South Arlington elementary school boundary adjustments 2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The demographics of Nauck have really changed. THe neighborhood school is not reflective of the neighborhood population anymore. We live in Nauck, we are UMC and go to Claremont. We also have a lot of neighbors that go to ATS and Hoffman Boston. I am not saying it is a mega rich neighborhood by any means but I don't know that it is overall high poverty anymore. THe neighborhood went from 97% black to something like 20%. If they force the neighborhood families to go to Drew I think it could really change the demographics of the school, but who knows.

Yep, the neighborhood has attracted some UMC families. But they tend to send their kids to option schools - either Montessori, or, in your case, Claremont. Many of them are going to follow the Montessori program to the Henry building. Poverty in Nauck is still pretty high - at least 20 percent and probably higher, and that's Census data APS has published. Especially the portion south of Glebe Road. The children in poverty are probably mostly in the regular graded program at Drew, judging from test scores (which are highly correlated to family income). Eliminating choice schools and forcing Nauck residents to go to Drew? I don't think that's going to happen. Would you stand for it? It would be unfair for low-income kids who want to attend a choice school.

Given the relatively high poverty rate, the tendency for UMC Nauck residents with children to either move away or send their kids to choice programs other than Drew Model, my best guess is that the New Drew is going to resemble the current Model program, demographically. I think APS will be under the usual pressure to cherry pick/rezone nearby low-income and AH complexes to Drew to relieve overcrowding at Oakridge, which would probably change the current demographics modestly. It's always easier to rezone poorer families, they aren't as politically powerful. That was the case regarding Arlington Forest and Wakefield, just like it was true decades ago when the decision was made to bus Nauck students out of their neighborhood, instead of bringing white, wealthier students from outside Nauck to Drew.

Though it's identity is historically black, the neighborhood is now about a third black, a third Hispanic, a quarter white and about 10% Asian or multiracial. It was 60% black, 20% Hispanic, 20% white in 2000, so it's been awhile since it was near 100% African American. It's a neighborhood of mostly modest SFH and duplexes, most pretty well kept. It's easy to assume everyone living in them has the kind of income that would enable them to buy such homes in 2018. Some families do, but others don't; they live in homes whose mortgage was paid off by parents or grandparents a long time ago.

Sorry by eliminating I didn't mean get rid of them completely, but right now Nauck has guaranteed admission into Claremont, Hoffman Boston, and Montessori if you attend Montessori preschool. By getting rid of guaranteed admission in all those areas you are bound to have a lot less people from Nauck attending choice schools.

I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. However, avoiding the graded program at Drew is a big reason MC kids in Nauck go to Claremont, Hoffman, etc. not saying that's the case with you, but it's widely known that the model program at Drew is struggling. And the guaranteed option to go elsewhere was no doubt a consideration many UMC families made before buying a house in Nauck. Time will tell but I think many UMC families will move if they can't get into a choice school. Especially if APS chooses to rezone the poorest kids at abingdon and Oakridge to Drew.

Oh it was a large part of why we bought in Nauck, so I get it. But I also think people may not be able to just move easily to get into a better school. I know if Claremont removes sibling preference for our youngest we have no choice but to stay. I don't think Drew is going to be a quick fix, but 10 years from now? Who knows. It will be interesting to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The demographics of Nauck have really changed. THe neighborhood school is not reflective of the neighborhood population anymore. We live in Nauck, we are UMC and go to Claremont. We also have a lot of neighbors that go to ATS and Hoffman Boston. I am not saying it is a mega rich neighborhood by any means but I don't know that it is overall high poverty anymore. THe neighborhood went from 97% black to something like 20%. If they force the neighborhood families to go to Drew I think it could really change the demographics of the school, but who knows.

Yep, the neighborhood has attracted some UMC families. But they tend to send their kids to option schools - either Montessori, or, in your case, Claremont. Many of them are going to follow the Montessori program to the Henry building. Poverty in Nauck is still pretty high - at least 20 percent and probably higher, and that's Census data APS has published. Especially the portion south of Glebe Road. The children in poverty are probably mostly in the regular graded program at Drew, judging from test scores (which are highly correlated to family income). Eliminating choice schools and forcing Nauck residents to go to Drew? I don't think that's going to happen. Would you stand for it? It would be unfair for low-income kids who want to attend a choice school.

