Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

Name the school.

New poster. Marshall is more diverse and has a higher GS score.

I can't find the information about % of ELL students by schools on the APS website. This could be a factor, in terms of tests score discrepancies. Anyone know where to find it?

I wonder if some of the issue with Yorktown "gap group" students scoring poorly is that they are an extreme minority. Their cohort is large enough to be statistically significant, but not large enough to feel comfortable or embraced by the rest of the community? Also, the extremes of wealth and poverty could be at play. Perhaps Marshall's economic spectrum is more similar and doesn't have such extreme disparity at both ends?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

Name the school.

New poster. Marshall is more diverse and has a higher GS score.

Marshall's disadvantaged students aren't as disadvantaged as Yorktown's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Never thought I'd see this many responses, but my takeaway is: FFX uses larger class sizes and the AAP program to manage the potential overcrowding at schools. From everything I've heard in APS over the 4-5 years we've been part of it, there is no way they'd consider tracking and AAP. Seems like a non-starter, for whatever reason. But maybe we're getting to the point where we should consider expanding class sizes. I haven't heard many negative comments about it from FFX parents, seems like it hasn't been all that detrimental to the classroom.

And no surprise we're never going to have as many options as FFX does in terms of finding land to build new schools. They have so much more flexibility in that regard. I wonder if APS needs to at least consider making the 4th HS a combined 6-12 grade school. Perhaps that could open up more options and relieve some of the busing costs? Maybe have the 6-8 grades start at a different time, to stagger the buses? Just throwing out ideas at this point.

APS doesn't do "tracking" but residential housing segregation is essentially the same thing. I bet it would be eyepopping to find out what percentage of students in each elementary school had a preschool education. At a school like Jamestown it's probably well over 90%. At Barcroft or Randolph I'd be very surprised if it cracked 50%. Kids who go to preschool start out ahead (north Arlington) or wait for the others to catch up (south Arlington).

Nooooo, tracking is not the same as housing segregation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Dp- no, they basically nailed it. Ytown is already highly segregated, and should be scoring similarly to McLean.

You're missing it too. A big part of the GS equity measure is how disadvantaged students do relative to non-disadvantaged kids at the school, which means that the broader the advantage gap within the school population, the more it will hurt the school's GS score. If we accept the fact that race and socioeconomic status are correlated with educational performance (which they are, in any school environment), you can look at it as basically a spectrum from most advantaged to least advantaged based on race and socioeconomic status, and expect test scores to drop as you move from most to least advantaged. GS has set some bright line rules for what is "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" that don't take into account the range, though. So let's say you're comparing two schools, one of which has most of it's student body hovering just on either side of the bright line, whereas the other has more disparity, with students either very advanrtaged or very disadvantaged. For the school with greater disparity, even if all of the students are performing ahead of their similarly-situated peers within the state, it will take a big hit on the GS equity score if they still have the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students that you'd expect to see as a result of factors outside of the school environment. Conversely, the school with a lesser disparity could have all of its students performing worse than at the high-disparity school, but get a great equity score if all of their scores are similar because their student body as a whole is more similarly-situated that the brightline would suggest. Further complicating this is that GS doesn't factor in groups that make up less than 5% of the student body in their scoring, so you could have a school where all of the rich white kids do great and the poor/minority kids are failing abysmally, but they get a great GS equity score because GS literally ignores the fact that the disadvantaged kids exist at the school.

The result of all this can be that one school may have a higher overall GS score than another even though disadvantaged students do better at the lower GS school. That's one reason why the overall GS score is meaningless and you have to look at the underlying data to really understand the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Dp- no, they basically nailed it. Ytown is already highly segregated, and should be scoring similarly to McLean.

At the time of these test scores, it was not highly segregated enough to beat the GS methodology. If they can get their fr/l and URM down below a statistically significant percentage, their GS scores will "magically" go back up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

Name the school.

New poster. Marshall is more diverse and has a higher GS score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Dp- no, they basically nailed it. Ytown is already highly segregated, and should be scoring similarly to McLean.

Yorktown has more FARMs and URMs than McLean. Nice try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Dp- no, they basically nailed it. Ytown is already highly segregated, and should be scoring similarly to McLean.

Test scores are still a part of the GS score. Ytown doesn't have the test scores of McLean, only the demographics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

Name the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Dp- no, they basically nailed it. Ytown is already highly segregated, and should be scoring similarly to McLean.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Never thought I'd see this many responses, but my takeaway is: FFX uses larger class sizes and the AAP program to manage the potential overcrowding at schools. From everything I've heard in APS over the 4-5 years we've been part of it, there is no way they'd consider tracking and AAP. Seems like a non-starter, for whatever reason. But maybe we're getting to the point where we should consider expanding class sizes. I haven't heard many negative comments about it from FFX parents, seems like it hasn't been all that detrimental to the classroom.

