Goodbye Barcroft (APS)?

[Anonymous]

Barcroft parent here. We moved here when the bad principal was still there and choiced out bc she seemed terrible. There are so many kids who choice out, I literally know of one family on the block who sent there kids there. Same with alcova, they have a huge transfer rate as well. If the parents living in homes, UMC, gave the new principal a chance that School would be very different. It would be very balanced.
But if alcova is moved out, it will become like randiolph and hopelessly lopsided. That would be a disaster and believe me the UMC would leave, quickly. And this isn’t a race issue, the Barcroft UMC is ethnically diverse.

I would hope that the SB would do what the school needs to be a success for all its students, keep most of alcova, change the calendar, give the principal the resources to increase outreach to parents, and keep it neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, there are some really nasty people on this site.

Randolph is close, but not next door to Barcroft. Geez, I can look at a map, including the walk zone maps APS just put out. APS maps show that elementary school kids cannot cross Columbia Pike or George Mason. So, how can kids who live north of Columbia Pike and west of George Mason WALK to Randolph.

And, how does sending lower income kids from one poor performing school, to another another (and higher FR/L) poor performing school help them????

I think the better question is if you can somehow arrange options schools and boundaries so that only Randolph is a "bad" school instead of Carlin Spring, Randolph and Barcroft, is it worth it? That's 2 less schools of high poverty and one sacrificial lamb. So some kids are helped and some remain in the same (not great) situation. Yes, this is cynical, but I think it's part of the consideration.

DP. I don't think it's cynical or making Randolph a "sacrificial lamb" to acknowledge that we don't have the ability to help all three through this particular process and helping two without helping the third is still better overall than maintaining the status quo. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Making Carlin Springs an immersion option makes sense, since the current CS students can be absorbed into their "new" immersion school and get rezoned for a combination of Claremont and Ashlawn, both strong, low FARMs schools in their own right that can take on some ED students without tanking their own schools. You also help the arguably most "needy" school/students, as Carlin Springs is over 80% FARMs.

That same situation, unfortunately, does not hold for Barcroft. If you make that school an immersion option, there are no good options for where to rezone the current Barcroft students. The planning units that could be picked up by Fleet (i.e. Alcova Heights) are primarily comprised of MC families, so Fleet just becomes even more "healthy" than it already will be. (It might also push Fleet way over capacity from the get-go. Many of the Alcova Heights families that transfer away from Barcroft will likely jump at the chance to go to Fleet.) The planning units that could get rezoned for Barrett (i.e. southern part of Arlington Forest and northern part of Barcroft) are also mostly MC. So yes, you might reduce the FARMs rate at Barrett, but then you're essentially breaking up a S. Arlington neighborhood school to improve a N. Arlington neighborhood school. And the southern/western PUs of Barcroft would get moved where? To Randolph (which is already at 74% FARMs), or Claremont (which is already going to be picking up FARMs students from the old Carlin Springs?

All this upheaval/musical chairs, and for what gain? You would basically make the new Randolph the old Carlin Springs, but even poorer, and/or the new Claremont the old Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

Not trying to throw another neighborhood under the bus, but thinking constructively here, a better immersion option than Barcroft would be Barrett.

It breaks up a high-poverty school (Barrett has an even higher poverty rate than Barcroft), is centrally located and close to transit, has a large contingent of Spanish-speaking students already in attendance (and in the walk zone), AND gives more flexibility for shifting boundaries around without exacerbating the ED imbalance. The displaced Barrett students could be zoned for Long Branch and Ashlawn (with potential trickle-down boundary changes for those schools if needed).

A downside is that Barrett has high walk-ability, but if the SB is trying to attract native Spanish speakers to immersion, then use that walkability to advance the cause to retain as many of the walkers (many Spanish-speakers) as possible.

