South Arlington elementary school boundary adjustments 2019

[Anonymous]

There are CAF’s zoned to Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@1040- your assumptions on what a neighborhood Drew FARMS rate will be are incorrect.
If you look at the transfer report- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf
Drew has 78 kids who are economically disadvantaged transferring in for Montessori.
It has 364 kids who are FARMS. That means that 80% of the current FARMS kids are neighborhood kids.

Also - the 2/3 spots only applies to preschool, not elementary. And those 2/3 spots are reserved for people whose income for a family of 4 is below 88,240. In order to be FARMS- a family of 4 has to make less than 45,000. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/10/2017-07043/child-nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines

I figured I had to be doing something wrong on that point. But some of those neighborhood FARMS kids must be Montessori kids as well. Drew doesn't have 286 kids in the neighborhood program in total. Whether they will go with the Montessori or stay put, who knows.

Neither of you have factored in the preschool kids who receive fr/l to your calculations.

Current Drew Montessori parent, can you tell me how many VPI classrooms and how many Pre-K Montessori classrooms there are in the building. Those kids are all counted in for fr/l percentages (all the VPI kids would qualify, as would a number of the Pre-K Montessori kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@1040- your assumptions on what a neighborhood Drew FARMS rate will be are incorrect.
If you look at the transfer report- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf
Drew has 78 kids who are economically disadvantaged transferring in for Montessori.
It has 364 kids who are FARMS. That means that 80% of the current FARMS kids are neighborhood kids.

Also - the 2/3 spots only applies to preschool, not elementary. And those 2/3 spots are reserved for people whose income for a family of 4 is below 88,240. In order to be FARMS- a family of 4 has to make less than 45,000. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/10/2017-07043/child-nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines

I figured I had to be doing something wrong on that point. But some of those neighborhood FARMS kids must be Montessori kids as well. Drew doesn't have 286 kids in the neighborhood program in total. Whether they will go with the Montessori or stay put, who knows.

Neither of you have factored in the preschool kids who receive fr/l to your calculations.

Current Drew Montessori parent, can you tell me how many VPI classrooms and how many Pre-K Montessori classrooms there are in the building. Those kids are all counted in for fr/l percentages (all the VPI kids would qualify, as would a number of the Pre-K Montessori kids).

I don't have those numbers and don't know anything about VPI, sorry. All I know is the rough split btwn Montessori and traditional. The transfer report appears to treat MN transfers differently from VPI in that only VPI age 4 on entry are included but I thought VPI started at age 3? I find it hard to read, though. I also think it says in the key that students from within school boundaries are not counted as transfers in the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are CAF’s zoned to Drew.

Where/which ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are CAF’s zoned to Drew.

What is CAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are CAF’s zoned to Drew.

What is CAF?

Committed affordable housing units. Why those letters, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@1040- your assumptions on what a neighborhood Drew FARMS rate will be are incorrect.
If you look at the transfer report- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Transfer-Report-2016-17.pdf
Drew has 78 kids who are economically disadvantaged transferring in for Montessori.
It has 364 kids who are FARMS. That means that 80% of the current FARMS kids are neighborhood kids.

Also - the 2/3 spots only applies to preschool, not elementary. And those 2/3 spots are reserved for people whose income for a family of 4 is below 88,240. In order to be FARMS- a family of 4 has to make less than 45,000. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/10/2017-07043/child-nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines

I figured I had to be doing something wrong on that point. But some of those neighborhood FARMS kids must be Montessori kids as well. Drew doesn't have 286 kids in the neighborhood program in total. Whether they will go with the Montessori or stay put, who knows.

Neither of you have factored in the preschool kids who receive fr/l to your calculations.

Current Drew Montessori parent, can you tell me how many VPI classrooms and how many Pre-K Montessori classrooms there are in the building. Those kids are all counted in for fr/l percentages (all the VPI kids would qualify, as would a number of the Pre-K Montessori kids).

I don't have those numbers and don't know anything about VPI, sorry. All I know is the rough split btwn Montessori and traditional. The transfer report appears to treat MN transfers differently from VPI in that only VPI age 4 on entry are included but I thought VPI started at age 3? I find it hard to read, though. I also think it says in the key that students from within school boundaries are not counted as transfers in the report.

VPI is only 4-year-olds, they would all qualify for fr/l. I found the info. There are two VPI classrooms at Drew this year, 31 students. And four Pre-K classrooms, 96 students. All the Montessori Pre-K kids will be moved out of the Drew building when it becomes a neighborhood school. Not sure about VPI.

