South Arlington elementary school boundary adjustments 2019

[Anonymous]

Yep. It's quite obviously not what Barcroft residents want. That's why they have the highest transfer rates of any school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. It's quite obviously not what Barcroft residents want. That's why they have the highest transfer rates of any school!

Plenty of kids are still sitting in class at Barcroft. Oh silly me. I forgot. Those kids and their families don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. It's quite obviously not what Barcroft residents want. That's why they have the highest transfer rates of any school!

Plenty of kids are still sitting in class at Barcroft. Oh silly me. I forgot. Those kids and their families don’t matter.

And they will continue to sit in class at Barcroft, calendar change or not. There are 297 transfers OUT of the school and 20 transfers IN. It's not popular with anyone living outside the boundary, and its wildly unpopular with families living within the walk zone of the school. If they're going to start eliminating option schools or moving them to places where Barcroft families would not be able to follow, they had better first eliminate this calendar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to call everyone's attention to the false info being pedaled over on AEM by a Board Member of AHS, which is not a "think tank," but rather a non-profit dedicated to providing more affordable housing in Arlington County. CAFs do generate more children. Though not as many as single family homes, because there are fewer overall units of CAF than there are SFH in Arlington. But their generation factor IS HIGHER, which makes sense, as the push is to house FAMILIES, and families include children, children who need seats in schools. It's all here in this report, pgs. 15 and 19 are rather illuminating:

http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1132&meta_id=155525

STOP LYING LIKE THE NRA and then maybe we can talk. We're not against AH, we're against lying liars who lie. If you want that housing, make an honest ask for commensurate funding for APS for every student generated by that housing, instead of pretending that they are not there. We can see them on the darn maps, FFS. Those dark spots with high density of students? THEY ARE CAFs. And no, we are not "losing" students in market rate housing, because it's not being torn down. The housing is becoming slightly less affordable, meaning some families opt to move out of Arlington, but they are then replaced by other families who can either slightly better afford the rent or who are willing to sacrifice something else in their budget to afford to be in Arlington, "for the schools."

I think stats like these need to be analyzed at a sub-county level. Presentations like these make the point that SFH are the source of most students. Well, yes, at the county level. North Arlington is geographically larger and has more people. But in south Arlington, and in many of its schools, multi family and affordable housing produces easily half of the student population, and these students would be a large share even if UMC families didn't option out or move or go private and instead sent their kids to the neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to call everyone's attention to the false info being pedaled over on AEM by a Board Member of AHS, which is not a "think tank," but rather a non-profit dedicated to providing more affordable housing in Arlington County. CAFs do generate more children. Though not as many as single family homes, because there are fewer overall units of CAF than there are SFH in Arlington. But their generation factor IS HIGHER, which makes sense, as the push is to house FAMILIES, and families include children, children who need seats in schools. It's all here in this report, pgs. 15 and 19 are rather illuminating:

http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1132&meta_id=155525

STOP LYING LIKE THE NRA and then maybe we can talk. We're not against AH, we're against lying liars who lie. If you want that housing, make an honest ask for commensurate funding for APS for every student generated by that housing, instead of pretending that they are not there. We can see them on the darn maps, FFS. Those dark spots with high density of students? THEY ARE CAFs. And no, we are not "losing" students in market rate housing, because it's not being torn down. The housing is becoming slightly less affordable, meaning some families opt to move out of Arlington, but they are then replaced by other families who can either slightly better afford the rent or who are willing to sacrifice something else in their budget to afford to be in Arlington, "for the schools."

I hate autocorrect. Peddled. I meant "peddled."

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option Barcroft. Done.

Stupid idea. It is a highly-walkable school, regardless of calendar.

[Anonymous]

Yes, totally agree that anyone building a Caf must contribute to the school budget. Or, perhaps cafs should not get all that free county money since all the kids disproportionately contribute to schools. Same with family high rises that are market rate.

