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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alcova (those who don't transfer) are a decent chunk of Barcroft, and one of the only two UMC neighborhoods for the school. If they are out, the only UMC neighborhood is Barcroft, which is not much, and less UMC than much of Alcova. That move would leave Barcroft with an even higher FARMS rate than it is now.

I’ve never understood the Barcroft booster. And it’s wasnt the former principal’s fault the school tanked. They didn’t fight the ah going up around them. No principal is gonna fix those demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see when the proposals come out, but I would bet money on key not moving. People need to realize that not moving key has effects on the rest of the county, especially with the asfs boundary staying fixed going forward. Looking at the other thread, it seems like the thought is to empty long branch to fleet, and move most of south of wilson to long branch. What do you south arlingtons think of that? Does that do anything to help with boundaries and disrupt poverty pockets?

Where did you hear that one? The PUs zoned to Henry are the ones that are mostly supposed to go to Fleet. I say mostly because some of them will certainly be zoned to Drew, because they were closer to Drew in the first place. I agree with others that it would be odd to send the PUs from Long Branch to Fleet, so free up more seats in Clarendon/Rosslyn, when Henry is bursting at the seams. Fleet will open at capacity.

Plus, I think Henry PTA would probably lay siege to Fleet if it were zoned as a school for people north of 50... I don't know what T-shirt color they've chosen though.

It was the consensus in the other boundary thread. People kept saying "long branch will make space there's no space in taylor". If you sum up the units in the current key, taylor, and long branch zones, you exceed the building capacities. You can likely assume that a certain percentage will keep on going to key because its close by, but since they only have one year of data, that seems like a risk.
APS really f'ed this up. I'll be curious to see what the proposals look like this fall.

Long Branch can't just make space, based on maximum utilization, unless they move more PUs out of the boundary than just the ones S of 50. Since Barrett is not involved in the first round of school boundary changes, the only possible move is for them to take Long Branch kids N of 50 and send them to Fleet. If their object is to avoid public outcry, they done messed up.

They'll take the long branch kids who are SOUTH of 50, not north of 50.

That was planned before the possibility of ASFS kids moving in was raised, just to address the LB overcrowding as it exists. They will have to take additional PUs, which means some N of 50, to make enough space for additional kids being moved in from the ASFS area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alcova (those who don't transfer) are a decent chunk of Barcroft, and one of the only two UMC neighborhoods for the school. If they are out, the only UMC neighborhood is Barcroft, which is not much, and less UMC than much of Alcova. That move would leave Barcroft with an even higher FARMS rate than it is now.

I’ve never understood the Barcroft booster. And it’s wasnt the former principal’s fault the school tanked. They didn’t fight the ah going up around them. No principal is gonna fix those demographics.

Something is not right at that school, and it's not the demographics. The poverty rate has been dropping, but so have the test scores. It's now the LOWEST rated ES in all of APS, lower than other schools with significantly higher rates of poverty. What is going on? Seems like all the money they're dumping into the extended calendar isn't helping.

[Anonymous]

It had the same demographics but better scores a few years back under the veteran principal. The principal who took over from her certainly helped tank it in many ways. It's true the demographics have't changed too much. They have been consistently bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It had the same demographics but better scores a few years back under the veteran principal. The principal who took over from her certainly helped tank it in many ways. It's true the demographics have't changed too much. They have been consistently bad.

No, the demographics have actually "improved" and returned to the levels that existed under the veteran principal, which is still Title 1 but not even the in the top three poorest schools in APS, so high but not the highest. Yet the scores are the lowest and dropping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It had the same demographics but better scores a few years back under the veteran principal. The principal who took over from her certainly helped tank it in many ways. It's true the demographics have't changed too much. They have been consistently bad.

No, the demographics have actually "improved" and returned to the levels that existed under the veteran principal, which is still Title 1 but not even the in the top three poorest schools in APS, so high but not the highest. Yet the scores are the lowest and dropping.

I suspect the low test scores are a two-fold issue. First, many of the UMC parents who care about higher test scores choice out to other schools. The parents who leave are more likely to push their own kids academically for good scores/grades, so kids who would score well have essentially left the school. Relatedly, parents who want a traditional calendar also choice out. The UMC parents who remain at Barcroft are more likely to not care about test scores, and in turn, probably pass that on to their kids, resulting in slightly lower UMC scores than the absence of choice would otherwise reflect. Relatedly, the parents who stay are clearly fine with a non-traditional calendar, suggesting they may not care about "traditional" things like test scores, provided they see their children are learning. So there is a selection bias at play among the UMC families.

Second, among the families who qualify for FARMs, precisely because the school is NOT the neediest and highest poverty, there isn't a huge push to "teach to the test" and drill for the SOLs. So test scores among the poorer students at the school are lower than at higher poverty schools like Randolph and Carlin Springs, even though the kids may be learning as much/well as their peers (or more, given more instruction time toward content/learning, and less on drilling).

Both of these issues were compounded by the last principal, who was, by all accounts, simply out of her depth and lost favor with the UMC families. Hopefully the new principal will be able to turn things around, but that takes a few years to be reflected in test scores. Unfortunately, given that the first round of boundary changes is happening this year, she may simply not have the time to show her impact, at least not via official test scores.

