Goodbye Barcroft (APS)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Barrett has high walkability AND a large population of people that want to attend their neighborhood school and don't seek to transfer. Much higher than Barcroft and Carlin Springs as I recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if Barcroft and Carlin Springs are gone as a neighborhood schools, Randolph and Barrett (maybe) rises even further in FARMS. Ashlawn gets some more FARMS. If all Barcroft is sent to Randolph, APS can claim it only has one high FARMs elementary school.

I see that as a win win!

Sending Barcroft to Randolph isn't realistic in the least. Forcing Randolph, a high-poverty school (at 74% FARMs) to be even higher poverty AND overcapacity is not just mean-spirited, its downright cruel. It's also pretty good grounds (rightly so) for litigation. I sincerely hope you're joking.

I actually think they're going to break up Randolph a bit, too, not just move all the ED kids there, especially if Claremont becomes a neighborhood school. Barcroft neighborhood, with the exception of Buchanan Gardens, has very few ED students. If they take half the neighborhood to Randolph, they'd actually be adding MC families to that school zone.

And there are no ED students in the N half of the neighborhood, so moving them N to Barrett does the same thing. If they are doing this to break up segregated schools, then I have to believe they would move some of the less walkable PU's in Buckingham to Long Branch. They aren't walkable to either school, so bus them east instead of west.

I don't think they're going to do this unless they can decrease concentration of ED students at all the surrounding schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if Barcroft and Carlin Springs are gone as a neighborhood schools, Randolph and Barrett (maybe) rises even further in FARMS. Ashlawn gets some more FARMS. If all Barcroft is sent to Randolph, APS can claim it only has one high FARMs elementary school.

I see that as a win win!

Sending Barcroft to Randolph isn't realistic in the least. Forcing Randolph, a high-poverty school (at 74% FARMs) to be even higher poverty AND overcapacity is not just mean-spirited, its downright cruel. It's also pretty good grounds (rightly so) for litigation. I sincerely hope you're joking.

I actually think they're going to break up Randolph a bit, too, not just move all the ED kids there, especially if Claremont becomes a neighborhood school. Barcroft neighborhood, with the exception of Buchanan Gardens, has very few ED students. If they take half the neighborhood to Randolph, they'd actually be adding MC families to that school zone.

And there are no ED students in the N half of the neighborhood, so moving them N to Barrett does the same thing. If they are doing this to break up segregated schools, then I have to believe they would move some of the less walkable PU's in Buckingham to Long Branch. They aren't walkable to either school, so bus them east instead of west.

I don't think they're going to do this unless they can decrease concentration of ED students at all the surrounding schools.

Makes sense in theory, but I don't see this working in practice. If there are so few ED kids living in the Barcroft neighborhood, why is the school high-poverty? Yes, a big chunk of the UMC families choice out, but the other half of the equation is that are still a lot of poor kids there. So where will the ED students go? With Campbell and Carlin Springs as option schools, that doesn't leave many neighborhood schools on the table. They can't all be absorbed by Claremont, especially with Carlin Springs becoming immersion. And they won't all want immersion. First generation Spanish speaking families have demonstrated repeatedly that Spanish immersion is not what they want. If you put them at Randolph, that exacerbates Randolph's poverty level. There is simply not a lot of neighborhood schools to "play" with here.

Similarly, many (all?) of the UMC families in the Barcroft neighborhood that DO attend Barcroft are walkers. Moving those families anywhere requires putting them on a bus. There goes that efficiency. And as long as those kids have to bus anyway, to schools with even HIGHER poverty rates no less (Randolph or Barrett) why wouldn't they join their brethren who have already abandoned ship (via option or private)?

Moving immersion to Barrett puts a lot more strategies to break up poverty on the table.

[Anonymous]

PP here. And Barcroft absolutely should drop its Year Round calendar. It's a luxury that is exacerbating the situation, not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if Barcroft and Carlin Springs are gone as a neighborhood schools, Randolph and Barrett (maybe) rises even further in FARMS. Ashlawn gets some more FARMS. If all Barcroft is sent to Randolph, APS can claim it only has one high FARMs elementary school.

I see that as a win win!

Sending Barcroft to Randolph isn't realistic in the least. Forcing Randolph, a high-poverty school (at 74% FARMs) to be even higher poverty AND overcapacity is not just mean-spirited, its downright cruel. It's also pretty good grounds (rightly so) for litigation. I sincerely hope you're joking.

I actually think they're going to break up Randolph a bit, too, not just move all the ED kids there, especially if Claremont becomes a neighborhood school. Barcroft neighborhood, with the exception of Buchanan Gardens, has very few ED students. If they take half the neighborhood to Randolph, they'd actually be adding MC families to that school zone.

And there are no ED students in the N half of the neighborhood, so moving them N to Barrett does the same thing. If they are doing this to break up segregated schools, then I have to believe they would move some of the less walkable PU's in Buckingham to Long Branch. They aren't walkable to either school, so bus them east instead of west.

I don't think they're going to do this unless they can decrease concentration of ED students at all the surrounding schools.

Makes sense in theory, but I don't see this working in practice. If there are so few ED kids living in the Barcroft neighborhood, why is the school high-poverty? Yes, a big chunk of the UMC families choice out, but the other half of the equation is that are still a lot of poor kids there. So where will the ED students go? With Campbell and Carlin Springs as option schools, that doesn't leave many neighborhood schools on the table. They can't all be absorbed by Claremont, especially with Carlin Springs becoming immersion. And they won't all want immersion. First generation Spanish speaking families have demonstrated repeatedly that Spanish immersion is not what they want. If you put them at Randolph, that exacerbates Randolph's poverty level. There is simply not a lot of neighborhood schools to "play" with here.

