Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should be trying to get them to stay. That is S Arlington’s only hope!

How do they help the schools? If they're just going to opt out rather than help integrate, why in the world should we care about keeping them?

It's like you're responding to a completely different comment. They help the schools if they stay, so you should be trying to get them to stay.

Your attitude towards these people is irrelevant - they exist, and further they are acting rationally. This is the prisoner's dilemma: if everyone chose to send their kids to the neighborhood school, everyone would have the best outcome. But since you get screwed if you decide to send your kid to the school, and other people don't, then it's completely rational to opt out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

You can't just complain and judge people because they don't send their kids there. Instead, try to figure out how to get over the hump where a critical mass will decide to stay. This isn't an easy problem, but it's pointless to just say "we don't need them" because actually you do need them.

The problem with this argument is that a whole bunch of them on here are clamoring for more option schools to get them out as the only real solution. That doesn't keep families in neighborhood schools, by definition it is the exact opposite. We have enough option schools already, more isn't going to make these problems better. We have already covered strategically locating the option schools we have, and I agreed with that. So unless there is some third unspoken possibility out there that you're referring to I have no idea what we're arguing about.

Yes, it does help families in neighborhood schools. You insist on thinking about UMC kids in binary terms: that them going to an option school means they aren't going neighborhood and therefore "hurting" the local school. THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO GO THERE. At least with option schools, you keep the UMC kids, you give poor kids the opportunity to go to a school like claremont, which has a very active and well resourced student body, and by placing it in the poorest neighborhood you "crack" the poverty concentrated in one school across three. We do need more option schools, for this very reason. Option school enrollment as a share of total enrollment is going down, making their usefulness for addressing disparities less effective each year.

Claremont isn't going to cease to exist because we don't create a third immersion program. But how has the presence of Claremont helped the students left behind in Randolph? That is the logical step you keep skipping.

APS transfer reports don't publish demo info about the students a school sends, only about those it receives, so I can't speak to Randolph's particulars. But claremont received over 260 ED students last school year. That's almost 40% of the student body. It's clearly being used by poor kids who benefit the most from a well resources school like claremont. Those ED students came from many different SA schools. Probably a lot from abingdon, but also carlin springs and Randolph.

Now about the kids "left behind" at Randolph. Maybe if claremont was located AT Randolph, it and every adjacent school would have a lower farms rate. Do you understand now?

Actually, I believe APS does have that data - you can find the transfer out by school data which is broken out by student groups.

If you could point it out in the 2016-17 report I'd appreciate it. I've looked and cannot find, for instance how many ED in the Randolph zone go to say, Claremont.

Page 5 of the pdf file shows # of students from each school to the various schools transferred to. I guess I remember the stats incorrectly - they do not delineate how many ED students from school A transfer to schools B, C, or D. But it does show #s of students in each group transferring into a school, just not where each one is transferring from. Something to suggest to Staff to start recording - ideally, who is transferring specifically from which school to which school; but minimally the deographics of the students transferring out of each school. You can infer some of that; but not follow individual students' paths from school to school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should be trying to get them to stay. That is S Arlington’s only hope!

How do they help the schools? If they're just going to opt out rather than help integrate, why in the world should we care about keeping them?

It's like you're responding to a completely different comment. They help the schools if they stay, so you should be trying to get them to stay.

Your attitude towards these people is irrelevant - they exist, and further they are acting rationally. This is the prisoner's dilemma: if everyone chose to send their kids to the neighborhood school, everyone would have the best outcome. But since you get screwed if you decide to send your kid to the school, and other people don't, then it's completely rational to opt out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

You can't just complain and judge people because they don't send their kids there. Instead, try to figure out how to get over the hump where a critical mass will decide to stay. This isn't an easy problem, but it's pointless to just say "we don't need them" because actually you do need them.

The problem with this argument is that a whole bunch of them on here are clamoring for more option schools to get them out as the only real solution. That doesn't keep families in neighborhood schools, by definition it is the exact opposite. We have enough option schools already, more isn't going to make these problems better. We have already covered strategically locating the option schools we have, and I agreed with that. So unless there is some third unspoken possibility out there that you're referring to I have no idea what we're arguing about.

Yes, it does help families in neighborhood schools. You insist on thinking about UMC kids in binary terms: that them going to an option school means they aren't going neighborhood and therefore "hurting" the local school. THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO GO THERE. At least with option schools, you keep the UMC kids, you give poor kids the opportunity to go to a school like claremont, which has a very active and well resourced student body, and by placing it in the poorest neighborhood you "crack" the poverty concentrated in one school across three. We do need more option schools, for this very reason. Option school enrollment as a share of total enrollment is going down, making their usefulness for addressing disparities less effective each year.

Claremont isn't going to cease to exist because we don't create a third immersion program. But how has the presence of Claremont helped the students left behind in Randolph? That is the logical step you keep skipping.

APS transfer reports don't publish demo info about the students a school sends, only about those it receives, so I can't speak to Randolph's particulars. But claremont received over 260 ED students last school year. That's almost 40% of the student body. It's clearly being used by poor kids who benefit the most from a well resources school like claremont. Those ED students came from many different SA schools. Probably a lot from abingdon, but also carlin springs and Randolph.

Now about the kids "left behind" at Randolph. Maybe if claremont was located AT Randolph, it and every adjacent school would have a lower farms rate. Do you understand now?

Actually, I believe APS does have that data - you can find the transfer out by school data which is broken out by student groups.

If you could point it out in the 2016-17 report I'd appreciate it. I've looked and cannot find, for instance how many ED in the Randolph zone go to say, Claremont.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should be trying to get them to stay. That is S Arlington’s only hope!

