Where is Carlin Springs in all of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you link to that density map?
I think the CB is out of their minds approving more and more AH projects, especially the large number of multi-family ones, with NO SEATS for the children this brings in and the taxpayers asking to foot the 90K (?) per student per year, yet crying at every turn that there is NO MONEY for these students, or the existing students, and NO SPACE. They are insane to push for this increase in density, and especially to push for non-taxpaying increase in density.

The dynamic between the SB and CB is f'd, I agree, mostly because half the SB at any given time wants to be on the CB and that basically means pledging allegiance to affordable housing. It's their top priority and our county budgets show it.

That said, kids from affordable units aren't really driving crowding. It's part of the story but the schools they are zoned for are among the least crowded in the county.

False. APS staff admitted it themselves. They aren't generating as many kids as SFHs, but that's because there are fewer units of AH than SFH. But per unit, CAFs generate the same number of students as a SFH (I will try to find this today). And I'll post the heat density maps, too, if I can. You can see the outlines of Arlington Mill and a couple other CAF properties. It's plain as day.

When staff went over the report at one of the work sessions, NVD practically jumped down the staffer's throat saying that it didn't matter where kids were coming from and they should just move on. Oh, it DOES matter. It may look like CAFs aren't contributing to crowding because when the school they are zoned to reaches a tipping point, the kids from SFHs flee. Hence the crowding at nearby neighborhood schools that aren't very high poverty, and the option schools. But to say that they aren't contributing to crowding is just as ridiculous as claiming that the tear downs and subsequent subdivision of SFH lots isn't also contributing. It's all part of it, and we need to demand that they CB and SB work together to figure out how to build the amenities that all these people, whether they live in CAFs or SFHs, are moving here to utilize.

I said affordable housing is part of the story. It is part. It isn't the whole story. Arlington is whiter and has less affordable housing now than 10-15 years ago. so while affordable housing certainly influences the housing market within the county, other factors are also at work. There are simply more people here too.

Since when is having more kids and being whiter an excuse for piss-poor planning? APS is run by amateurs and overseen by hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you link to that density map?
I think the CB is out of their minds approving more and more AH projects, especially the large number of multi-family ones, with NO SEATS for the children this brings in and the taxpayers asking to foot the 90K (?) per student per year, yet crying at every turn that there is NO MONEY for these students, or the existing students, and NO SPACE. They are insane to push for this increase in density, and especially to push for non-taxpaying increase in density.

The dynamic between the SB and CB is f'd, I agree, mostly because half the SB at any given time wants to be on the CB and that basically means pledging allegiance to affordable housing. It's their top priority and our county budgets show it.

That said, kids from affordable units aren't really driving crowding. It's part of the story but the schools they are zoned for are among the least crowded in the county.

False. APS staff admitted it themselves. They aren't generating as many kids as SFHs, but that's because there are fewer units of AH than SFH. But per unit, CAFs generate the same number of students as a SFH (I will try to find this today). And I'll post the heat density maps, too, if I can. You can see the outlines of Arlington Mill and a couple other CAF properties. It's plain as day.

When staff went over the report at one of the work sessions, NVD practically jumped down the staffer's throat saying that it didn't matter where kids were coming from and they should just move on. Oh, it DOES matter. It may look like CAFs aren't contributing to crowding because when the school they are zoned to reaches a tipping point, the kids from SFHs flee. Hence the crowding at nearby neighborhood schools that aren't very high poverty, and the option schools. But to say that they aren't contributing to crowding is just as ridiculous as claiming that the tear downs and subsequent subdivision of SFH lots isn't also contributing. It's all part of it, and we need to demand that they CB and SB work together to figure out how to build the amenities that all these people, whether they live in CAFs or SFHs, are moving here to utilize.

I said affordable housing is part of the story. It is part. It isn't the whole story. Arlington is whiter and has less affordable housing now than 10-15 years ago. so while affordable housing certainly influences the housing market within the county, other factors are also at work. There are simply more people here too.

OMG!!!! Housing built where there was once a parking lot ADDS density, and when those are 2-3 bedroom units, they add kids to the school. More than a building of one bedroom condos. We don't have the zoning tools (yet) to stop SFH turnover or construction where a lot isn't being subdivided. But we CAN control the construction that is subsidized by taxpayers. OR, better yet, we can require developers to help us with land and/or money for schools when it's not by-right development instead of requiring them to build or pay even more into the AH fund. We can do this all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Barcroft is in the mix because they want to nix the year round calendar, and the school has one of the highest transfer rates. Wouldn't be surprised to see them relocate immersion there. They have a ton of field space for trailers.

