APS: Elementary Walk Zone surveys out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barcroft resident here, I mostly agree with PPs, but a few caveats.

Campbell is much like Barrett and barcroft as far as SES demographics. And, although it is a choice School, it has a disproportionately large VPI class from local kids and they stay at the school. Those parents like me self selected that School.

But there is something different about that school, they embrace their diversity in many ways and I don’t feel that the School caters only to the immigrant community. It is all one community. Maybe it is the way the school administration deals with it, I give a lot of credit to the principle because a lot of that attitude comes from the top.

And don’t be so sure that your UMC kid won’t benefit from the Title I services. Campbell makes those extra resources available to all kids who need them. Mine gets some extra help in certain subjects, like math. I am grateful for the extra help.

That's good to hear. I do wonder if the fact that Campbell is like 35% farms and Barrett and barcroft are 60, along with not being self selecting does make a difference though.

Campbell is only 35% ? That has gone way, way down! (I recall something just under 60% a few years back?). That means they lost Title 1 status.
Did they keep the same number of VPI classes? Did the ratings/scores/stats change with that?

No. Campbell is 54% FRL.

Barcroft is around 60, so you can see what a difference families makes.

Much of Campbell is VPI classrooms, so the main student body is significantly smaller than the other Title I, high FRL schools. That makes a difference, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ATS to Barcroft. Barcroft loses almost as many kids to choice school transfers as it has in the neighborhood. Alcova to Fleet. Divide Bacroft between Randolph and Barrett. Recapture the choice kids you are losing to those schools anyway! Also, encourages S Arl students (and disadvantaged families) to take advantage of ATS.

No room at Randolph for all the low income kids at Barcroft - they're not going to enter the lottery for ATS. And would prob give Randolph a farms rate higher than carlin springs.

Can't send half of Barcroft to Barrett either - you will upset the balance that exists at Barrett and keeps UMC families at the school. Don't want to undo 15 years of community buy-in and send Barrett parents scrambling for option schools as they did in the past before visionary former principal convinced Arlington Forest families that their kids would turn out fine. Barrett is one of the few high-FARMS schools that UMC families are happy with. It has a huge number of walkers and fairly balanced ethnic/racial/SES demographics. Not something to upset by playing the "where should we move ATS" game.

Tell me more about Barrett. It's got nearly identical farms rate as Barcroft (60%). Does it really have buy in from SFH, Morris than Barcroft? What's different there, apart from the calendar?

I’m not the previous poster, but Barrett is not diverse. It’s all Hispanic, plus a minority of Arlington Forest families.
And yes, that a good question to ask, because there is a lot of lamenting about Barcroft, but Barrett is no better in its demographics.
PTA participation and parent participation is limited, and I don’t see SES (or ethnic) diversity.

Barrett has 60% FARMS which is more diverse than a school that is 80% FARMS or 4% FARMS.

Barrett is 50% Hispanic, 28% White, 10% Black, which is more diverse than schools that are 70+% White or Hispanic. Not all the families that live in SFHs in Arlington Forest are white (not all the minority students at Barrett receive free lunch). Yes, some families choose Key/ATS/Campbell but the neighborhood is absolutely crawling with kids and most attend Barrett.

So this suggests to me that Barcroft's calendar is a HUGE deterrent for many families. Only about 100 students opt out of Barrett, while close to 300 so so at Barcroft. They have similar demographics, and similar neighborhood profiles. The major difference is the CALENDAR.

And test scores.

[Anonymous]

The big different by Barrett and barcroft neighborhoods is the high school. Barrett kids go to Washington lee. Barcroft goes to Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The big different by Barrett and barcroft neighborhoods is the high school. Barrett kids go to Washington lee. Barcroft goes to Wakefield.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big different by Barrett and barcroft neighborhoods is the high school. Barrett kids go to Washington lee. Barcroft goes to Wakefield.

Bingo.