[Anonymous]

Yes. There is a strange vibe in that neighborhood. Families indifferent to poor school performance. People with and without kids strongly oppose any voice that challenges the neighborhood status quo. So don’t get in the way of massive 60 year affordable housing complexes or ask too many questions about why the school can’t perform. You’ll get the usual County & APS stonewall. And you’ll be viewed as a troublemaker. Look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It had the same demographics but better scores a few years back under the veteran principal. The principal who took over from her certainly helped tank it in many ways. It's true the demographics have't changed too much. They have been consistently bad.

No, the demographics have actually "improved" and returned to the levels that existed under the veteran principal, which is still Title 1 but not even the in the top three poorest schools in APS, so high but not the highest. Yet the scores are the lowest and dropping.

I suspect the low test scores are a two-fold issue. First, many of the UMC parents who care about higher test scores choice out to other schools. The parents who leave are more likely to push their own kids academically for good scores/grades, so kids who would score well have essentially left the school. Relatedly, parents who want a traditional calendar also choice out. The UMC parents who remain at Barcroft are more likely to not care about test scores, and in turn, probably pass that on to their kids, resulting in slightly lower UMC scores than the absence of choice would otherwise reflect. Relatedly, the parents who stay are clearly fine with a non-traditional calendar, suggesting they may not care about "traditional" things like test scores, provided they see their children are learning. So there is a selection bias at play among the UMC families.

Second, among the families who qualify for FARMs, precisely because the school is NOT the neediest and highest poverty, there isn't a huge push to "teach to the test" and drill for the SOLs. So test scores among the poorer students at the school are lower than at higher poverty schools like Randolph and Carlin Springs, even though the kids may be learning as much/well as their peers (or more, given more instruction time toward content/learning, and less on drilling).

Both of these issues were compounded by the last principal, who was, by all accounts, simply out of her depth and lost favor with the UMC families. Hopefully the new principal will be able to turn things around, but that takes a few years to be reflected in test scores. Unfortunately, given that the first round of boundary changes is happening this year, she may simply not have the time to show her impact, at least not via official test scores.

What a strange comment. So parents who care about test scores choice out, but the poor kids have lower test scores than their peers at Randolph or Carlin Springs because they aren’t “drilled,” but that likely means they are learning more anyway? Make up your mins, do you want higher scores or not?

[Anonymous]

I live in Barcroft and agree with much of what PP said. There are lots of people who are sick and tired of the constant drum to build more affordable housing, but the old timers who don’t care and pro affordable housing proponents are extremely quick to call you a racist and put you down. The vocal people in the neighborhood rule the roost. I hate it.

I choice out my kid not because I care about scores, but because I care about learning. I know parents who choice out or simply moved as their kids rose beyond first grade because they were not learning much. It isn’t a lack of teaching to the test, but teaching at all. They teach to the bottom. Teachers in the school have LOW expectations for all kids. Kids were not expected to reach certain milestones, and parents have to be on top of their education too much.

Parents who moved found their kids behind at other Arlington schools, including another title I School. I have heard several Barcroft parents tell me that they pushed super hard to get their kids in the gifted program, even kids who really shouldn’t be there, in order to make sure they got a decent education at Barcroft. I hope the new principle can change that.

In sum, it isn’t that the school and parents don’t care about teaching to the test. What I make from 6 years in this neighborhood and lots of parental comments is that they teach to the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Barcroft and agree with much of what PP said. There are lots of people who are sick and tired of the constant drum to build more affordable housing, but the old timers who don’t care and pro affordable housing proponents are extremely quick to call you a racist and put you down. The vocal people in the neighborhood rule the roost. I hate it.

I choice out my kid not because I care about scores, but because I care about learning. I know parents who choice out or simply moved as their kids rose beyond first grade because they were not learning much. It isn’t a lack of teaching to the test, but teaching at all. They teach to the bottom. Teachers in the school have LOW expectations for all kids. Kids were not expected to reach certain milestones, and parents have to be on top of their education too much.

Parents who moved found their kids behind at other Arlington schools, including another title I School. I have heard several Barcroft parents tell me that they pushed super hard to get their kids in the gifted program, even kids who really shouldn’t be there, in order to make sure they got a decent education at Barcroft. I hope the new principle can change that.

In sum, it isn’t that the school and parents don’t care about teaching to the test. What I make from 6 years in this neighborhood and lots of parental comments is that they teach to the bottom.

Teachers EVERYWHERE teach just below the median of the classroom. This is a fact of life. The idea that a single teacher, or even a team of several teachers can provide "individualized learning" to 20 children is a fantasy in theory and a farce in practice. Learning is a social activity anyway; you learn from your peers. That is why families with kids who have spent their early years learning instead of being babysat by television, and who are often but not always MC and UMC want out of these neighborhood schools. They know that these schools teach to the middle of ability at best and can't challenge their children without leaving other kids behind; there's no tracking. Or, they just teach to the test ... a joyless approach that will kill any child's curiosity and desire to learn in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that the vote on the new school zones will take place on Dec 6th. We're not doing the other 5 exercises in frustration, I mean zoning. So I guess we'll learn then what the plan is? Or will the Nov 27th public hearing make it too contentious?