Given the relatively high poverty rate, the tendency for UMC Nauck residents with children to either move away or send their kids to choice programs other than Drew Model, my best guess is that the New Drew is going to resemble the current Model program, demographically. I think APS will be under the usual pressure to cherry pick/rezone nearby low-income and AH complexes to Drew to relieve overcrowding at Oakridge, which would probably change the current demographics modestly. It's always easier to rezone poorer families, they aren't as politically powerful. That was the case regarding Arlington Forest and Wakefield, just like it was true decades ago when the decision was made to bus Nauck students out of their neighborhood, instead of bringing white, wealthier students from outside Nauck to Drew.

Though it's identity is historically black, the neighborhood is now about a third black, a third Hispanic, a quarter white and about 10% Asian or multiracial. It was 60% black, 20% Hispanic, 20% white in 2000, so it's been awhile since it was near 100% African American. It's a neighborhood of mostly modest SFH and duplexes, most pretty well kept. It's easy to assume everyone living in them has the kind of income that would enable them to buy such homes in 2018. Some families do, but others don't; they live in homes whose mortgage was paid off by parents or grandparents a long time ago.

Sorry by eliminating I didn't mean get rid of them completely, but right now Nauck has guaranteed admission into Claremont, Hoffman Boston, and Montessori if you attend Montessori preschool. By getting rid of guaranteed admission in all those areas you are bound to have a lot less people from Nauck attending choice schools.

I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. However, avoiding the graded program at Drew is a big reason MC kids in Nauck go to Claremont, Hoffman, etc. not saying that's the case with you, but it's widely known that the model program at Drew is struggling. And the guaranteed option to go elsewhere was no doubt a consideration many UMC families made before buying a house in Nauck. Time will tell but I think many UMC families will move if they can't get into a choice school. Especially if APS chooses to rezone the poorest kids at abingdon and Oakridge to Drew.

Oh it was a large part of why we bought in Nauck, so I get it. But I also think people may not be able to just move easily to get into a better school. I know if Claremont removes sibling preference for our youngest we have no choice but to stay. I don't think Drew is going to be a quick fix, but 10 years from now? Who knows. It will be interesting to watch.

I live in Alcova and part of our calculus was the choices available. I guess instead we'll have to opt for demanding better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The demographics of Nauck have really changed. THe neighborhood school is not reflective of the neighborhood population anymore. We live in Nauck, we are UMC and go to Claremont. We also have a lot of neighbors that go to ATS and Hoffman Boston. I am not saying it is a mega rich neighborhood by any means but I don't know that it is overall high poverty anymore. THe neighborhood went from 97% black to something like 20%. If they force the neighborhood families to go to Drew I think it could really change the demographics of the school, but who knows.

Yep, the neighborhood has attracted some UMC families. But they tend to send their kids to option schools - either Montessori, or, in your case, Claremont. Many of them are going to follow the Montessori program to the Henry building. Poverty in Nauck is still pretty high - at least 20 percent and probably higher, and that's Census data APS has published. Especially the portion south of Glebe Road. The children in poverty are probably mostly in the regular graded program at Drew, judging from test scores (which are highly correlated to family income). Eliminating choice schools and forcing Nauck residents to go to Drew? I don't think that's going to happen. Would you stand for it? It would be unfair for low-income kids who want to attend a choice school.

Given the relatively high poverty rate, the tendency for UMC Nauck residents with children to either move away or send their kids to choice programs other than Drew Model, my best guess is that the New Drew is going to resemble the current Model program, demographically. I think APS will be under the usual pressure to cherry pick/rezone nearby low-income and AH complexes to Drew to relieve overcrowding at Oakridge, which would probably change the current demographics modestly. It's always easier to rezone poorer families, they aren't as politically powerful. That was the case regarding Arlington Forest and Wakefield, just like it was true decades ago when the decision was made to bus Nauck students out of their neighborhood, instead of bringing white, wealthier students from outside Nauck to Drew.

Though it's identity is historically black, the neighborhood is now about a third black, a third Hispanic, a quarter white and about 10% Asian or multiracial. It was 60% black, 20% Hispanic, 20% white in 2000, so it's been awhile since it was near 100% African American. It's a neighborhood of mostly modest SFH and duplexes, most pretty well kept. It's easy to assume everyone living in them has the kind of income that would enable them to buy such homes in 2018. Some families do, but others don't; they live in homes whose mortgage was paid off by parents or grandparents a long time ago.