Similarly, many (all?) of the UMC families in the Barcroft neighborhood that DO attend Barcroft are walkers. Moving those families anywhere requires putting them on a bus. There goes that efficiency. And as long as those kids have to bus anyway, to schools with even HIGHER poverty rates no less (Randolph or Barrett) why wouldn't they join their brethren who have already abandoned ship (via option or private)?

Moving immersion to Barrett puts a lot more strategies to break up poverty on the table.

The Arlington Mill APAH complex was zoned to Barcroft after it was built. It's carved out of the Carlin Springs boundary and it's not actually in Barcroft. Those students are bus riders to Barcroft and not in the walk zone. There's also a large part of the Barcroft Apartment complex that is currently zoned Barcroft, but it's not in the Barcroft neighborhood and those students are given bus service, because they are on the other side of Columbia Pike, which is not safe for kids to cross.

The UMC kids who've gone option aren't coming back to Barcroft unless it's their current program that is moved there. It's the future families you need to think about. Those who might've taken a bus to Immersion or ATS in another neighborhood could instead be walkers to an option school at Barcroft. But yes, I suppose it will put some UMC families who live in Barcroft proper on buses. But I think they have crunched the numbers, and there aren't enough walkers to be a compelling enough argument against.

I don't disagree that Immersion to Barrett is a bad idea, but it's not one that is on the table. And I understand why they're looking at Barcroft. It's really close to a lot of other schools and it's making it really hard for them to draw boundaries that don't overlap and don't further increase segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it's not about the application process so much as it is about not even understanding the American school system in general, or what the options are beyond neighborhood schools and what each instructional model means. The assumption is that they will enroll their children at an Immersion school if it's right there in their neighborhood, because it's the school that is familiar. I think that is a valid assumption.

They have been meeting with Latinx parents in person. The feedback, from what I understand, is less about concerns around the instructional model and more about logistics: they want to keep their kids in the current Carlin Springs building, and want them to continue to have bus service. I think there is some worry that kids who will be in the upper grades when this transition happens won't be proficient enough in (written) Spanish to be successful in Immersion, but they feel reassured that there will be a neighborhood school their children can continue in should this concern materialize.

If there is a concern about the Immersion model interfering with English language acquisition, I haven't heard it IRL. Although there is similarly not an awareness of the potential benefits of immersion for long-term literacy and fluency in both English and Spanish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Native Spanish speaker here - APS is really wrong in thinking that moving the immersion schools close to Latino families will make the families apply for the school. Many immigrant families want their kids in English speaking schools because they think it is best for their kids. Claremont is not far from Columbia Pike, it is a quick bus ride. Distance isn't the issue here, but alas this SB doesn't always listen.

APS needs to engage in a full-force awareness campaign to help families understand the benefits of immersion. They will still learn English; but they will also be able to learn and achieve academically in their native language and not stay or fall behind.

[Anonymous]

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 could very well be due to multiple factors, of course; but perhaps a great deal to do with the geographical preferences that have been in place. Key is essentially a neighborhood school and encompasses the segregated communities in the neighborhoods. Claremont has become surrounded by the English-speaking families purchasing homes in the neighborhood and attendance zone to guarantee their admission to the program. Th Spanish-speaking families are those who are seeking out immersion and are not all the low-income Latino community families, but mixed-marriages and higher-educated, and bilingual families as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

All tlhe people criticizing and blaming the calendar damn well better start sending their kids to Barcroft when the calendar is eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YES!!! YOU should run for school board!
And nobody seems to mention the fact that there isn't any room at Randolph for all those students, regardless of their economic status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agreed!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There have been multiple statements about this, that more families are choosing to stay at Barcroft rather than opt-out with the new principal. This is her first year - are folks talking about future families choosing to give it a go? 'cause enrollment is down significantly again this year.

[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.

The problem is, Arlington Dems are not interested in social mobility. Former CB member has outright stated that that is not the purpose of AH. Arlington's value on AH is to have the house cleaners and coffee makers and nannies nearby for the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What phraseology would you suggest people use so that we can discuss these issues? Because it has been my experience, as a parent in one of these schools, that the entire topic is off-limits because someone might be offended. no matter how thoughtfully or respectfully one tries to be, someone puts a stop to it on behalf of someone else they presume will be offended. But we have to be able to discuss the issues of segregation, resources, needs, and impacts on education. So please provide some advice as to how that can be done without someone somewhere sometime somehow taking some kind of offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it's not about the application process so much as it is about not even understanding the American school system in general, or what the options are beyond neighborhood schools and what each instructional model means. The assumption is that they will enroll their children at an Immersion school if it's right there in their neighborhood, because it's the school that is familiar. I think that is a valid assumption.

They have been meeting with Latinx parents in person. The feedback, from what I understand, is less about concerns around the instructional model and more about logistics: they want to keep their kids in the current Carlin Springs building, and want them to continue to have bus service. I think there is some worry that kids who will be in the upper grades when this transition happens won't be proficient enough in (written) Spanish to be successful in Immersion, but they feel reassured that there will be a neighborhood school their children can continue in should this concern materialize.

If there is a concern about the Immersion model interfering with English language acquisition, I haven't heard it IRL. Although there is similarly not an awareness of the potential benefits of immersion for long-term literacy and fluency in both English and Spanish.

Older students aren't going to be able to transfer into the immersio program if/when it moves to Carlin Springs anyway; unless a bunch of people withdraw. They will ikely instead transfer to wherever their new "neighborhood" school is.