What? The HS makes it more likely that the neighborhood families will send their kids to Barrett rather than transfer them out to a different ES? That makes no sense. We're not talking about what makes these neighborhood different in terms of real estate sales. The question is why are 300 kids transferring out of one neighborhood ES and not another that has identical demographics? And it's not the test scores because Barrett has had similarly low scores in recent years, though they were higher than Barcroft this past year. The difference as to why MC families aren't choosing Barcroft ES in the same numbers as those choosing Barrett is the different calendar. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big different by Barrett and barcroft neighborhoods is the high school. Barrett kids go to Washington lee. Barcroft goes to Wakefield.

Bingo.

What? The HS makes it more likely that the neighborhood families will send their kids to Barrett rather than transfer them out to a different ES? That makes no sense. We're not talking about what makes these neighborhood different in terms of real estate sales. The question is why are 300 kids transferring out of one neighborhood ES and not another that has identical demographics? And it's not the test scores because Barrett has had similarly low scores in recent years, though they were higher than Barcroft this past year. The difference as to why MC families aren't choosing Barcroft ES in the same numbers as those choosing Barrett is the different calendar. That's it.

It makes it more likely that there’s neighborhood buy in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big different by Barrett and barcroft neighborhoods is the high school. Barrett kids go to Washington lee. Barcroft goes to Wakefield.

Bingo.

What? The HS makes it more likely that the neighborhood families will send their kids to Barrett rather than transfer them out to a different ES? That makes no sense. We're not talking about what makes these neighborhood different in terms of real estate sales. The question is why are 300 kids transferring out of one neighborhood ES and not another that has identical demographics? And it's not the test scores because Barrett has had similarly low scores in recent years, though they were higher than Barcroft this past year. The difference as to why MC families aren't choosing Barcroft ES in the same numbers as those choosing Barrett is the different calendar. That's it.

It makes it more likely that there’s neighborhood buy in

How so? The Barcroft families aren't moving away, just optioning or transferring for ES. The lack of neighborhood buy-in at the ES level is about the calendar.

[Anonymous]

Barcroft resident here. Which test scores are you looking at PP? The test scores for "white" kids at barcroft in the past were lower than barrett. I know that isn't the best indicator because there are plenty of minority families in the neighborhood that are UMC, but it is the best available considering the statistics collected.

UMC kids at barcroft are not doing as well as they are at barrett.

That, the low performing principle that has since left, and the calendar are the problem.

If the county gets rid of the calendar and allows the new principle to really reach out to the UMC community (and doesn't split off Alcova's UMC planning units), then things could turn around.

[Anonymous]

I just don’t see that difference between Barcroft and Randolph.
I don’t understand why there is some weird thought Barcroft is destined to turn around. Calendar or no.

[Anonymous]

It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

The sores and community involvement WHERE ON THEIR WAY UP under the previous long-time principal --- WHILE THE MODIFIED CALENDAR WAS IN PLACE. It wasn't the calendar that caused the decline after that - it was the new principal. Give the current principal a legitimate chance (WITH the calendar) and see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

The sores and community involvement WHERE ON THEIR WAY UP under the previous long-time principal --- WHILE THE MODIFIED CALENDAR WAS IN PLACE. It wasn't the calendar that caused the decline after that - it was the new principal. Give the current principal a legitimate chance (WITH the calendar) and see what happens.

Nobody said the calendar caused the decline. We're saying it continues to cause families to seek options outside the neighborhood, and THAT is a huge waste, especially when the calendar has not proven to be an academic benefit and is more difficult and costly to administer. If you get rid of the calendar, you remove yet another barrier to neighborhood buy-in. The kids are here. Let them have a regular neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

The sores and community involvement WHERE ON THEIR WAY UP under the previous long-time principal --- WHILE THE MODIFIED CALENDAR WAS IN PLACE. It wasn't the calendar that caused the decline after that - it was the new principal. Give the current principal a legitimate chance (WITH the calendar) and see what happens.

Nobody said the calendar caused the decline. We're saying it continues to cause families to seek options outside the neighborhood, and THAT is a huge waste, especially when the calendar has not proven to be an academic benefit and is more difficult and costly to administer. If you get rid of the calendar, you remove yet another barrier to neighborhood buy-in. The kids are here. Let them have a regular neighborhood school.

