Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:37041 and 37042 are not currently at Henry, so I don't think they should be in your numbers.

This is the table I was using- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/School-Level-Data-Table-Revised-October-2018.pdf . The proposal. It includes those units in its aggregate number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Henry planning units south of the Pike have a FARMS rate of about 40%. Can someone explain to me how that’s considered wealthy? I guess we’re just expecting a single block of nicer homes to save an entire school.

To make sure we are talking about the same thing-- Here are the Henry Planning Units south of the Pike, and here are their respective FARMS rates;

46010- 61 students, 27 FARMS (44%)
46011- 20 students, 0-9 FARMS
46130 - 12 students, 0-9 FARMS
46133- 12 students, 0-9 FARMS
46132- 35 students, 15 FARMS (42%)
46131- 17 students, 0-9 FARMS
46120- 52 students, 12 FARMS (23%)

Total of 209 students. Total of a minimum of 58 FARMS and a maximum of 90 FARMs. So a FARMS rate between 27% and 43%. The only way you can get to the higher number is if you assume that all of the 0-9 numbers are actually 9. Given that the area is mostly SFH and rowhomes the higher number seems extraordinarily unlikely to me.

I think I just figured out how to figure out this area's actual rate. Here are the rest of the Henry zoned units
46100- 63 students, 18 FARMS
46101- 76 students, 40 FARMS
46102- 99 students, 23 FARMS
46900- 41 students, 16 FARMS
46920- 37 students (1-9 FARMS)
46020- 57 students (1-9 FARMS)
46021- 50 students, 10 FARMS
46022, 61 students, 22 FARMS
37041- 21 students, 12 FARMS
37042- 9 students, 1-9 FARMS
so somewhere between 143-158 FARMS students in the rest of the Henry zone. We know that the zone has 215 FARMS students total. WE know precisely which planning units 201 of those studetns come from. The other 14 students are either from south of the pike, or north of the pike- or split between.
If we attribute all 14 to the south of the pike units that would be 72 FARMs students there- for a FARMS rate of 34%.

Notably- this also illustrates the complete lie of 'keep henry together' that they need to keep the south of the pike units for their 'diversity.' At most they are simply consistent with the rest of the zone.

I really hope someone sends this to the staff and board. The Henry parents have been insufferable.

[Anonymous]

I see. Then you have to drop 46110 and 46111 because they are not in the proposed boundary. That means all of your mystery units are either S of the Pike or in Arlington Heights, and those AH units have 37 and 57 kids, so if they don't hit 10 or above, they are not high % free and reduced. That means most of those missing kids are S of the Pike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see. Then you have to drop 46110 and 46111 because they are not in the proposed boundary. That means all of your mystery units are either S of the Pike or in Arlington Heights, and those AH units have 37 and 57 kids, so if they don't hit 10 or above, they are not high % free and reduced. That means most of those missing kids are S of the Pike.

What are you talking about? 46110 and 46111 are not included in the listings above.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. They are in the current Henry boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. They are in the current Henry boundary.

that's interesting. I had thought they had in fact given in to the keep henry together people and moved the entire boundary. But they did break out 46110 and 46111 and sent them to Hoffman Boston.

[Anonymous]

Ummm Abingdon is a title one school who has a FARMs rate of 47% as of last year.

If you move 1/3 of the non FARMs students that could have the potential to make Abingdon 55-60% FARMs which I don't think is the intention of anyone.

I get the reason behind wanting to move Fairlington but I'm not sure making another majority FARMs school is the solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ummm Abingdon is a title one school who has a FARMs rate of 47% as of last year.

If you move 1/3 of the non FARMs students that could have the potential to make Abingdon 55-60% FARMs which I don't think is the intention of anyone.

I get the reason behind wanting to move Fairlington but I'm not sure making another majority FARMs school is the solution.

This all damn day.
Abingdon has been on the brink of turnover for years and is finally getting some traction. Give them a chance ffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummm Abingdon is a title one school who has a FARMs rate of 47% as of last year.

If you move 1/3 of the non FARMs students that could have the potential to make Abingdon 55-60% FARMs which I don't think is the intention of anyone.

I get the reason behind wanting to move Fairlington but I'm not sure making another majority FARMs school is the solution.

This all damn day.
Abingdon has been on the brink of turnover for years and is finally getting some traction. Give them a chance ffs.

Yeah, so what if it means dooming Drew to 15 years of high poverty? (SA boundaries were last redrawn in 2003).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummm Abingdon is a title one school who has a FARMs rate of 47% as of last year.

If you move 1/3 of the non FARMs students that could have the potential to make Abingdon 55-60% FARMs which I don't think is the intention of anyone.

I get the reason behind wanting to move Fairlington but I'm not sure making another majority FARMs school is the solution.

This all damn day.
Abingdon has been on the brink of turnover for years and is finally getting some traction. Give them a chance ffs.

Yeah, so what if it means dooming Drew to 15 years of high poverty? (SA boundaries were last redrawn in 2003).


No it means draw see kids from fleet who is at 30% or Oakridge who is at 24% instead of creating another super high poverty school.

[Anonymous]

Drew will always be high poverty. Sending Columbia Heights or Fairlington will not change it much. This is a systemic county wide problem that small Planning Units cannot fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drew will always be high poverty. Sending Columbia Heights or Fairlington will not change it much. This is a systemic county wide problem that small Planning Units cannot fix.

Fairlington isn't a small PU. Also, the small PUs can't "fix" all of the concentrated poverty, but they can keep it from becoming even worse. If Drew can be just barely Title 1 or 50/50, it's worth Abingdon going back up a couple percentage points to 50% or just under.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew will always be high poverty. Sending Columbia Heights or Fairlington will not change it much. This is a systemic county wide problem that small Planning Units cannot fix.

Fairlington isn't a small PU. Also, the small PUs can't "fix" all of the concentrated poverty, but they can keep it from becoming even worse. If Drew can be just barely Title 1 or 50/50, it's worth Abingdon going back up a couple percentage points to 50% or just under.

1. The Title 1 qualifications are 40% so it would take more than fairlington to get there.
2. The data the school gives includes people who opt out so it's off. The actual numbers if you remove south Fairlington would be closer to 60% and this doesn't include the new APAH building in the Abingdon district which is supposed to add 50 or more kidss all FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drew will always be high poverty. Sending Columbia Heights or Fairlington will not change it much. This is a systemic county wide problem that small Planning Units cannot fix.

Garbage. We could bring the poverty rate down 20 points with contiguous, thoughtful boundaries. People said the same thing about abingdon and Henry fifteen years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew will always be high poverty. Sending Columbia Heights or Fairlington will not change it much. This is a systemic county wide problem that small Planning Units cannot fix.

Fairlington isn't a small PU. Also, the small PUs can't "fix" all of the concentrated poverty, but they can keep it from becoming even worse. If Drew can be just barely Title 1 or 50/50, it's worth Abingdon going back up a couple percentage points to 50% or just under.

1. The Title 1 qualifications are 40% so it would take more than fairlington to get there.
2. The data the school gives includes people who opt out so it's off. The actual numbers if you remove south Fairlington would be closer to 60% and this doesn't include the new APAH building in the Abingdon district which is supposed to add 50 or more kidss all FARMs.

APS gives the bulk of its Title 1 money to elementary schools at or above 60% fr/l.