Based on the transfer report, it looks like there are 533 students in K-5. Of those 533, 307 are economically disadvantaged. Of those economically disadvantaged students, only 183 are NOT transfers. But what we don't know is how many of those economically disadvantaged students are in Montessori yet live within the current Drew boundary, and will they stay at Drew when it's a neighborhood school or will they follow Montessori to Henry?

[Anonymous]

actually- not all VPI students qualify for FARMS. The income limit for VPI is like 88k- its given a few comments up. The income limit for FARMS is more like 45k both for a family of 4.

[Anonymous]

The graded program test scores published on Arlnow several years ago were abysmal. Test performance is highly correlated with family income. On that basis, there's reason to believe that the farms rate for Drews graded or ogram is already quite high. I don't think being in the 2/3 of seats reserved for Montessori is the same thing as a free and reduced meals level of low income but I could be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew supporters tell me, an UMC family about to be zoned from Henry/Fleet to Drew, potentially why I shouldn’t freak out? Convince me that this school will not just survive but excel?

I'll give that a go. Full disclosure, we are zoned for Drew but currently enrolled in Montessori.

As I understand it, Drew's FARMs rate is around 55% currently. That should be an aggregated rate, i.e., taking into account the Montessori program, which is 2/3 low income. The Montessori program is far and away the biggest part of that school, about 450 out of 600 kids, give or take. So, using the above assumptions, that means the neighborhood program should clock in at a much lower FARMs rate. (My math says 20%, but I acknowledge both that that seems optimistic knowing the neighborhood and that I'm bad at math.) I've posted this before, but I understand from working group materials that Drew is slated to receive kids currently zoned Henry and Oakridge, in addition to Randolph, Abingdon, and Hoffman-Boston. I'm not as familiar with the Oakridge PUs or what can be done there in light of "walkability" but I think influx from Oakridge is a positive. Same for Henry - I assume you're in the Glebe/Walter Reed/Pike triangle. So those numbers should help. Also, I understand that people will no longer be able to opt into Hoffman-Boston from the Drew zone, so those kids (and their parents who paid enough attention to education to choose Hoffman-Boston) will come to Drew. All of this seems favorable demographically. Also, the current Drew zone does not have committed AH that I'm aware of (correct me if I'm wrong). There are plenty of smaller SFH, undoubtedly many illegal rentals, and the older garden apartments, but I don't view those through the same lens as the CAFs that have gone up in, say, the Barcroft zone. I don't think they have the same effect of concentrating lower income families/students with limited hope for turnover.

Anecdotally, in my immediate neighborhood there are at least a dozen kids currently under the age of 5 in UMC families, some of whom have already missed the boat on the lottery (some are not old enough yet), who will likely wind up at Drew. I doubt we're alone, given the relatively rampant house flipping in the area.

Drew is getting focus from APS and pressure from the community. They have a new STEAM focus. Drew will be getting a new principal this year, a year ahead of the Montessori move, rather than continuing to share a principal. The teachers I've met at Drew are all great. Some are Montessori and will move, others are not and presumably will stay. We've been there 3 years now and I have yet to notice any significant teacher turnover issues (the assistant principal has turned over once during that time, she left to take a position with APS). My child has had the same teachers for art, Spanish, PE, and whatever they call the counselor's role when she does classroom things instead of counseling. The administrators are the same for the most part.

We go to school events as allowed by the schedules of two working parents with relatively long hours and they seem well attended. Movie night each semester is packed. The book fair is a zoo. They do concerts and performances and plays.

Drew's facilities are fine. I've personally been inside Henry, Campbell, Hoffman-Boston, and Jamestown and haven't seen material differences among them, inside or out.

All that says, who knows. I can't explain why a school suddenly flourishes or why another seems to founder. I've posted this previously too, but when I moved here Hoffman-Boston was no great shakes and now it's pretty well-regarded. I don't know why, but I also don't see why Drew can't be that in another couple of years. I think the split program did the smaller neighborhood program a real disservice over the years. Having a cohesive school on its own is a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are CAF’s zoned to Drew.

Where/which ones?

The Shelton and the Macedonian

Right on Shirlington road. Nice new buildings that are already in disrepair, and being treated poorly by both residents and staff.

https://www.arlnow.com/2016/05/13/nauck-apartment-residents-demand-better-living-conditions/

[Anonymous]

I went to a Nauck civic association mtg a while back and they had the sore break downs on the graded vs. Montessori the difference was very disappointing. The civic association is very interested in making Drew a quality neighborhood school. I hope that their work pays off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a Nauck civic association mtg a while back and they had the sore break downs on the graded vs. Montessori the difference was very disappointing. The civic association is very interested in making Drew a quality neighborhood school. I hope that their work pays off.

