Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Cascade effect not good for south Arlington. Not like any of them care. Moving the option schools in general would have benefited students elsewhere in the county. Again, they give zero f’s.

How would moving ATS (the only school they could move, as confirmed by staff) to Nottingham help South Arlington? Please explain the cascade of effects that would improve schools like Barcroft and Carlin Springs. Back up your rhetoric with substance if you want to be taken seriously.

In the case of Carlin Springs, it would have ceased to exist as a neighborhood school, then the kids who are almost exclusively bus riders anyway to Carlin Springs would've been bused slightly further to a different school. I'm assuming they were thinking of moving either Claremont or Key to Carlin Springs, and then making the former locations neighborhood school.

They could have done that without moving ATS to Nottingham. ATS and Campbell stay where they are, in locations that are more accessible to SA families and don't encourage even more 22207 families to apply. Immersion programs go to Carlin Springs and Barcroft. Ashlawn reaches across 50 to pull a bunch of the displaced Carlin Springs and Barcroft units north, helping to improve SES balance while also resolving the issue of excess seats in NW.

How does ATS -> Nottingham improve on that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Cascade effect not good for south Arlington. Not like any of them care. Moving the option schools in general would have benefited students elsewhere in the county. Again, they give zero f’s.

How would moving ATS (the only school they could move, as confirmed by staff) to Nottingham help South Arlington? Please explain the cascade of effects that would improve schools like Barcroft and Carlin Springs. Back up your rhetoric with substance if you want to be taken seriously.

In the case of Carlin Springs, it would have ceased to exist as a neighborhood school, then the kids who are almost exclusively bus riders anyway to Carlin Springs would've been bused slightly further to a different school. I'm assuming they were thinking of moving either Claremont or Key to Carlin Springs, and then making the former locations neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Cascade effect not good for south Arlington. Not like any of them care. Moving the option schools in general would have benefited students elsewhere in the county. Again, they give zero f’s.

How would moving ATS (the only school they could move, as confirmed by staff) to Nottingham help South Arlington? Please explain the cascade of effects that would improve schools like Barcroft and Carlin Springs. Back up your rhetoric with substance if you want to be taken seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Cascade effect not good for south Arlington. Not like any of them care. Moving the option schools in general would have benefited students elsewhere in the county. Again, they give zero f’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Cascade effect not good for south Arlington. Not like any of them care. Moving the option schools in general would have benefited students elsewhere in the county. Again, they give zero f’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

The Nottingham folks weren't opposed to change generally, they felt the data produced by the staff, if honestly evaluated, showed that Nottingham was a poor choice for an option site rather than a strong one. Further, moving an option school to Nottingham wouldn't have done anything to address socioeconomic segregation. If anything, it would probably have made it worse (a point the staff basically conceded) because of the tendency of option schools to draw disproportionately from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was something like 17 groups varying skill levels, with kids moving in between frequently. Not an education expert, but when we took the tour, we did see kids in different groups working on the same topic, presumably with enough of a challenge for each. The principal also talked up her plan to have the kids take 10 books home a night for reading by themselves or with someone else, available in English and Spanish.

After taking the tour, did you decide to enroll your kid at Barcroft?

...we're still going to try for an option school, but it made me feel better if we don't get into one. We can't afford private, so there's that... Don't really understand how the new option lottery works - if you get a seat in one school, you can't wait to see what else you've gotten? And the chances of getting option seat are pretty slim, it seems...

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to the wide belief espoused here, Aps in general is not racist and is not trying to segregate kids by economic means. Boundaries are largely made based off of geography— they draw logical circles around each school. In a few cases, drawing a logical circle is not possible (Ashlawn for example), and the boundary looks less logical. But I genuinely believe that they are trying to do the best with the constraints they have. It is not their fault that Arlington itself is segregated.
There was an amazing opportunity for them to really improve the quality of schools by moving the option schools. That was squashed because people were afraid of change, and so here we are. They could have put immersion carlin springs and Barcroft. Since 50% have to be native English speakers, that would likely have changed the demographics at those schools. Ashlawn could have gone south of 50, keys new boundary could have gone south of 50, long branch could have gone south of 50. The people fighting that (keep key on key, the Nottingham folks) were short sighted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was something like 17 groups varying skill levels, with kids moving in between frequently. Not an education expert, but when we took the tour, we did see kids in different groups working on the same topic, presumably with enough of a challenge for each. The principal also talked up her plan to have the kids take 10 books home a night for reading by themselves or with someone else, available in English and Spanish.

After taking the tour, did you decide to enroll your kid at Barcroft?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was something like 17 groups varying skill levels, with kids moving in between frequently. Not an education expert, but when we took the tour, we did see kids in different groups working on the same topic, presumably with enough of a challenge for each. The principal also talked up her plan to have the kids take 10 books home a night for reading by themselves or with someone else, available in English and Spanish.

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?

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.

How about forcing them into segregated schools? Is that a civil rights issue?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?

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.