I am skeptical that a traditional calendar will suddenly make all those UMC families send their kids to Barcroft. The calendar is a legitimate reason for some; but it is an excuse for most who opt out. People still look at FRL rates and test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

The sores and community involvement WHERE ON THEIR WAY UP under the previous long-time principal --- WHILE THE MODIFIED CALENDAR WAS IN PLACE. It wasn't the calendar that caused the decline after that - it was the new principal. Give the current principal a legitimate chance (WITH the calendar) and see what happens.

Nobody said the calendar caused the decline. We're saying it continues to cause families to seek options outside the neighborhood, and THAT is a huge waste, especially when the calendar has not proven to be an academic benefit and is more difficult and costly to administer. If you get rid of the calendar, you remove yet another barrier to neighborhood buy-in. The kids are here. Let them have a regular neighborhood school.

I am skeptical that a traditional calendar will suddenly make all those UMC families send their kids to Barcroft. The calendar is a legitimate reason for some; but it is an excuse for most who opt out. People still look at FRL rates and test scores.

Sure, it's not going to be a panacea. Families who have already committed to an option school aren't going to come back unless it has not been a positive experience. But there are families with kids yet to enter school and there are families who are at Barcroft now but don't love the calendar who may leave. It's just removing another negative, another mental barrier. People would get over the funny calendar if the school had high test scores and a great reputation. But it doesn't, so why not change what you can? Why wouldn't you want to do that? I still have not seen real evidence that there is some educational benefit to the modified calendar. But the cost of keeping the school open and busing 300 neighborhood kids to other schools is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a "weird" thought. The two schools are not the same.

1. The calendar is different. Many families don't want to send their kids and live under that calendar.

2. The UMC community buy-in is different resulting in parents who transfer out because they don't like the school's scores and academics.

3. The leadership at the school is different. Barrett is known to have a strong principle. Barcroft was on its way up with community involvement and scores when the well-liked principle retired and lots of her loyal staff left - school then went back downhill. New principle was terrible according to many and she is gone with a new one installed. Hope she is better.

4. UMC scores are a bit lower at Barcroft.

If you don't see a difference, then you don't care to. Some of us do and want to see improvements at Barcroft.

The sores and community involvement WHERE ON THEIR WAY UP under the previous long-time principal --- WHILE THE MODIFIED CALENDAR WAS IN PLACE. It wasn't the calendar that caused the decline after that - it was the new principal. Give the current principal a legitimate chance (WITH the calendar) and see what happens.

Nobody said the calendar caused the decline. We're saying it continues to cause families to seek options outside the neighborhood, and THAT is a huge waste, especially when the calendar has not proven to be an academic benefit and is more difficult and costly to administer. If you get rid of the calendar, you remove yet another barrier to neighborhood buy-in. The kids are here. Let them have a regular neighborhood school.

I am skeptical that a traditional calendar will suddenly make all those UMC families send their kids to Barcroft. The calendar is a legitimate reason for some; but it is an excuse for most who opt out. People still look at FRL rates and test scores.

Sure, it's not going to be a panacea. Families who have already committed to an option school aren't going to come back unless it has not been a positive experience. But there are families with kids yet to enter school and there are families who are at Barcroft now but don't love the calendar who may leave. It's just removing another negative, another mental barrier. People would get over the funny calendar if the school had high test scores and a great reputation. But it doesn't, so why not change what you can? Why wouldn't you want to do that? I still have not seen real evidence that there is some educational benefit to the modified calendar. But the cost of keeping the school open and busing 300 neighborhood kids to other schools is clear.

We'd be bussing 200 or more kids elsewhere anyway, because Barcroft doesn't have the capacity for 700-800 kids. If the calendar is only one barrier that MIGHT make a few more UMC families stay, I don't see a significant motivation to eliminate the calendar as a means to change demographics. It isn't going to make significantly more difference than what was happening several years ago when Barcroft was "on the rise" as referenced earlier in this topic. It started to see buy-in under the modified calendar but the change in leadership killed it - not because of the calendar. Perhaps if APS did more outreach and recruitment to make ED families realize the opportunities and advantages some of the option programs would offer their kids, they could get more of them to go to the option programs and create a better balance of economic demographics that way.