Another downside is that the SB could be seen as trying to "improve" the (demographics) situation at North Arlington schools over South Arlington ones. The flip side is, S. Arlington gets to "keep" a neighborhood school it otherwise might not (Barcroft) and with a bit of help (calendar change, keeping Barcroft boundaries intact), might even improve. And balancing the demographics better (across north AND south) benefits the school system as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they get one immersion program (which I am not entirely opposed to) I pray that they follow the method at Claremont over key. I obviously only have first hand knowledge of Claremont, but from what I heard from key it is a very different program and is not nearly as inclusive to Claremont (my friend describes the population as segregated, which is not my experience at Claremont).

This is the first time I'm hearing this, what is the difference in methods?

Is it really necessary for you to be putting down Key like this? I think “what you’ve heard” shouldn’t be enough to declare your program and school leadership superior.

Sorry you are right, I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Some of the UMC Barrett families could also go to barcroft. They are just outside the walk zone, so very short bus ride across 50.

Buckingham is also a much larger “walkable” low income community to Barrett than Columbia Pike is to barcroft. I too hate to throw Barrett under the bus.

[Anonymous]

No good answers people.
The day those schools improve is the day the wrecking ball comes to Barcroft Apartments.
Fvcking albatross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No good answers people.
The day those schools improve is the day the wrecking ball comes to Barcroft Apartments.
Fvcking albatross.

I keep hearing that the development rights have been sold to given away, so they aren't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No good answers people.
The day those schools improve is the day the wrecking ball comes to Barcroft Apartments.
Fvcking albatross.

I keep hearing that the development rights have been sold to given away, so they aren't going anywhere.

My point exactly

[Anonymous]

Will the Board do a survey asking Spanish speaking homes if they would be interested in attending an immersion school? That way they can at least determine if it makes sense to move the immersion school to a heavy Spanish speaking area.

I mean I don't know, I doubt the struggle to find native Spanish speakers now really has to do with a longer bus ride or a complicated application process. I think native speakers want their kids in English immersion all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do the kids who are zoned to Barcorft go if this happens? It says its one of the most walkable schools, but many people don't use it. I'm guessing the Spanish speaking kids would stay and walk, but what about families who don't want immersion?

Choice out like they right now. Making Barcroft immersion isn't about making UMC in the walk zone attend. It's to draw UMC from outside who want immersion.

There are more families choosing this school with the new principal. Where will they all go? I think the issue is that all the people who could already choiced out - the rest are stuck going, which might be good for the school, but a problem if it becomes choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No good answers people.
The day those schools improve is the day the wrecking ball comes to Barcroft Apartments.
Fvcking albatross.

I keep hearing that the development rights have been sold to given away, so they aren't going anywhere.

My point exactly

As someone whose children actually goes to school with kids from these apartments I find all of these comments in this thread and others incredibly insensitive and hateful. Do you think it's the fault of those children or families that they h ave fewer resources or are new to the country? Should we simply refuse to educate or house economically disadvantaged children? These are human beings, not pawns or numbers or test scores. And many of them are smart and motivated and great peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No good answers people.
The day those schools improve is the day the wrecking ball comes to Barcroft Apartments.
Fvcking albatross.

I keep hearing that the development rights have been sold to given away, so they aren't going anywhere.

My point exactly

As someone whose children actually goes to school with kids from these apartments I find all of these comments in this thread and others incredibly insensitive and hateful. Do you think it's the fault of those children or families that they h ave fewer resources or are new to the country? Should we simply refuse to educate or house economically disadvantaged children? These are human beings, not pawns or numbers or test scores. And many of them are smart and motivated and great peers.

I’m never impressed by people who care about their politics than their own kid’s education.
That complex is 55 acres of poverty, and a huge obstacle to well ingrated schools.
No is suggesting humans aren’t living in those buildings. We are suggesting that 55 acres and 1,000’s of units ( and 100’s more planned) of 100% low income population is unbelievably bad policy.

[Anonymous]

My kids go to school with kids from apartments nearby too and no one is blaming the people that live in low income housing for being poor. No one hates them or demeans them as individuals. If you think it is perfectly fine to have large pockets of poverty in Arlington or anywhere, then you have been living in a bubble for too long and have a dangerously low understanding of how poverty impacts educational outcomes.

