? I think the interpretation is plausible but you'd expect to see stronger effects at schools with higher farms rates if "fleeing" holds water. Also, Oakridge and Henry have themselves lower farms rates than the option schools ... so what are those families "fleeing"?

You'd also want to know which schools are just transferring a lot of kids as a proportion of resident total, rich or poor - and that would point to things like neighborhood preference for option schools . Then there is spanish immersion, which further complicates the analysis since it was actually designed not as a way to escape economic diversity but to encourage it; that is why Key became immersion in 1986, to get white families back into the school.

So I think the "fleeing" explanation is a factor there are a lot of variables that make quantifying it messy.

I'm happy to 'show my work.' This table gives 'resident' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/School-Level-Data-Table-Revised-October-2018.pdf

These table gives 'enrolled' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FREE-REDUCED-OCTOBER-31-2017.pdf
Resident subtracted by enrolled gives you the number of resident farms students who are transferring out.
Transfer report gives total number of transfer students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Transfer-Report-2017-18.pdf

There is a flaw in this analysis. The FARMS table include preschool students, not just K-5. Most of those preschool students will be FARMS, so if you want to account for this, I would look at the monthly enrollment numbers from October 2017 (which were counted at about the same time as the FARMS statistics), look at the difference between K-5 enrolled in that month and the number enrolled in the FARMS table, assume all of those preschool students are FARMS and subtract them from each school's total FARMS students to esstimate the K-5 FARMS numbers for each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The APS data from last night is flawed, per usual. For instance, the original resident data for the proposed Randolph boundary showed the resident student fr/l rate at 91%, yet the school's actual fr/l rate last year was 72%. There are very few non ED transfers into Randolph, so that must mean that there are a number of ED students transferring out of Randolph and into other schools. Yet you say there is only one ED student transfer? Impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The APS data from last night is flawed, per usual. For instance, the original resident data for the proposed Randolph boundary showed the resident student fr/l rate at 91%, yet the school's actual fr/l rate last year was 72%. There are very few non ED transfers into Randolph, so that must mean that there are a number of ED students transferring out of Randolph and into other schools. Yet you say there is only one ED student transfer? Impossible.

Your aren’t replying to OP, but I agree that is what immediately stood out to me. The Randolph numbers are immediately and obviously flawed.

[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.

Please note that they calculate 53 actual students from Gilliam Place in the Barcroft PU 37050, but 0 additional students who qualify for fr/l. In the Abingdon PU 36021, by my estimate, based on the number of children generated by similarly sized units at Arlington Mill, they should be calculating 108 students when it opens, and all 108 of those students will qualify for fr/l (they have calculated 103 students by 2021 for capacity, yet 0 for demographic projections). Any students who live in CAFs will qualify for fr/l. That is a known number and should be added into any calculation or projection for both capacity and demographics. That way we're not all "surprised" when the actual fr/l rate ends up well beyond what was predicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized with the new data that APS published last night on 'resident' FARMS students, that I could reverse out the number of FARMS students who transfer as compared to the number of non-FARMS students who transfer out of a given zone. I thought others might be interested.

Abingdon- 114 FARMS transfers- 432 total transfers.

Barcroft- 56 FARMS Transfers- 322 total transfers.

Henry 25 FARMS Transfers- 110 total transfers.

Long Branch- 17 FARMS transfers 181 total transfers

Oakridge 42 FARMS transfers 220 total transfers

Randolph 1 FARMS transfer 166 total transfers

Can you describe your arithmetic? I think the interpretation is plausible but you'd expect to see stronger effects at schools with higher farms rates if "fleeing" holds water. Also, Oakridge and Henry have themselves lower farms rates than the option schools ... so what are those families "fleeing"?

You'd also want to know which schools are just transferring a lot of kids as a proportion of resident total, rich or poor - and that would point to things like neighborhood preference for option schools . Then there is spanish immersion, which further complicates the analysis since it was actually designed not as a way to escape economic diversity but to encourage it; that is why Key became immersion in 1986, to get white families back into the school.