Sorry by eliminating I didn't mean get rid of them completely, but right now Nauck has guaranteed admission into Claremont, Hoffman Boston, and Montessori if you attend Montessori preschool. By getting rid of guaranteed admission in all those areas you are bound to have a lot less people from Nauck attending choice schools.

I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. However, avoiding the graded program at Drew is a big reason MC kids in Nauck go to Claremont, Hoffman, etc. not saying that's the case with you, but it's widely known that the model program at Drew is struggling. And the guaranteed option to go elsewhere was no doubt a consideration many UMC families made before buying a house in Nauck. Time will tell but I think many UMC families will move if they can't get into a choice school. Especially if APS chooses to rezone the poorest kids at abingdon and Oakridge to Drew.

Oh it was a large part of why we bought in Nauck, so I get it. But I also think people may not be able to just move easily to get into a better school. I know if Claremont removes sibling preference for our youngest we have no choice but to stay. I don't think Drew is going to be a quick fix, but 10 years from now? Who knows. It will be interesting to watch.

Yep, can't predict 10 years out but I think I've got a more or less accurate read on the next couple years. I hope I don't sound too pessimistic, and I do hope the new Drew succeeds. But I think Drew is going to be a tough sell for young UMC families. You can see the groundwork being laid with the recent adoption of a STEAM curriculum, which is an obvious attempt to impress those families, but it's non-existent at this point. I'm not sure any of the teachers have been trained in it yet. Plus, home prices have gone up quite a bit in Nauck over the last few years, so no one is going to take a bath if they sell their house. Sure, it wouldn't be enough to buy a house in North Arlington, but they can just move to Oakridge or Fairfax which will look even more attractive if APS moves all the FARMs eligible children to Drew, which it probably will do. That's clearly what APS has in mind. Don't like it? Then move.

[Anonymous]

One point of clarification: I don't think they're removing the sibling preference at the choice schools. It would disadvantage too many families, especially those where you don't have a SAHM or other caregiver. Can you imagine a single parent trying to get a 2nd grader to ATS or Key and a Kindergarten student to Abingdon every day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One point of clarification: I don't think they're removing the sibling preference at the choice schools. It would disadvantage too many families, especially those where you don't have a SAHM or other caregiver. Can you imagine a single parent trying to get a 2nd grader to ATS or Key and a Kindergarten student to Abingdon every day?

This is not on the table at the elementary level.

However, there are plenty of families living in the Drew boundary, or potential Drew boundary, who don't have kids in K yet. If the oldest child doesn't get in to an option school, the family has to decide whether it's worth it to move. If they bought in the last five years it's not likely they could afford to move within Arlington to a "good school" in either south or north Arlington. So, do they decide to give up all that time and money commuting or just invest in their own school? I think if a large enough cohort of UMC families decide to make a go of it, the school could be the next "good" school. They need an excellent principal who is really good at managing staff, managing budgets, has experience working with disadvantaged students, and has great ability to inspire confidence in the community. I think sitting around here gnashing our teeth is not very productive. We don't know for sure what the boundary will be. We don't know if they're going to move option programs to locations that might be less attractive to families living in south Arlington. We just don't know how this is going to shake out, so I think panicking and being negative about the situation can only make things worse. And make the families who really will have to make the choice between moving or sending their kid to the new Drew feel more anxiety about it.

As the parent of a neurotypical and bright kid at a Title 1 school, I feel confident telling parents that if they have a child that fits this same profile, a lot of what they are worried about will not come to pass. Being in a less wealthy school will not negatively affect their child or harm their child's education. Will the experience be the same at a Title 1 school as at a school like Discovery? No, probably not. But that doesn't mean they are being harmed. And my child is having interactions and experiences and conversations that kids at a school like Discovery won't have the opportunity to have. The kids truly harmed by socioeconomic segregation don't have parents who are posting here on DCUM. And if we resign ourselves to the fact that Drew is a "no go" before it even has a chance, we're contributing to this phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One point of clarification: I don't think they're removing the sibling preference at the choice schools. It would disadvantage too many families, especially those where you don't have a SAHM or other caregiver. Can you imagine a single parent trying to get a 2nd grader to ATS or Key and a Kindergarten student to Abingdon every day?

This is not on the table at the elementary level.