They still have ten trailers there now.
Nobody seems to have heard the SB members say they want to see the analysis after other factors are considered....like the accessibility to the site for vehicular traffic. Barcroft is not particularly accessible for a countywide program. And, it is also a very highly walkable school. I don't recall hearing them say a school's calendar is one of the factors for consideration of a change to an option program.

DP. Of course "Calendar" isn't going to be one of the considerations for identifying promising candidates for option school locations. But if they're faced with deciding between a few sites including Barcroft that all have their pros and cons, eliminating an unpopular school calendar could end up in the pro column for Barcroft. Other schools will have their own unique pros and cons.

The calendar seems to be unpopular by people who don't even attend the school and who have not even given it a try. I have not heard any outcry about the calendar from the families enrolled there. That does not necessarily mean the current enrolled families will fight to the death to keep it, or that all of them care strongly one way or the other. But while a school's instructional focus may not be popular among those who don't attend it, that doesn't mean it isn't popular among those who go there. Same with Barcroft's calendar.

And, despite the calendar, it remains a highly walkable school and many of its current students walk there now. Follow all the other discussions about how low-income families have to have walkable neighborhood schools? Well, Barcroft apartments is chock full of low-income families who walk to their neighborhood schools.

It may be under-enrolled now; but that doesn't mean it will remain that way when additional CAF projects are complete and boundaries are readjusted.

I live near Barcroft and most people I know do NOT choose to send their kids there in large part because of the year round calendar. If you have two kids, once one of them is in middle school it's a disaster for any kind of family planning. It's definitely doing nobody any favors at this point. Time to end the experiment.

I am a current Barcroft and middle school parent. The two schedules is NOT a disaster and has not been a big issue. The only issue we've had in two years of the different schedules is this year's winter concert being on the same night for both schools. That had nothing to do with Barcroft's calendar, rather having two kids in two different schools that don't coordinate concerts or events. There have been hundreds of families who went through this dual-schedule before us, and I have not heard any big complaints or inability to manage it. It actually has some advantages.

I think PP was probably exaggerating that having kids on two different calendars is a disaster, but I think you are the exception who sees it as a plus. I know I would not ever consider it because it's just one more thing to manage in our very busy lives. Why make a school that is struggling to attract and keep the kids who live nearby any less attractive? If there were some compelling reason, such as improved test scores or educational outcomes (measured in some other way), I could get on board with a calendar that is more costly to maintain. But as far as I know, there is no such evidence of any benefit to students or even families that is not available at the traditional calendar schools. Mainly, I've heard from MC families who like to take off-peak Disney vacations and save on summer camps in August that they love this calendar. Not compelling enough a reason to have one neighborhood school on a different calendar that costs more, especially when we're looking to cut all kinds of other things and find "efficiencies" that I think will have far greater implications.

Well, I am not the exception. Like I said, I haven't heard any big complaints from those who actually experienced it or who are currently experiencing it; and I have lost track of the number of parents in other parts of the County and teachers from other schools I have encountered who say they wish all schools had that, or "I would love that" or "that sounds great." Those off-peak vacations are a benefit that a lot of people take advantage of - and is very helpful for MC families who don't have the resources the UMC in richer parts of Arlington have, as well as to the teachers. Those total of 4 weeks of intersession opportunities do cost a lot less than summer camps -- a huge benefit to the 60% FRL families at the school and to those same non-FRL families who may not be poor but who aren't rich and are getting by, too. Ask the teachers how they like having breaks throughout the year or having the opportunity to take off-season vacations. Over 300 students are participating in intersessions -- well over 60% of the current student body. Those intersessions offer extended learning and "remedial" learning and enrichment opportunities these children would otherwise not have. And again, the school is majority students who fall into those achievement gap student groups. And even though there are some summer food programs, there are just 5-6 weeks of stress for families who can't afford to feed their children sufficiently instead of 9 or 10. Benefits may not have translated into test scores as some may have hoped - but APS needs to explore why that might be. I suspect there are several factors. But you also mention educational outcomes measured in other ways -- APS doesn't do that too well; but there are non-tangibles that can't always be measured. I'm not saying everybody would like the alternative calendar -- it's obvious how people in Arlington don't like something different or a change to their traditions and most familiars. But just because you don't think you would like it or don't want to try it does not mean others do. I've never seen the numbers for how much more it costs. But Montessori costs more, too. Exemplary projects have costs. Concentrating low-income and/or ELL students in a handful of schools have great costs, both in the way of extra resources needed and in the social and academic costs for the students. Schools weren't created to cater to parents schedules. They are here to serve the needs of children and families. Some families are better served in different ways, including an alternative calendar.