I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Ummmm, when the heck do we go from theorizing about the plan to knowing what APS will do? Or will the "troops" being rallied make APS delay the Dec 6th announcement noted on the website? They've already scrapped the other 5 zoning metrics because the walkability study was too contentious.

What five “exercises” are you talking about? Is that the same as what you’re referring to as “zoning metrics”? If so, are you referring to the six boundary policy considerations, which have not actually been scrapped and will be used to guide this fall’s boundary process?

Community participation was cut because it was too contentious after the walkability study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Barcroft and agree with much of what PP said. There are lots of people who are sick and tired of the constant drum to build more affordable housing, but the old timers who don’t care and pro affordable housing proponents are extremely quick to call you a racist and put you down. The vocal people in the neighborhood rule the roost. I hate it.

I choice out my kid not because I care about scores, but because I care about learning. I know parents who choice out or simply moved as their kids rose beyond first grade because they were not learning much. It isn’t a lack of teaching to the test, but teaching at all. They teach to the bottom. Teachers in the school have LOW expectations for all kids. Kids were not expected to reach certain milestones, and parents have to be on top of their education too much.

Parents who moved found their kids behind at other Arlington schools, including another title I School. I have heard several Barcroft parents tell me that they pushed super hard to get their kids in the gifted program, even kids who really shouldn’t be there, in order to make sure they got a decent education at Barcroft. I hope the new principle can change that.

In sum, it isn’t that the school and parents don’t care about teaching to the test. What I make from 6 years in this neighborhood and lots of parental comments is that they teach to the bottom.

This is what I fear, as a parent of kids zoned to this school. All my neighbors who send their kids though are really happy. I can't figure out what to make of the negativity on one side and the positiveness on the other. All I can tell is people with older children who finished 2-3 years ago are all negative and all the people with K-2 graders are really happy with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that the vote on the new school zones will take place on Dec 6th. We're not doing the other 5 exercises in frustration, I mean zoning. So I guess we'll learn then what the plan is? Or will the Nov 27th public hearing make it too contentious?

I have no clue what you’re trying to say here.

Ummmm, when the heck do we go from theorizing about the plan to knowing what APS will do? Or will the "troops" being rallied make APS delay the Dec 6th announcement noted on the website? They've already scrapped the other 5 zoning metrics because the walkability study was too contentious.

What five “exercises” are you talking about? Is that the same as what you’re referring to as “zoning metrics”? If so, are you referring to the six boundary policy considerations, which have not actually been scrapped and will be used to guide this fall’s boundary process?

Community participation was cut because it was too contentious after the walkability study.

Planned community participation:

Tomorrow (8/7): Open hours with the staff to ask questions about the process

September 26: Community meeting to review boundary scenarios, ask questions, etc.

September 27-October 11: Communityy questionnaire to provide input on scenarios

October 3: Another staff open hours

October 17: Another community meetings to review revised scenarios

October 18-November 1: Community questionnaire on revised scenarios

November 27: Public hearing on boundary scenarios

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Barcroft and agree with much of what PP said. There are lots of people who are sick and tired of the constant drum to build more affordable housing, but the old timers who don’t care and pro affordable housing proponents are extremely quick to call you a racist and put you down. The vocal people in the neighborhood rule the roost. I hate it.

I choice out my kid not because I care about scores, but because I care about learning. I know parents who choice out or simply moved as their kids rose beyond first grade because they were not learning much. It isn’t a lack of teaching to the test, but teaching at all. They teach to the bottom. Teachers in the school have LOW expectations for all kids. Kids were not expected to reach certain milestones, and parents have to be on top of their education too much.

Parents who moved found their kids behind at other Arlington schools, including another title I School. I have heard several Barcroft parents tell me that they pushed super hard to get their kids in the gifted program, even kids who really shouldn’t be there, in order to make sure they got a decent education at Barcroft. I hope the new principle can change that.

In sum, it isn’t that the school and parents don’t care about teaching to the test. What I make from 6 years in this neighborhood and lots of parental comments is that they teach to the bottom.

This is what I fear, as a parent of kids zoned to this school. All my neighbors who send their kids though are really happy. I can't figure out what to make of the negativity on one side and the positiveness on the other. All I can tell is people with older children who finished 2-3 years ago are all negative and all the people with K-2 graders are really happy with it.

Spoiler alert: most parents are fine until third grade. That is when curriculum ramps up and schools starts to become more academic. That’s why you hear neighbors displeased after second grade.

[Anonymous]

Yep, 3rd grade is where underperforming schools start to show the problems. Performing schools start to shine.

And, those who send their kids to underperforming schools often do not know any better. I am the PP with the long post on Barcroft. Every single family I know (and there are 8) that have moved from Barcroft or moved schools has said the differences between the new school and Barcroft was light and day. In the classroom, on the playground, everything.