However, there are plenty of families living in the Drew boundary, or potential Drew boundary, who don't have kids in K yet. If the oldest child doesn't get in to an option school, the family has to decide whether it's worth it to move. If they bought in the last five years it's not likely they could afford to move within Arlington to a "good school" in either south or north Arlington. So, do they decide to give up all that time and money commuting or just invest in their own school? I think if a large enough cohort of UMC families decide to make a go of it, the school could be the next "good" school. They need an excellent principal who is really good at managing staff, managing budgets, has experience working with disadvantaged students, and has great ability to inspire confidence in the community. I think sitting around here gnashing our teeth is not very productive. We don't know for sure what the boundary will be. We don't know if they're going to move option programs to locations that might be less attractive to families living in south Arlington. We just don't know how this is going to shake out, so I think panicking and being negative about the situation can only make things worse. And make the families who really will have to make the choice between moving or sending their kid to the new Drew feel more anxiety about it.

As the parent of a neurotypical and bright kid at a Title 1 school, I feel confident telling parents that if they have a child that fits this same profile, a lot of what they are worried about will not come to pass. Being in a less wealthy school will not negatively affect their child or harm their child's education. Will the experience be the same at a Title 1 school as at a school like Discovery? No, probably not. But that doesn't mean they are being harmed. And my child is having interactions and experiences and conversations that kids at a school like Discovery won't have the opportunity to have. The kids truly harmed by socioeconomic segregation don't have parents who are posting here on DCUM. And if we resign ourselves to the fact that Drew is a "no go" before it even has a chance, we're contributing to this phenomenon.

I am another parent of a child in one of the “severe” totk 1 schools. My child is bright but not neuotypical and I echo 100 percent of what is above. Also my child benefits from many if the extra supports they come from having title 1 and ESL resources in the school.

[Anonymous]

So what I’m reading here is that most schools look poised to improve.
Except Randolph, because there are just way too many walkers from poor families zoned to it.

I guess that’s good.

[Anonymous]

Barcroft also has no chance to improve. Once Gillian place families move in, its FRL percentage will go up. If the SB takes Alcova Heights into Fleet, a large percentage of the UMC will leave the school. So, either way Barcroft has no chance. It faces many of the same challenges as Randolph because of the number of walkers coming from MARKs and CAFs around the Pike. Many UMC families have choiced out.

[Anonymous]

From talks around the playground in Nauck I think there are a lot of driven parents that want to help the neighborhood school improve. WE have an active civic association that has been working hard to recruit new members. I have had a lot of talks with other parents about what it would take to get involved and help the school improve. The problem is everyone is currently scared to be the first one to make the move. The new rules will force more people to be the first ones. Hopefully folks continue their motivation to make things better.

Honestly, one of the biggest issues is going to be getting the two sides of the neighborhood to work together (the newcomers with the old).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft also has no chance to improve. Once Gillian place families move in, its FRL percentage will go up. If the SB takes Alcova Heights into Fleet, a large percentage of the UMC will leave the school. So, either way Barcroft has no chance. It faces many of the same challenges as Randolph because of the number of walkers coming from MARKs and CAFs around the Pike. Many UMC families have choiced out.

No way Alcova gets moved to Fleet.
Just not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From talks around the playground in Nauck I think there are a lot of driven parents that want to help the neighborhood school improve. WE have an active civic association that has been working hard to recruit new members. I have had a lot of talks with other parents about what it would take to get involved and help the school improve. The problem is everyone is currently scared to be the first one to make the move. The new rules will force more people to be the first ones. Hopefully folks continue their motivation to make things better.

Honestly, one of the biggest issues is going to be getting the two sides of the neighborhood to work together (the newcomers with the old).

That's great to hear. Personally, I'd like to see quantitative metrics besides SOL tests that can be used to assess school quality. Are there alternative measures?

At the school level, SOL test performance just reflect family income. When I saw that ArlNow story several years ago about the Nauck civic assn. drawing attention to the really, really low test scores in the Drew graded program, I didn't think "bad school", I thought "wow, the student body must be really disadvantaged."

Notwithstanding some really heroic educators, getting SOL tests up without changing the SES mix of a school is very hard. So long as that's true, UMC parents who judge schools by test scores are going to be disappointed and anxious about sending their kids there. So I'd like to learn about other measures that parents can look to that actually measure school quality and not family income. If they are decent, think it might help persuade MC and UMC parents to give a school with low test scores a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft also has no chance to improve. Once Gillian place families move in, its FRL percentage will go up. If the SB takes Alcova Heights into Fleet, a large percentage of the UMC will leave the school. So, either way Barcroft has no chance. It faces many of the same challenges as Randolph because of the number of walkers coming from MARKs and CAFs around the Pike. Many UMC families have choiced out.