Gillian place, which by the way was initially sold as a seniors building, will contribute at least 50 kids to barcroft. Now, maybe barcroft has the seats, but it now gets closer to Randolph’s farms percentages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, totally agree that anyone building a Caf must contribute to the school budget. Or, perhaps cafs should not get all that free county money since all the kids disproportionately contribute to schools. Same with family high rises that are market rate.

Gillian place, which by the way was initially sold as a seniors building, will contribute at least 50 kids to barcroft. Now, maybe barcroft has the seats, but it now gets closer to Randolph’s farms percentages.

Where are you getting the number of kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, totally agree that anyone building a Caf must contribute to the school budget. Or, perhaps cafs should not get all that free county money since all the kids disproportionately contribute to schools. Same with family high rises that are market rate.

Gillian place, which by the way was initially sold as a seniors building, will contribute at least 50 kids to barcroft. Now, maybe barcroft has the seats, but it now gets closer to Randolph’s farms percentages.

What will Gillian place be? Is it the nice new building on the southwest side of the pike?

I couldn't agree more, that the developers need to contribute to the APS budget. But of course, it's the other way round, the county contributes to the developers' budget....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOICE? That is a laugh. Most of them don't live in south arlington and like to feel good about keeping people they do not consort with poor. Much of the VOICE mess from the affordable housing master plan was orchestrated by the very church on the Pike that then sold its land for a HUGE PROFIT to affordable housing developers. The other half are in cahoots with the affordable housing developers. They are in it for the money...

And, by the way, do you think the lower income residents in Barcroft, many of whom have multiple kids, benefit from having their middle and high school children on different schedules? It is not less easy for them as it is for wealthier kids, if not harder. Unlike families in the SFHs, they don't have the flexibility to seek housing elsewhere. So, stop telling them what is good for them. You know squat.

The older kids can watch themselves...it is the younger ones need the care that is what makes the year round schedule so great.

Do you have children?

Yes and they don't need summer daycare through 12th grade. Grow up people.

So schools are now being used to provide summer daycare? Interesting that in such difficult times for the school budget that this is not being questioned.

They always have provided "summer daycare" to lower income people. They offer different strengthening programs for reading, math, etc. This is not new. If you have no money, you don't pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOICE? That is a laugh. Most of them don't live in south arlington and like to feel good about keeping people they do not consort with poor. Much of the VOICE mess from the affordable housing master plan was orchestrated by the very church on the Pike that then sold its land for a HUGE PROFIT to affordable housing developers. The other half are in cahoots with the affordable housing developers. They are in it for the money...

And, by the way, do you think the lower income residents in Barcroft, many of whom have multiple kids, benefit from having their middle and high school children on different schedules? It is not less easy for them as it is for wealthier kids, if not harder. Unlike families in the SFHs, they don't have the flexibility to seek housing elsewhere. So, stop telling them what is good for them. You know squat.

The older kids can watch themselves...it is the younger ones need the care that is what makes the year round schedule so great.

Do you have children?

Yes and they don't need summer daycare through 12th grade. Grow up people.

So schools are now being used to provide summer daycare? Interesting that in such difficult times for the school budget that this is not being questioned.

They always have provided "summer daycare" to lower income people. They offer different strengthening programs for reading, math, etc. This is not new. If you have no money, you don't pay for it.

Always? Or since say, the mid 1990s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, totally agree that anyone building a Caf must contribute to the school budget. Or, perhaps cafs should not get all that free county money since all the kids disproportionately contribute to schools. Same with family high rises that are market rate.

Gillian place, which by the way was initially sold as a seniors building, will contribute at least 50 kids to barcroft. Now, maybe barcroft has the seats, but it now gets closer to Randolph’s farms percentages.

What will Gillian place be? Is it the nice new building on the southwest side of the pike?

I couldn't agree more, that the developers need to contribute to the APS budget. But of course, it's the other way round, the county contributes to the developers' budget....