How do they help the schools? If they're just going to opt out rather than help integrate, why in the world should we care about keeping them?

It's like you're responding to a completely different comment. They help the schools if they stay, so you should be trying to get them to stay.

Your attitude towards these people is irrelevant - they exist, and further they are acting rationally. This is the prisoner's dilemma: if everyone chose to send their kids to the neighborhood school, everyone would have the best outcome. But since you get screwed if you decide to send your kid to the school, and other people don't, then it's completely rational to opt out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

You can't just complain and judge people because they don't send their kids there. Instead, try to figure out how to get over the hump where a critical mass will decide to stay. This isn't an easy problem, but it's pointless to just say "we don't need them" because actually you do need them.

The problem with this argument is that a whole bunch of them on here are clamoring for more option schools to get them out as the only real solution. That doesn't keep families in neighborhood schools, by definition it is the exact opposite. We have enough option schools already, more isn't going to make these problems better. We have already covered strategically locating the option schools we have, and I agreed with that. So unless there is some third unspoken possibility out there that you're referring to I have no idea what we're arguing about.

Yes, it does help families in neighborhood schools. You insist on thinking about UMC kids in binary terms: that them going to an option school means they aren't going neighborhood and therefore "hurting" the local school. THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO GO THERE. At least with option schools, you keep the UMC kids, you give poor kids the opportunity to go to a school like claremont, which has a very active and well resourced student body, and by placing it in the poorest neighborhood you "crack" the poverty concentrated in one school across three. We do need more option schools, for this very reason. Option school enrollment as a share of total enrollment is going down, making their usefulness for addressing disparities less effective each year.

Claremont isn't going to cease to exist because we don't create a third immersion program. But how has the presence of Claremont helped the students left behind in Randolph? That is the logical step you keep skipping.

APS transfer reports don't publish demo info about the students a school sends, only about those it receives, so I can't speak to Randolph's particulars. But claremont received over 260 ED students last school year. That's almost 40% of the student body. It's clearly being used by poor kids who benefit the most from a well resources school like claremont. Those ED students came from many different SA schools. Probably a lot from abingdon, but also carlin springs and Randolph.

Now about the kids "left behind" at Randolph. Maybe if claremont was located AT Randolph, it and every adjacent school would have a lower farms rate. Do you understand now?

Actually, I believe APS does have that data - you can find the transfer out by school data which is broken out by student groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should be trying to get them to stay. That is S Arlington’s only hope!

How do they help the schools? If they're just going to opt out rather than help integrate, why in the world should we care about keeping them?

It's like you're responding to a completely different comment. They help the schools if they stay, so you should be trying to get them to stay.

Your attitude towards these people is irrelevant - they exist, and further they are acting rationally. This is the prisoner's dilemma: if everyone chose to send their kids to the neighborhood school, everyone would have the best outcome. But since you get screwed if you decide to send your kid to the school, and other people don't, then it's completely rational to opt out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

You can't just complain and judge people because they don't send their kids there. Instead, try to figure out how to get over the hump where a critical mass will decide to stay. This isn't an easy problem, but it's pointless to just say "we don't need them" because actually you do need them.

The problem with this argument is that a whole bunch of them on here are clamoring for more option schools to get them out as the only real solution. That doesn't keep families in neighborhood schools, by definition it is the exact opposite. We have enough option schools already, more isn't going to make these problems better. We have already covered strategically locating the option schools we have, and I agreed with that. So unless there is some third unspoken possibility out there that you're referring to I have no idea what we're arguing about.

Yes, it does help families in neighborhood schools. You insist on thinking about UMC kids in binary terms: that them going to an option school means they aren't going neighborhood and therefore "hurting" the local school. THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO GO THERE. At least with option schools, you keep the UMC kids, you give poor kids the opportunity to go to a school like claremont, which has a very active and well resourced student body, and by placing it in the poorest neighborhood you "crack" the poverty concentrated in one school across three. We do need more option schools, for this very reason. Option school enrollment as a share of total enrollment is going down, making their usefulness for addressing disparities less effective each year.

Claremont isn't going to cease to exist because we don't create a third immersion program. But how has the presence of Claremont helped the students left behind in Randolph? That is the logical step you keep skipping.

It hasn't, partially BECAUSE Claremont admissions were guaranteed to other neighborhoods which ultimately left very few spaces for others outside the zone. Also without full-force effort to reach out to the community and recruit for option programs, the majority of the Randolph zone (Barcroft Apts) isn't likely to go seeking options elsewhere when they can get what they believe they need literally across the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is it school within a school time?

Let's face it - most of us can't move. Sure, some people have tons of equity and can move. Or maybe they like 66. The rest of us though, are staying. Choice would be great, but if not, we're going to the neighborhood school. And cram school on the weekends.

Didn't we just abandon that at Drew?

Good point. Did Drew gentrify enough?

God no. But there are some community activists in Nauck who believe that was that only thing holding them back. I expect them to be putting up the biggest fight during the redraw.

Yes, I think there is some truth to that. Nauck activists did a good job of airing the dirty secret that the small traditional elementary program at Drew had test scores more dreadful than most can imagine. The arlnow story had the details. But aps was reporting school level stats, which meant the poor performance was being hidden by the better performing, much larger montesorri program. It's baffling why any parent in Nauck wouldn't choose the montesorri program, since back then, they were guaranteed admission. So the trad program was likely disengaged parents who might not have known a much better option existed in the same building.

The other layer is the legacy of bussing. Montessori was there because of bussing. The neighborhood activists wanted the school back. I think they're prob in for a rude awakening in the years to come. I don't actually expect them to be very critical of potential boundaries this fall, since they've already got what they want - montessori out.