Who said there isn't a North-South divide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

That’s all well and good, but you have to have earned the trust of those parents. UMC South Arlington parents have seen from the last few go arounds, that their kids aren’t considered. So, why should they roll up their sleeves if both the ACB and SB are ultimately conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with this. I just wish I had some faith that APS would prioritize integration at all. When they’ve had the option to make a better choice for the entire community, they’ve really blown it. Busing across the county? No. Looking at boundaries in a strategic way? Yes.

What kind of strategic boundaries are you envisioning that would solve this problem? People keep tossing this out as the obvious solution, and yet no one ever seems to detail where those boundaries would be. Sure, you can stretch the Ashlawn boundary across 50 (and I support that), but that only addresses a small part of the problem.

Arlington forest is the most recent and obvious example of not doing the right thing.
I personally agreed with breaking up the poverty clusters and placing choice schools at Barcroft or Randolph. I know people think it’s terrible to have poor kids walk, but I think an integrated classroom is a big enough benefit.

I'm not asking about past decisions on high school zones, I'm talking about the upcoming process of redrawing elementary zones, which are substantially smaller and more numerous than high school zones and thus have different challenges. If you got to draw the boundaries this fall, what "strategic" choices would you make to break up poverty?

I literally just wrote that I would eliminate at least 1 neighborhood school from one of the most concentrated pockets. That’s a start. I look forward to working with an online boundary tool this fall. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

Removing a neighborhood school doesn't do anything if you draw boundaries that simply move the poverty around within the same remaining schools. You were the one who suggested "strategic" boundaries, so what does a strategic boundary look like after you put an option school or two there? Where are you going to send the displaced students to create better FARMS rates?

Also, have they changed their minds on putting up an online boundary tool? I thought they said after the high school boundary process they're not going that anymore. There's enough data on the APS site, though, that between that and a few basic google searches, you could at least make a good-faith effort at sketching some boundaries to substantiate your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

That’s all well and good, but you have to have earned the trust of those parents. UMC South Arlington parents have seen from the last few go arounds, that their kids aren’t considered. So, why should they roll up their sleeves if both the ACB and SB are ultimately conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools.

"Conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools?" Seriously? If there's one thing we should be able to take from the CIP process, it's that the CB and SB aren't "conspiring" on anything except turf fields.

But that aside, it sounds like you're looking for excuses to be lazy and not do the work. The CC high school folks didn't get everything they wanted, but the final CIP was significantly better than the original version and that was due in substantial part to their lobbying efforts. So don't sit there and claim there's no point to trying, they just proved you wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with this. I just wish I had some faith that APS would prioritize integration at all. When they’ve had the option to make a better choice for the entire community, they’ve really blown it. Busing across the county? No. Looking at boundaries in a strategic way? Yes.

What kind of strategic boundaries are you envisioning that would solve this problem? People keep tossing this out as the obvious solution, and yet no one ever seems to detail where those boundaries would be. Sure, you can stretch the Ashlawn boundary across 50 (and I support that), but that only addresses a small part of the problem.

Arlington forest is the most recent and obvious example of not doing the right thing.
I personally agreed with breaking up the poverty clusters and placing choice schools at Barcroft or Randolph. I know people think it’s terrible to have poor kids walk, but I think an integrated classroom is a big enough benefit.

I'm not asking about past decisions on high school zones, I'm talking about the upcoming process of redrawing elementary zones, which are substantially smaller and more numerous than high school zones and thus have different challenges. If you got to draw the boundaries this fall, what "strategic" choices would you make to break up poverty?

I literally just wrote that I would eliminate at least 1 neighborhood school from one of the most concentrated pockets. That’s a start. I look forward to working with an online boundary tool this fall. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

Removing a neighborhood school doesn't do anything if you draw boundaries that simply move the poverty around within the same remaining schools. You were the one who suggested "strategic" boundaries, so what does a strategic boundary look like after you put an option school or two there? Where are you going to send the displaced students to create better FARMS rates?

Also, have they changed their minds on putting up an online boundary tool? I thought they said after the high school boundary process they're not going that anymore. There's enough data on the APS site, though, that between that and a few basic google searches, you could at least make a good-faith effort at sketching some boundaries to substantiate your position.

It seems pretty clear that you would be dispersing low income populations to schools with lower farms, like Hoffman Boston, Claremont, and Fleet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

That’s all well and good, but you have to have earned the trust of those parents. UMC South Arlington parents have seen from the last few go arounds, that their kids aren’t considered. So, why should they roll up their sleeves if both the ACB and SB are ultimately conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools.

"Conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools?" Seriously? If there's one thing we should be able to take from the CIP process, it's that the CB and SB aren't "conspiring" on anything except turf fields.

But that aside, it sounds like you're looking for excuses to be lazy and not do the work. The CC high school folks didn't get everything they wanted, but the final CIP was significantly better than the original version and that was due in substantial part to their lobbying efforts. So don't sit there and claim there's no point to trying, they just proved you wrong.