Barcroft is at 59% fr/l. With the exception of one year, it's always been under 60%. They have a new principal, and a pretty active PTA. We'll have to see what happens with the boundary. This is another neighborhood where people are paying $$$$ for a SFH. Not everyone is going to get a spot at an option school and there are a LOT of UMC little kids here. In fact, within the walk zone, it's exclusively UMC except for one CAF. We'll have to see what they do with the PU's outside of the walk zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft also has no chance to improve. Once Gillian place families move in, its FRL percentage will go up. If the SB takes Alcova Heights into Fleet, a large percentage of the UMC will leave the school. So, either way Barcroft has no chance. It faces many of the same challenges as Randolph because of the number of walkers coming from MARKs and CAFs around the Pike. Many UMC families have choiced out.

Barcroft is at 59% fr/l. With the exception of one year, it's always been under 60%. They have a new principal, and a pretty active PTA. We'll have to see what happens with the boundary. This is another neighborhood where people are paying $$$$ for a SFH. Not everyone is going to get a spot at an option school and there are a LOT of UMC little kids here. In fact, within the walk zone, it's exclusively UMC except for one CAF. We'll have to see what they do with the PU's outside of the walk zone.

This. There are just too many UMC cramming into Barcroft and Alcova Heights for it to stay the way it is. There's the possibility that some people are buying and are planning to go private, but there are plenty who aren't. We can't all go choice. I guess we could all try to transfer to one of the schools in the south, but it seems like a better idea to fix the school we're zoned for. I'm half tempted to show up for the tours later this week, but my kiddos aren't school age yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft also has no chance to improve. Once Gillian place families move in, its FRL percentage will go up. If the SB takes Alcova Heights into Fleet, a large percentage of the UMC will leave the school. So, either way Barcroft has no chance. It faces many of the same challenges as Randolph because of the number of walkers coming from MARKs and CAFs around the Pike. Many UMC families have choiced out.

Barcroft is at 59% fr/l. With the exception of one year, it's always been under 60%. They have a new principal, and a pretty active PTA. We'll have to see what happens with the boundary. This is another neighborhood where people are paying $$$$ for a SFH. Not everyone is going to get a spot at an option school and there are a LOT of UMC little kids here. In fact, within the walk zone, it's exclusively UMC except for one CAF. We'll have to see what they do with the PU's outside of the walk zone.

This. There are just too many UMC cramming into Barcroft and Alcova Heights for it to stay the way it is. There's the possibility that some people are buying and are planning to go private, but there are plenty who aren't. We can't all go choice. I guess we could all try to transfer to one of the schools in the south, but it seems like a better idea to fix the school we're zoned for. I'm half tempted to show up for the tours later this week, but my kiddos aren't school age yet.

People are paying $$$ to live everywhere in Arlington. Some schools are still
Getting the shaft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From talks around the playground in Nauck I think there are a lot of driven parents that want to help the neighborhood school improve. WE have an active civic association that has been working hard to recruit new members. I have had a lot of talks with other parents about what it would take to get involved and help the school improve. The problem is everyone is currently scared to be the first one to make the move. The new rules will force more people to be the first ones. Hopefully folks continue their motivation to make things better.

Honestly, one of the biggest issues is going to be getting the two sides of the neighborhood to work together (the newcomers with the old).

That's great to hear. Personally, I'd like to see quantitative metrics besides SOL tests that can be used to assess school quality. Are there alternative measures?

At the school level, SOL test performance just reflect family income. When I saw that ArlNow story several years ago about the Nauck civic assn. drawing attention to the really, really low test scores in the Drew graded program, I didn't think "bad school", I thought "wow, the student body must be really disadvantaged."

Notwithstanding some really heroic educators, getting SOL tests up without changing the SES mix of a school is very hard. So long as that's true, UMC parents who judge schools by test scores are going to be disappointed and anxious about sending their kids there. So I'd like to learn about other measures that parents can look to that actually measure school quality and not family income. If they are decent, think it might help persuade MC and UMC parents to give a school with low test scores a shot.

100% agree with this.