So I think the "fleeing" explanation is a factor there are a lot of variables that make quantifying it messy.

I'm happy to 'show my work.' This table gives 'resident' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/School-Level-Data-Table-Revised-October-2018.pdf

These table gives 'enrolled' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FREE-REDUCED-OCTOBER-31-2017.pdf
Resident subtracted by enrolled gives you the number of resident farms students who are transferring out.
Transfer report gives total number of transfer students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Transfer-Report-2017-18.pdf

There is a flaw in this analysis. The FARMS table include preschool students, not just K-5. Most of those preschool students will be FARMS, so if you want to account for this, I would look at the monthly enrollment numbers from October 2017 (which were counted at about the same time as the FARMS statistics), look at the difference between K-5 enrolled in that month and the number enrolled in the FARMS table, assume all of those preschool students are FARMS and subtract them from each school's total FARMS students to esstimate the K-5 FARMS numbers for each school.

I agree with you that the preschool is throwign the numbers. I don't think it is quite safe to say all preschool is FARMS b/c special ed and montessori isn't-- but I am going to try and play around with this a little more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized with the new data that APS published last night on 'resident' FARMS students, that I could reverse out the number of FARMS students who transfer as compared to the number of non-FARMS students who transfer out of a given zone. I thought others might be interested.

Abingdon- 114 FARMS transfers- 432 total transfers.

Barcroft- 56 FARMS Transfers- 322 total transfers.

Henry 25 FARMS Transfers- 110 total transfers.

Long Branch- 17 FARMS transfers 181 total transfers

Oakridge 42 FARMS transfers 220 total transfers

Randolph 1 FARMS transfer 166 total transfers

Can you describe your arithmetic? I think the interpretation is plausible but you'd expect to see stronger effects at schools with higher farms rates if "fleeing" holds water. Also, Oakridge and Henry have themselves lower farms rates than the option schools ... so what are those families "fleeing"?

You'd also want to know which schools are just transferring a lot of kids as a proportion of resident total, rich or poor - and that would point to things like neighborhood preference for option schools . Then there is spanish immersion, which further complicates the analysis since it was actually designed not as a way to escape economic diversity but to encourage it; that is why Key became immersion in 1986, to get white families back into the school.

So I think the "fleeing" explanation is a factor there are a lot of variables that make quantifying it messy.

I'm happy to 'show my work.' This table gives 'resident' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/School-Level-Data-Table-Revised-October-2018.pdf

These table gives 'enrolled' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FREE-REDUCED-OCTOBER-31-2017.pdf
Resident subtracted by enrolled gives you the number of resident farms students who are transferring out.
Transfer report gives total number of transfer students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Transfer-Report-2017-18.pdf

There is a flaw in this analysis. The FARMS table include preschool students, not just K-5. Most of those preschool students will be FARMS, so if you want to account for this, I would look at the monthly enrollment numbers from October 2017 (which were counted at about the same time as the FARMS statistics), look at the difference between K-5 enrolled in that month and the number enrolled in the FARMS table, assume all of those preschool students are FARMS and subtract them from each school's total FARMS students to esstimate the K-5 FARMS numbers for each school.

I agree with you that the preschool is throwign the numbers. I don't think it is quite safe to say all preschool is FARMS b/c special ed and montessori isn't-- but I am going to try and play around with this a little more.

I agree that not all of the preschool students are FARMS, but the theory you're trying to support is that transfer students from those schools are disproportionately non-FARMS and thus option programs exacerbate disparities between schools. If you go to the furthest extreme against your theory (assuming all preschool students are FARMS and thus driving down enrolled K-5 FARMS numbers and driving up transfer FARMS) and the result would still support your theory, that means that whatever the real % is, it will still support your theory. If you just choose a random % to assume as FARMS without firm data to support it, you leave your result open to easy challenge by people who don't like it.