If anything that just proved it truly is futile. We have different definitions of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with this. I just wish I had some faith that APS would prioritize integration at all. When they’ve had the option to make a better choice for the entire community, they’ve really blown it. Busing across the county? No. Looking at boundaries in a strategic way? Yes.

What kind of strategic boundaries are you envisioning that would solve this problem? People keep tossing this out as the obvious solution, and yet no one ever seems to detail where those boundaries would be. Sure, you can stretch the Ashlawn boundary across 50 (and I support that), but that only addresses a small part of the problem.

Arlington forest is the most recent and obvious example of not doing the right thing.
I personally agreed with breaking up the poverty clusters and placing choice schools at Barcroft or Randolph. I know people think it’s terrible to have poor kids walk, but I think an integrated classroom is a big enough benefit.

I'm not asking about past decisions on high school zones, I'm talking about the upcoming process of redrawing elementary zones, which are substantially smaller and more numerous than high school zones and thus have different challenges. If you got to draw the boundaries this fall, what "strategic" choices would you make to break up poverty?

I literally just wrote that I would eliminate at least 1 neighborhood school from one of the most concentrated pockets. That’s a start. I look forward to working with an online boundary tool this fall. It will be interesting to see the numbers.

Removing a neighborhood school doesn't do anything if you draw boundaries that simply move the poverty around within the same remaining schools. You were the one who suggested "strategic" boundaries, so what does a strategic boundary look like after you put an option school or two there? Where are you going to send the displaced students to create better FARMS rates?

Also, have they changed their minds on putting up an online boundary tool? I thought they said after the high school boundary process they're not going that anymore. There's enough data on the APS site, though, that between that and a few basic google searches, you could at least make a good-faith effort at sketching some boundaries to substantiate your position.

It seems pretty clear that you would be dispersing low income populations to schools with lower farms, like Hoffman Boston, Claremont, and Fleet.

Which would mean that instead of the neighborhood schools ranging from 30%-80% FARMS like they do now, all of them would hover around 60% (Claremont is an option program, not a neighborhood school, so there's no neighborhood around there with a 37% FARMs rate to "disperse" into). Do you really think the Hoffman Boston folks won't protest a 10-point jump in their FARMs rate? The Henry folks going to Fleet won't protest a 25-point jump in theirs? Not to mention that none of this addressed inequity with North Arlington.

[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:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

That’s all well and good, but you have to have earned the trust of those parents. UMC South Arlington parents have seen from the last few go arounds, that their kids aren’t considered. So, why should they roll up their sleeves if both the ACB and SB are ultimately conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools.

"Conspiring to undermine their neighborhood schools?" Seriously? If there's one thing we should be able to take from the CIP process, it's that the CB and SB aren't "conspiring" on anything except turf fields.

But that aside, it sounds like you're looking for excuses to be lazy and not do the work. The CC high school folks didn't get everything they wanted, but the final CIP was significantly better than the original version and that was due in substantial part to their lobbying efforts. So don't sit there and claim there's no point to trying, they just proved you wrong.

If anything that just proved it truly is futile. We have different definitions of success.

You don't think there's any difference between a plan that would build just the base 800-seats with only vague assurances that at some point in the future they'd look at giving it a field, parking, and performing arts space but probably not until after they expand a middle school and build another new elementary school after Reed first, and a plan that includes all of those things on the day the high school opens at the expense of delaying the middle school expansion and the additional elementary school? Because if there truly is no difference, let's go back to the original proposed CIP and get those other seats open sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

P.S. I realize that HB Woodlawn isn't a neighborhood school, I meant to clarify that its low FARMs rate suggests it hurts FARMs rates elsewhere rather than helps them, and that even when the lottery seats are assigned by neighborhood elementary school to increase diversity, the demographics of those who transfer still doesn't even approach true diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

Curious how you are calculating that without knowing where current Wakefield students attended elementary and middle school.

[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:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

Curious how you are calculating that without knowing where current Wakefield students attended elementary and middle school.

You can derive it from the historical pupil transfer reports. Up until this year, they gave demographic breakdowns for disadvantaged status by each type of transfer into a school. So you can see how many students transferred in to a school via the option program, as well and how many of them did/did not qualify for FARMs.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

Curious how you are calculating that without knowing where current Wakefield students attended elementary and middle school.

You can derive it from the historical pupil transfer reports. Up until this year, they gave demographic breakdowns for disadvantaged status by each type of transfer into a school. So you can see how many students transferred in to a school via the option program, as well and how many of them did/did not qualify for FARMs.

Hmmm. Transfer reports don't track feeder schools, they track transfer from one school or program to another within school levels. So for example, he 2016-17 transfer report for Gunston shows 297 transfers, and breaks them down by the other middle schools from where those students are zoned for. Now, generally, most of those transfers are in fact immersion students continuing the program into middle school since gunston is the only middle school for that. So it sorta tracks feeder elementaries, But you can't tell if those are SA students who attended claremont or NA who went to key. And you can't figure out what elementaries wakefield students came from via the transfer report either. I think the best estimate would be to say, half of wakefields 2000 students are farms, and assume that the ones who aren't all attended SA elementaries and are distributed across those elementaries in proportion to those schools share of the SA student population.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So whats the solution -- should we move to an all lottery model? You rank your top 4 choices and you get what you get?