Me too. I'm interested in the "Community School" services that Carlin Springs and Barcroft have, and which Drew's graded program could clearly use, probably right now. Not much information out there about it, except on the Carlin Springs Elementary website.

I mention it because the poverty rate for Nauck's census tract -- which is basically identical to the schools' neighborhood zone -- is almost 36% for families with children, which along with Buckingham is about the highest in the county. It was only 16% in 2012. Now, these are five year estimates, and there's a wide margin of error associated with them, but it still suggests poverty is either staying the same or increasing at Drew's graded program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:actually- not all VPI students qualify for FARMS. The income limit for VPI is like 88k- its given a few comments up. The income limit for FARMS is more like 45k both for a family of 4.

The give out spots in VPI based on income level, with families in poverty being the priority. The poorer a family, the more likely they will get a spot. There are not very many kids in VPI whose families are not poor and who don't also qualify for fr/l.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a Nauck civic association mtg a while back and they had the sore break downs on the graded vs. Montessori the difference was very disappointing. The civic association is very interested in making Drew a quality neighborhood school. I hope that their work pays off.

Me too. I'm interested in the "Community School" services that Carlin Springs and Barcroft have, and which Drew's graded program could clearly use, probably right now. Not much information out there about it, except on the Carlin Springs Elementary website.

I mention it because the poverty rate for Nauck's census tract -- which is basically identical to the schools' neighborhood zone -- is almost 36% for families with children, which along with Buckingham is about the highest in the county. It was only 16% in 2012. Now, these are five year estimates, and there's a wide margin of error associated with them, but it still suggests poverty is either staying the same or increasing at Drew's graded program.

I don’t think Barcroft is offering the same kind of support as Carlin Springs.

[Anonymous]

That's the thing, they're all increasingly poorest. Oakridge and fleet and possibly Abingdon are probably going to have farms rates under 40 percent when the dust clears, so great for them. They're going to donate their poorest to the other south Arlington elementaries. The sky's the limit for barcroft, Randolph, Carlin springs and the new drew, which are all going to clock in at about 70% farms or more. I'm not unsympathetic to these children, and they need a lot of help academically and otherwise. You can easily see this in test scores; poor kids always do a lot worse. My concern is that when the student body is that disadvantaged, there's not many resources to direct to kids performing at or above grade level, and their relative advantage leads to comments like, they'll be fine which basically means, they can be ignored. Not my kid.



Oakridge and Henry are already well below 40% FR/L. Henry already lost its Title I status.
But I admire your optimism regarding Abingdon and Drew. the "new Drew" SHOULD be under 40% (ALL schools SHOULD be), if they were to go about boundaries based on what's right. But if proximity is all they care about, look which students from Henry and Oakridge and Abingdon will be redirected to Drew. Hopefully even given the proximity method, Drew will be comfortably and stably below 40%; but I hope not at the cost of Oakridge and Henry becoming 20% or less and adding to the disparities. And hopefully not at the cost of Barcroft rising above 60% again (it is currently below 60%, btw). Randolph is already 70% and Carlin Springs has been 80% for quite some time.

But you are right that excessively high FR/L schools, especially when they also have high % English language learners, can have a different approach to education with different expectations and standards (lower ones). APS and teachers will emphatically deny that - and perhaps from an individual classroom teacher perspective it may not be true - but it can be quite evident from looking at the administrative (aka leadership) level. It is not always the case, as evidenced by high quality, high-performing Title I schools; but those are not the 60, 70 and 80% schools in Arlington. Yet Arlington buries its head in the sand believing it is different from everywhere else and immune from the social ills infecting the rest of the world; and that it is exempt from having to have integrated schools. If we were talking about majority Black v. majority White schools, Arlington would be a bit more embarrassed by its progressive hypocrisy and segregation. But we're segregated Latino v. everyone else and it's absolutely fine because the Latino community needs to stay together in totem. And we make sure it stays that way by having a Latino school board member - whose children did not live and learn with this poor South Arlington Latino community in question - fiercely defending policies and philosophies that maintain the status quo and segregation under the banner of "representing my community." Well, as I understand it, school board members are at-large. That means each member's "community" that they are supposed to "represent" is ARLINGTON. They can each bring different perspectives and draw attention to unique needs of various segments of the larger community. But they're supposed to bring those to the table as they make policies and decisions based on common ground, compromises (from all sides), and what's best for the system overall.

"Promixity" and "community" are red herrings and everyone knows it.