Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.
I'm one of those posters and I live near Randolph. I don't disagree about the politics of Arlington, but I don't live near Penrose and my neighborhood is changing really quickly. I agree with you about current demographics, but I think you aren't understanding that those demographics don't reflect the neighborhoods. People in my neighborhood don't send their kids to Randolph. They go to choice programs. I don't blame them, we will likely do the same or go private through 5th. We have plenty of time to see how things shape up. I think it will be fine.
Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.
Anonymous wrote:To the poster who thinks the demographics at Wakefield are changing for the better. You better get out and advocate for the SB to consider SES data in the boundary changes. Because otherwise, you are dead wrong. You must live near Penrose/Henry or Oakridge. That is a very, very small part of the Wakefield district. It is far counterbalanced by the rest of the Wakefield district that is being packed with lower income kids on account of the County's housing policies. APAH and VOICE are in cahoots with the developers and limousine liberals among the Arlington Dems to keep those kids out of N. Arlington--where they say they "won't feel comfortable." Look at percentages at Abingdon, Barcroft, Randolph, Drew when you take out Montessori. THAT the future of Wakefield without boundary changes and it's not pretty.
Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?
The same could be said for Wakefield.
Anonymous wrote:Brain drain from Yorktown to H-B and W-L (IB)?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think we all should wait and see what the scores are for each sub-group.
How is it fair to compare a school where the total SAT population is 70% upper income white, 20% upper income asian and 10% black/hispanic (incomes??) to a school where the SAT-taking population is 50% black and hispanic (or more) and 50% (or less) middle income white?
It is not a secret that across the state and across the nation, black and hispanic kids don't score as highly on SAT tests. It is also not a secret that as income rises (even for kids with HHI above 100k) scores rise in direct relation to the HHI. I've seen graphs on this on line. I was surprised there was any effect over a certain income (say 100K). But there is an increasing linear relationship.
So, when people trot out these school-wide averages, I think it is a farce. Since everyone seems to be talking about Wakefield, look at the scores of the white kids at Wakefield... that's meaningful in comparison to other white kids. If the Wakefield ave. SAT scores is comprised of 70% hispanic kids and 30% white kids -- well, gee, surprise, surprise.... it's not going to be anywhere near the average score of Langley where 95% of the test-takers are white/asian kids from households that make 200k or more.
I think we need to be careful about maligning an entire school simply b/c it may have more test-takers who are not high income and who are hispanic or black. You're essentially penalizing schools that encourage their lower students to try the SAT. Some schools have few to none of those students from low-income, non-college-educated parents-households.
Actually, APS has the score breakdowns. The white kids at Wakefield didn't do too badly.
http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/1970/01/SAT-2016-Table-3.pdf
35 white test takers, out of what originally started out as a class of almost 400, did OK, though not nearly as well as white kids at most area schools.
Wait, there where 400 white students? That doesn't jive with the demographics of the school.
Slow clap.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think we all should wait and see what the scores are for each sub-group.
How is it fair to compare a school where the total SAT population is 70% upper income white, 20% upper income asian and 10% black/hispanic (incomes??) to a school where the SAT-taking population is 50% black and hispanic (or more) and 50% (or less) middle income white?
It is not a secret that across the state and across the nation, black and hispanic kids don't score as highly on SAT tests. It is also not a secret that as income rises (even for kids with HHI above 100k) scores rise in direct relation to the HHI. I've seen graphs on this on line. I was surprised there was any effect over a certain income (say 100K). But there is an increasing linear relationship.
So, when people trot out these school-wide averages, I think it is a farce. Since everyone seems to be talking about Wakefield, look at the scores of the white kids at Wakefield... that's meaningful in comparison to other white kids. If the Wakefield ave. SAT scores is comprised of 70% hispanic kids and 30% white kids -- well, gee, surprise, surprise.... it's not going to be anywhere near the average score of Langley where 95% of the test-takers are white/asian kids from households that make 200k or more.
I think we need to be careful about maligning an entire school simply b/c it may have more test-takers who are not high income and who are hispanic or black. You're essentially penalizing schools that encourage their lower students to try the SAT. Some schools have few to none of those students from low-income, non-college-educated parents-households.
Actually, APS has the score breakdowns. The white kids at Wakefield didn't do too badly.
http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/1970/01/SAT-2016-Table-3.pdf