Then it should be an alternative school. Not the default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

[Anonymous]

Barcroft scores were on their way up

And no, I don't send my kid to Barcroft. We choiced out like almost every other family on the block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

What other schools have similar demographics to Barcroft?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

What other schools have similar demographics to Barcroft?

Barrett and Campbell are similar, and Carlin Springs as higher poverty yet higher scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

What other schools have similar demographics to Barcroft?

Barrett and Campbell are similar, and Carlin Springs as higher poverty yet higher scores.

Having spoken with teachers at Carlin Springs, those higher test scores come at the cost of learning and curricula in the non-tested subjects. Barrett is quite similar racially/ethnically - but what's the comparative ELL %s of those three? Campbell's K-5 student body is even smaller than Barcroft's and they stay with the same class/teachers for two years. Smaller schools have been shown to be better for high-poverty school achievement. Perhaps the teacher-looping approach is an added benefit? Of course, many will say it's the EL program. It's likely a combination of many things - including the fact that the Campbell families are the families who have sought-out options and selected to go there rather than to Carlin Springs or Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

What other schools have similar demographics to Barcroft?

Barrett and Campbell are similar, and Carlin Springs as higher poverty yet higher scores.

Having spoken with teachers at Carlin Springs, those higher test scores come at the cost of learning and curricula in the non-tested subjects. Barrett is quite similar racially/ethnically - but what's the comparative ELL %s of those three? Campbell's K-5 student body is even smaller than Barcroft's and they stay with the same class/teachers for two years. Smaller schools have been shown to be better for high-poverty school achievement. Perhaps the teacher-looping approach is an added benefit? Of course, many will say it's the EL program. It's likely a combination of many things - including the fact that the Campbell families are the families who have sought-out options and selected to go there rather than to Carlin Springs or Barcroft.

"Those three" meaning Barcroft, Barrett, and Campbell regarding the % ELL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Scores at Barcroft are awful. Experiment failed.

Which means the scores were awful before the calendar and, despite posters' proclamations otherwise, they still would not send their kids to Barcroft even with the elimination of the alternative calendar. They didn't before because of test scores and they still won't because of test scores - not because of the calendar.

Actually test scores began a decline a few years ago and have not bounced back. I don't think it's related to the calendar (certainly the calendar has not helped in this regard). I think the calendar is something that detracts from the school.

Test scores dropped in recent years due to the wrong leadership when the long-time principal retired. There's a new sheriff in town this year, one with higher expectations for her students -- all her students -- and for her school. Hopefully the test scores will rise again over the next few years. But if people continue to expect the highest scores in the County, then they will continue to criticize the school and they will continue to opt out no matter what calendar they follow.

I don't think anyone expect the highest scores; they were never "high." But the test scores should be at least as good as schools with similar demographics. They are not currently.

What other schools have similar demographics to Barcroft?

Barrett and Campbell are similar, and Carlin Springs as higher poverty yet higher scores.

Having spoken with teachers at Carlin Springs, those higher test scores come at the cost of learning and curricula in the non-tested subjects. Barrett is quite similar racially/ethnically - but what's the comparative ELL %s of those three? Campbell's K-5 student body is even smaller than Barcroft's and they stay with the same class/teachers for two years. Smaller schools have been shown to be better for high-poverty school achievement. Perhaps the teacher-looping approach is an added benefit? Of course, many will say it's the EL program. It's likely a combination of many things - including the fact that the Campbell families are the families who have sought-out options and selected to go there rather than to Carlin Springs or Barcroft.

"Those three" meaning Barcroft, Barrett, and Campbell regarding the % ELL students.

I don't think that information is available, is it? But racially and socioeconomically, Barrett and Campbell and Barcroft are quite similar. As to size, Barrett has 100 more K-5 students than Barcroft and Campbell has 29 fewer. Nothing so far supports the notion that year-round school is an educational benefit. Seems like there are other strategies that are more effective (and I don't mean test cram like at Carlin Springs).