Eliminate all choice school options in SA. Make everyone go to their neighborhood school.

No, we've got enough equity to move, and plenty of income to afford private, as do all of our neighbors. Force is not likely to help. People who wouldn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools by choice won't go to the neighborhood schools by force. Some that are better integrated and trending in the right direction with test scores might stand a chance, but the ones that have only one SFH neighborhood and then hundreds of units of AH within the walk zone, where over 70% of the students within the physical zone are living below the poverty line, won't ever change unless the neighborhoods themselves change or the boundaries change significantly. The vast majority of UMC professionals will not accept sending their kids to schools without adequate capital, both financial and social. Do I like that this is the truth? No. But it is the truth. It's a fantasy to believe differently. I think most people living in SA want truly diverse schools, and that is why the option schools are so popular. Until they perceive high poverty schools as being just as able to address the needs and abilities of their more affluent children, they will find alternatives. They will because they can. Simple as that.

Agreed. People aren’t understanding that a school like Randolph would not be significantly impacted if every UMC kid suddenly enrolled next year. Maybe it drops from 77 % low income to 69%. That’s not going to be acceptable to most educated parents. As well it shouldn’t.

Then perhaps they shouldn't have bought houses there in the first place.

Or, perhaps they should have moved there, and should advocate for an integrated school that isn't just an SOL cram facility. A high poverty school is a problem, period. We shouldn't, as a county, accept them whether our kids are zoned for them or not. They are not good for anyone, especially poor kids.

If they moved there and then advocated for things to reduce the FARMS rate (e.g., no more AH in the area, relocating option programs to break up poverty clusters), I would respect that. But when you buy in a 70% FARMS school hoping you'll back-door into a "good" school via the option lottery or neighborhood transfer, don't throw a temper tantrum about the unfairness when it doesn't pan out and then demand that the county give you additional options for getting out of your own neighborhood. I have zero sympathy for that.

But having the UMC moving to high poverty neighborhoods/school zones and advocating for better boundaries or more choices is how integration happens, and is the only way. No one else will advocate for such arrangements. Certainly not NA parents.

Add reasonable boundary adjustments to the list of things I have no problem with them advocating for, because that's something that would actually help the neighborhood school. I am not opposed to integration, I'm opposed to putting resources into creating more avenues for UMC families to flee higher-FARMs schools, which only makes the inequality between neighborhood schools even worse.

Actually, option schools make the jr high schools and high school more integrated. Eliminating option schools won't "force" UMC students to attend segregated elementaries. For the hundredth time. Without option schools, UMC students in south Arlington would just go private or move away. Randolph would be just as segregated, with or without option schools.

The big difference is that Wakefield would be as segregated as Randolph, because it would no longer have option elementaries as feeders. No option schools in SA, no UMC in the upper grades. It's that simple.

The effect of option programs within neighborhood schools at the middle and high school is negligible. At Wakefield, the effect of immersion and the AP network is to decrease the FARMs rate by a single percentage point. At W-L, the effect of IB is to decrease the FARMs rate by 3 percentage points. At Gunston, montessori and immersion reduce the FARMs rate by 2 percentage points. And then there's HB Woodlawn, where the 18% FARMs rate is only 3 percentage points higher than Yorktown but is 17 points lower than W-L and 32 points lower than Wakefield. That's not integration.

Curious how you are calculating that without knowing where current Wakefield students attended elementary and middle school.

You can derive it from the historical pupil transfer reports. Up until this year, they gave demographic breakdowns for disadvantaged status by each type of transfer into a school. So you can see how many students transferred in to a school via the option program, as well and how many of them did/did not qualify for FARMs.

Hmmm. Transfer reports don't track feeder schools, they track transfer from one school or program to another within school levels. So for example, he 2016-17 transfer report for Gunston shows 297 transfers, and breaks them down by the other middle schools from where those students are zoned for. Now, generally, most of those transfers are in fact immersion students continuing the program into middle school since gunston is the only middle school for that. So it sorta tracks feeder elementaries, But you can't tell if those are SA students who attended claremont or NA who went to key. And you can't figure out what elementaries wakefield students came from via the transfer report either. I think the best estimate would be to say, half of wakefields 2000 students are farms, and assume that the ones who aren't all attended SA elementaries and are distributed across those elementaries in proportion to those schools share of the SA student population.

You don’t need to do any of that to calculate the impact of an option program on the FARMS rate. Look at the number of students who transfer into the school and how many of them are FARMS-eligible. Back those numbers out of the total students and total FARMS-eligible for the school and calculate what the FARMS rate is for everyone other than the option transfers and you can see how the rate changes with and without the option program(s).