You, in fact, are part of the problem! Your rhetoric is just a way to shut down a conversation, sorry, you lose.

[Anonymous]

As someone whose children actually goes to school with kids from these apartments I find all of these comments in this thread and others incredibly insensitive and hateful. Do you think it's the fault of those children or families that they h ave fewer resources or are new to the country? Should we simply refuse to educate or house economically disadvantaged children? These are human beings, not pawns or numbers or test scores. And many of them are smart and motivated and great peers.

I’m never impressed by people who care about their politics than their own kid’s education.
That complex is 55 acres of poverty, and a huge obstacle to well ingrated schools.
No is suggesting humans aren’t living in those buildings. We are suggesting that 55 acres and 1,000’s of units ( and 100’s more planned) of 100% low income population is unbelievably bad policy.

Arlington County has basically ignored 30 years of research in urban areas across the country. ALL of them concluded that concentrating public housing in one small area produced nothing but bad outcomes, and stacked the deck against any of those families rising out of their economic/educational situation. It's why Chicago started breaking up Cabrini Green like 15-20 years ago! Cities realized it's much better to build mixed-use housing, with set aside affordable units. Or spreading smaller public housing buildings across the area. Concentrated poverty is a death spiral. And yes, I realize there are differences between AH and true public housing, but the results are the same. In an ideal world you'd raze Barcroft, and rebuild a mix of townhomes, condos and newer higher-rise apartment buildings, with a good chunk of the units set aside for low income families that qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As someone whose children actually goes to school with kids from these apartments I find all of these comments in this thread and others incredibly insensitive and hateful. Do you think it's the fault of those children or families that they h ave fewer resources or are new to the country? Should we simply refuse to educate or house economically disadvantaged children? These are human beings, not pawns or numbers or test scores. And many of them are smart and motivated and great peers.

I’m never impressed by people who care about their politics than their own kid’s education.
That complex is 55 acres of poverty, and a huge obstacle to well ingrated schools.
No is suggesting humans aren’t living in those buildings. We are suggesting that 55 acres and 1,000’s of units ( and 100’s more planned) of 100% low income population is unbelievably bad policy.

Arlington County has basically ignored 30 years of research in urban areas across the country. ALL of them concluded that concentrating public housing in one small area produced nothing but bad outcomes, and stacked the deck against any of those families rising out of their economic/educational situation. It's why Chicago started breaking up Cabrini Green like 15-20 years ago! Cities realized it's much better to build mixed-use housing, with set aside affordable units. Or spreading smaller public housing buildings across the area. Concentrated poverty is a death spiral. And yes, I realize there are differences between AH and true public housing, but the results are the same. In an ideal world you'd raze Barcroft, and rebuild a mix of townhomes, condos and newer higher-rise apartment buildings, with a good chunk of the units set aside for low income families that qualify.

I am the PP. I never said that I think pockets of poverty are good or that I agree with all of the County Board's housing policies. My issue is that when people are complaining about these systemic issues they often use divisive and accusatory language that sounds like it is the children themselves that are failures or sinking the school. This type of language can be inflammatory, especially when dealing with language and cultural differences. It then makes it easier for old guard supposedly-well-intentioned liberals to paint you as intolerant bigots. While the comments about Barcroft apartments in this thread weren't horrible---I have little patience from reading years of this type of rhetoric.

For the record, our family uses one of the neighborhood schools with lower test scores and we are extremely happy with our children's academic achievements and progress and school community. We do believe in greater socioeconomic integration for the sake of all students. We are able to give our children additional resources and enrichment opportunities outside of school. While our school does a fantastic job with many of its students and families, the lack of additional resources from having more families with cultural and economic capital to share is a disservice to some of the more economically disadvantaged kids.

And for the record---differentiation and challenging more advanced kids is not an issue in our experience at our school (because this always comes up).

It's great to want change and not to want to have huge pockets of poverty. Let's just make sure we're addressing the systemic issues and not sounding like we're blaming the victims. When you do that it's off-putting and harder to get people on your side.