[Anonymous]

OP, question on your approach. We have FARMS data for enrolled students and for resident students, but for purposes of netting the two, isn't the calculation confounded by the number of transfers into a school? In other words, if Abingdon has 419 resident FARMs students and 315 enrolled FARMs students, isn't the 315 figure inclusive of resident FARMs plus transfer-in FARMs, such that you can't conclude that the difference of 104 is the number of resident FARMs kids transferring out?

Still using Abingdon, looks like 14 kids transfer in. If those are all FARMs kids, which we don't have data on, then only 301 enrolled FARMs kids come from Abingdon's resident borders and, in turn, there are 118 FARMs transfers from Abingdon.

Is that right? I'm starting to confuse myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, question on your approach. We have FARMS data for enrolled students and for resident students, but for purposes of netting the two, isn't the calculation confounded by the number of transfers into a school? In other words, if Abingdon has 419 resident FARMs students and 315 enrolled FARMs students, isn't the 315 figure inclusive of resident FARMs plus transfer-in FARMs, such that you can't conclude that the difference of 104 is the number of resident FARMs kids transferring out?

Still using Abingdon, looks like 14 kids transfer in. If those are all FARMs kids, which we don't have data on, then only 301 enrolled FARMs kids come from Abingdon's resident borders and, in turn, there are 118 FARMs transfers from Abingdon.

Is that right? I'm starting to confuse myself.

I don't think transfers in to neighborhood schools are going to make that much of a difference. Abingdon had 14 total- of those it looks like 1/2 were administratively determined and the other 1/2 were residence changes. To be a little pragmatic- its an awful lot of effort to have a child enrolled at a neighborhood school outside your neighborhood- you have to transport them, etc- and most people who are FARMS do not have the resources to do this.
I am going to try and separate out preschool- I think that is throwing the data alot more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized with the new data that APS published last night on 'resident' FARMS students, that I could reverse out the number of FARMS students who transfer as compared to the number of non-FARMS students who transfer out of a given zone. I thought others might be interested.

Abingdon- 114 FARMS transfers- 432 total transfers.

Barcroft- 56 FARMS Transfers- 322 total transfers.

Henry 25 FARMS Transfers- 110 total transfers.

Long Branch- 17 FARMS transfers 181 total transfers

Oakridge 42 FARMS transfers 220 total transfers

Randolph 1 FARMS transfer 166 total transfers

Can you describe your arithmetic? I think the interpretation is plausible but you'd expect to see stronger effects at schools with higher farms rates if "fleeing" holds water. Also, Oakridge and Henry have themselves lower farms rates than the option schools ... so what are those families "fleeing"?

You'd also want to know which schools are just transferring a lot of kids as a proportion of resident total, rich or poor - and that would point to things like neighborhood preference for option schools . Then there is spanish immersion, which further complicates the analysis since it was actually designed not as a way to escape economic diversity but to encourage it; that is why Key became immersion in 1986, to get white families back into the school.

So I think the "fleeing" explanation is a factor there are a lot of variables that make quantifying it messy.

I'm happy to 'show my work.' This table gives 'resident' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/School-Level-Data-Table-Revised-October-2018.pdf

These table gives 'enrolled' FARMS students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FREE-REDUCED-OCTOBER-31-2017.pdf
Resident subtracted by enrolled gives you the number of resident farms students who are transferring out.
Transfer report gives total number of transfer students- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Transfer-Report-2017-18.pdf

There is a flaw in this analysis. The FARMS table include preschool students, not just K-5. Most of those preschool students will be FARMS, so if you want to account for this, I would look at the monthly enrollment numbers from October 2017 (which were counted at about the same time as the FARMS statistics), look at the difference between K-5 enrolled in that month and the number enrolled in the FARMS table, assume all of those preschool students are FARMS and subtract them from each school's total FARMS students to esstimate the K-5 FARMS numbers for each school.

