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

[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.

My children did not go to barcroft, but did go to a title I school. I would never base my opinion of a school from a parent with kids lower than 3rd grade. 3rd grade is where the real academic learning starts and where you really start to see the massive gap in abilities. If you have a kid who is an advanced learner, it is hard not to feel that they are being "held back" if the subjects are not tracked.

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:

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

I'm glad to hear there is still going to be community input, but the sessions concerning how to redraw boundaries based on diversity, income, language, etc, are not reflected in this list. There were supposed to be six different things considered, each in their own study (which seemed very time consuming). This is condensed. I'm still glad people can comment though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad to hear there is still going to be community input, but the sessions concerning how to redraw boundaries based on diversity, income, language, etc, are not reflected in this list. There were supposed to be six different things considered, each in their own study (which seemed very time consuming). This is condensed. I'm still glad people can comment though.

Have you been through this process before? You don't seem to understand how it works. There's never a separate study done of each of the six considerations with its own public engagement period, at most sometimes the staff will put out *for illustrative purposes only* hypothetical maps of what boundaries would look like if you considered each of the six considerations separately (so one map considering only efficiency, one only proximity, one only diversity, etc.). The actual proposed scenarios are drawn based on a balancing of these six considerations by the staff, and then those proposed scenarios are put up for public commentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad to hear there is still going to be community input, but the sessions concerning how to redraw boundaries based on diversity, income, language, etc, are not reflected in this list. There were supposed to be six different things considered, each in their own study (which seemed very time consuming). This is condensed. I'm still glad people can comment though.

Have you been through this process before? You don't seem to understand how it works. There's never a separate study done of each of the six considerations with its own public engagement period, at most sometimes the staff will put out *for illustrative purposes only* hypothetical maps of what boundaries would look like if you considered each of the six considerations separately (so one map considering only efficiency, one only proximity, one only diversity, etc.). The actual proposed scenarios are drawn based on a balancing of these six considerations by the staff, and then those proposed scenarios are put up for public commentary.

I participated in the walkability study as a civic association rep. We were told, by APS, that they had planned to do 5 more studies. Around May, it was announced that they were not going to do the other studies.

And this was my first time participating in a APS study. I can only tell you what the staff told me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad to hear there is still going to be community input, but the sessions concerning how to redraw boundaries based on diversity, income, language, etc, are not reflected in this list. There were supposed to be six different things considered, each in their own study (which seemed very time consuming). This is condensed. I'm still glad people can comment though.

Have you been through this process before? You don't seem to understand how it works. There's never a separate study done of each of the six considerations with its own public engagement period, at most sometimes the staff will put out *for illustrative purposes only* hypothetical maps of what boundaries would look like if you considered each of the six considerations separately (so one map considering only efficiency, one only proximity, one only diversity, etc.). The actual proposed scenarios are drawn based on a balancing of these six considerations by the staff, and then those proposed scenarios are put up for public commentary.

I participated in the walkability study as a civic association rep. We were told, by APS, that they had planned to do 5 more studies. Around May, it was announced that they were not going to do the other studies.

And this was my first time participating in a APS study. I can only tell you what the staff told me.

I think you may have misunderstood. After the walk zone review, the staff planned to do the location review for option schools, which would consider a number of relevant factors for which they were collecting data. That data included things like where there were concentrations of Spanish-speaking families (for siting of immersion programs) and where there were concentrations of poverty that might be addressed through option site placement, and all of that was assessed and included in the second round of location review assessment. Yes, the location review was subsequently suspended, but there was never a promise that option schools would be moved, one of the possibilities was always to keep them where they were.

After the location review was done and final option school sites were selected, then they were going to do a boundary redrawing for neighborhood schools, which would have used the six boundary policy considerations (efficiency, proximity, alignment, stability, diversity and contiguity).

[Anonymous]

Re: Barcroft. Yes. Everyone who sends their kids there is either happy or unwilling to face the fact that they are unhappy yet. Everyone who has left was unhappy. That is how it works. Those who are there and genuinely happy are generally less concerned with performance and the fact that students elsewhere in Arlington are having a better elementary experience. That is a reasonable perspective. The question is where you fall on that spectrum. I couldn't shake the sense that my kids could do better elsewhere in Arlington. So we left, and I am happy with that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

Yes, language barriers add a lot of complexity. I don't have the answer to that but almost anything would be better than the current system, which that SA elementaries teach ALL children to the level of low ability English language learner, while NA schools get to teach to relatively high ability English speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

If English learners were tracked into the lower classes until their language skills increase, would they really be worse off than when everyone is automatically taught at the lower level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

DP. I took the tour at Barcroft and the new principal mentioned tracking. She also said they evaluate children frequently and move them between groups or adjust what their group is learning as needed. Several parents also mentioned tracking. It was made clear that the school was not lumping all English learners together. They recognized that some kids would have more access to English that others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

If English learners were tracked into the lower classes until their language skills increase, would they really be worse off than when everyone is automatically taught at the lower level?