And no surprise we're never going to have as many options as FFX does in terms of finding land to build new schools. They have so much more flexibility in that regard. I wonder if APS needs to at least consider making the 4th HS a combined 6-12 grade school. Perhaps that could open up more options and relieve some of the busing costs? Maybe have the 6-8 grades start at a different time, to stagger the buses? Just throwing out ideas at this point.

APS doesn't do "tracking" but residential housing segregation is essentially the same thing. I bet it would be eyepopping to find out what percentage of students in each elementary school had a preschool education. At a school like Jamestown it's probably well over 90%. At Barcroft or Randolph I'd be very surprised if it cracked 50%. Kids who go to preschool start out ahead (north Arlington) or wait for the others to catch up (south Arlington).

OP here. Never thought I'd see this many responses, but my takeaway is: FFX uses larger class sizes and the AAP program to manage the potential overcrowding at schools. From everything I've heard in APS over the 4-5 years we've been part of it, there is no way they'd consider tracking and AAP. Seems like a non-starter, for whatever reason. But maybe we're getting to the point where we should consider expanding class sizes. I haven't heard many negative comments about it from FFX parents, seems like it hasn't been all that detrimental to the classroom.

And no surprise we're never going to have as many options as FFX does in terms of finding land to build new schools. They have so much more flexibility in that regard. I wonder if APS needs to at least consider making the 4th HS a combined 6-12 grade school. Perhaps that could open up more options and relieve some of the busing costs? Maybe have the 6-8 grades start at a different time, to stagger the buses? Just throwing out ideas at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like any school system, FCPS experiences challenges around shifting population bubbles, but as whole I think the larger system gives them more resources to deal with them. People point out disparities between schools in wealthier vs. poorer areas of the county, but if you look at data of similar geographical areas or similarly large school districts, FCPS is quite notable for relative equity--the differences in achievement scores between the lowest 25% of its schools aren't as different from the upper 25% compared to other similarly sized districts (this likely has more to do with the high median income in the county rather than any specific quality of FCPS). I think people are noticing that the inequities are sharpening a bit as resources have gotten stretched thinner.
Having experienced both, I would say that FCPS as a whole is better run than APS as a whole, but individual schools vary.

Correct. If FCPS wasn’t meeting the needs of its lower-income and minority students better, the high schools other than TJ would max out as 5s on Great Schools, just like Yorktown, and more would be 3s and 4s like Wakefield and W-L.

No, the new GS methodology rewards economically segregated schools. It doesn't compare how disadvantaged students are doing to each other, between schools, or as compared to the statewide or system averages. It compares how they are doing relative to the non-disadvantaged students within their schools. So schools with more homogeneously wealthy populations have the highest scores, and schools with a statistically measurable cohort of disadvantaged students had scores that went down. To expect the same outcome from kids who are living completely different lives and being exposed to completely disparate enrichment and vocabulary and experience is absurd. This is completely wrong from an educational standpoint and rewards proficiency rather than growth, which is not a true measure of school performance or excellence. The schools with scores that went down the most were schools where economic disparity amount its students was the greatest, such as Yorktown, where there are a good number of families in the 1%, as well as a statistically significant number of families whose students qualify for fr/l and who live in subsidized housing in Rosslyn.

Please. So sick of hearing this.
Yorktown fRL percentage is smaller than other schools that didn’t take the same hit
West Springfield....
As a south Arlington parent you jerks couldn’t shut up at GS rating a few years ago.
Turns out Wakefield has the same outcome for snowflakes as Yorktown...
As far as I’m concerned Great Schools is just as relevant as it’s always been.

Yes, previous PP - you start by saying that GS rewards economically segregated schools.
Then you proceed to show that Yorktown is economically segregated. But Yorktown’s rating sank to a 5.
You could also have said that GS rewards more homogenous schools - again Yorktown is much more homogeneous than W-L.
Both scores are abysmal. 5 and 4. There are other schools on GS that have the same demographics as Yorktown and score 10/10.

DP, but you really don’t understand the GS methodology, I’m embarrassed for you right now.

+ 1

Anonymous wrote:^ it’s a train wreck. You can’t look away.

A very slowwww motion one, as decision makers make one clown choice after the next. Or talk. Talk and fake listen. Then punt. And punt....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overcrowding in APS? My kid had class sizes of 20 and 21. Not my problem.

My kid has 28 in her third grade class.

Again, not my problem. But 28 is fine.