I agree with you that the preschool is throwign the numbers. I don't think it is quite safe to say all preschool is FARMS b/c special ed and montessori isn't-- but I am going to try and play around with this a little more.

I agree that not all of the preschool students are FARMS, but the theory you're trying to support is that transfer students from those schools are disproportionately non-FARMS and thus option programs exacerbate disparities between schools. If you go to the furthest extreme against your theory (assuming all preschool students are FARMS and thus driving down enrolled K-5 FARMS numbers and driving up transfer FARMS) and the result would still support your theory, that means that whatever the real % is, it will still support your theory. If you just choose a random % to assume as FARMS without firm data to support it, you leave your result open to easy challenge by people who don't like it.

I'm going to say that you must also consider the number of seat set-asides at option schools as an issue that would influence whether/how many ED students are transferring, as well as location (are there certain programs that are located closer to zoned schools that see greater numbers of transfers than others that are more distantly located?). I definitely believe that in the majority of cases it's not ED families that are transferring, but I think what that points to is the difficulty many families have had in accessing the option school lotteries for many years. The process for application was so cumbersome that not many families, other than those with time and money to spare, were able to even consider the programs. The main way ED students have enrolled at option programs is through the VPI set asides, because the application to VPI lottery were (historically) more accessible for ED families (didn't require multiple school visits during working hours, and there was more assistance offered for completing the forms). If there aren't many ED transfers, we should also be asking or seeking to understand WHY and whether there are policies that were or are in place, or issues with locations, that make some or all Option programs less accessible for ED families. Additionally, the issue of moving into Arlington after the lottery. I'd like to see some analysis of how the change in policy to a new lottery held at each grade level each year changes things. In the past if you were a transient family, who moved here after the K lottery deadline, you were shut out, permanently, in many cases. Will the new policy increase opportunities for those families who may not have been here for the K lottery? Are the options well publicized to ED communities? Basically, this isn't happening in a vacuum. All our policies should be intentional, and seek to increase opportunity and diversity for all students. When it's not working as we'd hope, we can change the policies so that both neighborhood and option schools benefit. We're not ever going to get neighborhood boundaries that respect proximity and also perfectly balance demographics. We can do better, but there are some neighborhood boundaries that will never be balanced due to the resident demographics. Do we tell all those families they have to move if they want a different experience?

[Anonymous]

Abingdon- 419 Resident k-5 FARMS. 315 enrolled (includes preschool) FARMS students. 33 VPI students (probably all FARMS); 8 special ed students (FARMS status unknown- let's say 2 FARMS). That leaves -280 enrolled K-5 FARMS. Which means of their 432 transfers- 140 were FARMS.

Does this seem like a better methodology?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

#FakeNews

ATS has intentionally increased its fr/l percentages over the past five years and is now within % percentage points of the CW average. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own data. Here is the REAL data:

2017: 26.3%, CW avg. is 31.13%
2016: 21.08%
2015: 17.2%
2014: 18.33%
2013: 16.9%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

#FakeNews

ATS has intentionally increased its fr/l percentages over the past five years and is now within % percentage points of the CW average. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own data. Here is the REAL data:

2017: 26.3%, CW avg. is 31.13%
2016: 21.08%
2015: 17.2%
2014: 18.33%
2013: 16.9%

That's supposed to read within 5% points of the CW average.

[Anonymous]

How do they intentionally increase their numbers with a blind lottery?

[Anonymous]

I always thought that the option schools were put in place to give people with bad school districts an "option" to go to a better school.

[Anonymous]

Barcroft has 353 resident k-5 FARMS. Barcroft has 293 enrolled FARMS. Barcroft has 32 VPI and 5 special ed. Call 1 of the special ed FARMS- all VPI FArms. gets you to 260 enrolled FARMS- which means it has a transfer rate out of 97 FARMS students and 230 non-FARMS transfers