Given how ELL status tends to correlate with race and national origin, APS might have some civil rights issues if they forced all of those kids into lower-level classes than they were capable of in order to move the native-born white kids out into their own advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

DP. I took the tour at Barcroft and the new principal mentioned tracking. She also said they evaluate children frequently and move them between groups or adjust what their group is learning as needed. Several parents also mentioned tracking. It was made clear that the school was not lumping all English learners together. They recognized that some kids would have more access to English that others.

What does that "tracking" consist of? Just whatever group of kids you work in small groups with, covering the same material other groups of more less able students are covering? Or is it tracking as particles at the classroom level, where the material being taught and the pace of instruction differs? The latter seems like a meaningful difference to me, the former does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

DP. I took the tour at Barcroft and the new principal mentioned tracking. She also said they evaluate children frequently and move them between groups or adjust what their group is learning as needed. Several parents also mentioned tracking. It was made clear that the school was not lumping all English learners together. They recognized that some kids would have more access to English that others.

What does that "tracking" consist of? Just whatever group of kids you work in small groups with, covering the same material other groups of more less able students are covering? Or is it tracking as particles at the classroom level, where the material being taught and the pace of instruction differs? The latter seems like a meaningful difference to me, the former does not.

Tracking already happens to a certain extent in all APS elementary schools from third grade onward. Because policy is to try to give all kids academic peers in their classes, children identified for gifted services will tend to be clustered with other such students to provide those academic peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It's quite simple. UMC have had enrichment since the day they were born and continue to get it from peer exposure, summer enrichment, after school activities and PTA funded extras. Poor kids get none of these things; they get winter coats and SOL drilling instead of chess club. Of course there is a difference.

These differences could be mitigated by in school tracking, which would help to keep UMC families and their resources at elementaries with significant share of ED students. After school enrichment would actually be available to poor kids since a critical mass of UMC could sustain it at a place like Randolph or Barcroft.. But for some reason, the admin has decided that tracking is evil, when it fact it is a way to teach children of different abilities under the same roof. So instead we track by income and geography such that poor kids are poorly served in NA schools where they have no peers, and UMC are poorly served by SA schools, where they have no peers and yes, are being held back by the slower pace of instruction. The decision not to track is a major factor in why our schools are so segregated. This is undeniable. UMC parents move to where their kids will have peers to ensure that instruction is aimed at their level. In school tracking would help convince them that can happen at any Arlington elementary, not just the ones north of 50. I'm sick and tired of hearing my kid will be fine. I want my kid to do well and enjoy school, not be "fine".

A personal note:
was tracked into the "dumb" math classes all my life. I have a graduate degree and make a comfortable income. I'm still not great at math but that's what was good for me, and it what was good for my peers, who did have high ability in math. And it didn't seem to adversely affect my life.

Tracking is the answer. Not this bs individualized learning mumbo jumbo.

One problem with tracking as you propose it is what do you do with children who have the academic ability to learn at the pace of the higher track, but have language barriers that mean some classroom time with have to be spent working through that before moving on to the next concept? Or are you proposing segregation by first language so that kids have to be tracked into lower level classes, regardless of academic potential, because English isn’t their first language?

DP. I took the tour at Barcroft and the new principal mentioned tracking. She also said they evaluate children frequently and move them between groups or adjust what their group is learning as needed. Several parents also mentioned tracking. It was made clear that the school was not lumping all English learners together. They recognized that some kids would have more access to English that others.

What does that "tracking" consist of? Just whatever group of kids you work in small groups with, covering the same material other groups of more less able students are covering? Or is it tracking as particles at the classroom level, where the material being taught and the pace of instruction differs? The latter seems like a meaningful difference to me, the former does not.

Tracking already happens to a certain extent in all APS elementary schools from third grade onward. Because policy is to try to give all kids academic peers in their classes, children identified for gifted services will tend to be clustered with other such students to provide those academic peers.

I'm not talking about gifted and not. Most kids aren't, and there is a huge range of ability within that not gifted group. How are the not gifted differentiated?