Gilliam Place is in Alcova, where the old stone church was torn down N side of the Pike. I think PP is guessing the number of kids based on the number of 2 and 3 bedroom units. Assuming each of those 68 units are offered to families, if every family has only one child, that's 68 kids ages 0-18. The guess of 50 being at ES age might be a little high. Or maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to call everyone's attention to the false info being pedaled over on AEM by a Board Member of AHS, which is not a "think tank," but rather a non-profit dedicated to providing more affordable housing in Arlington County. CAFs do generate more children. Though not as many as single family homes, because there are fewer overall units of CAF than there are SFH in Arlington. But their generation factor IS HIGHER, which makes sense, as the push is to house FAMILIES, and families include children, children who need seats in schools. It's all here in this report, pgs. 15 and 19 are rather illuminating:

http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1132&meta_id=155525

STOP LYING LIKE THE NRA and then maybe we can talk. We're not against AH, we're against lying liars who lie. If you want that housing, make an honest ask for commensurate funding for APS for every student generated by that housing, instead of pretending that they are not there. We can see them on the darn maps, FFS. Those dark spots with high density of students? THEY ARE CAFs. And no, we are not "losing" students in market rate housing, because it's not being torn down. The housing is becoming slightly less affordable, meaning some families opt to move out of Arlington, but they are then replaced by other families who can either slightly better afford the rent or who are willing to sacrifice something else in their budget to afford to be in Arlington, "for the schools."

I hate autocorrect. Peddled. I meant "peddled."

OK, so I read the presentation from your link from exactly one year ago, and I compared it to the current Arlington County website information. It says in the Jan 2017 presentation that Arlington has 3638 affordable units (generating 2212 students), but on the AC website it says that the county has over 6500 units currently, while the AH Master Plan, adopted in 2015, states that Arlington needs to create 15,800 units by 2040 (and lists the number of current CAFs as less than 7000). So there is obviously a disconnect in the presentation of the numbers here.
By the way, the Master Plan also mentions that Arlington wants to add 21,000 new rental units between 2010 and 2040 across all income levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to call everyone's attention to the false info being pedaled over on AEM by a Board Member of AHS, which is not a "think tank," but rather a non-profit dedicated to providing more affordable housing in Arlington County. CAFs do generate more children. Though not as many as single family homes, because there are fewer overall units of CAF than there are SFH in Arlington. But their generation factor IS HIGHER, which makes sense, as the push is to house FAMILIES, and families include children, children who need seats in schools. It's all here in this report, pgs. 15 and 19 are rather illuminating:

http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1132&meta_id=155525

STOP LYING LIKE THE NRA and then maybe we can talk. We're not against AH, we're against lying liars who lie. If you want that housing, make an honest ask for commensurate funding for APS for every student generated by that housing, instead of pretending that they are not there. We can see them on the darn maps, FFS. Those dark spots with high density of students? THEY ARE CAFs. And no, we are not "losing" students in market rate housing, because it's not being torn down. The housing is becoming slightly less affordable, meaning some families opt to move out of Arlington, but they are then replaced by other families who can either slightly better afford the rent or who are willing to sacrifice something else in their budget to afford to be in Arlington, "for the schools."

I hate autocorrect. Peddled. I meant "peddled."

OK, so I read the presentation from your link from exactly one year ago, and I compared it to the current Arlington County website information. It says in the Jan 2017 presentation that Arlington has 3638 affordable units (generating 2212 students), but on the AC website it says that the county has over 6500 units currently, while the AH Master Plan, adopted in 2015, states that Arlington needs to create 15,800 units by 2040 (and lists the number of current CAFs as less than 7000). So there is obviously a disconnect in the presentation of the numbers here.
By the way, the Master Plan also mentions that Arlington wants to add 21,000 new rental units between 2010 and 2040 across all income levels.

Maybe this is a stupid question, and forgive me in advance as I'm relatively new to Arlington and all of it's internal north/south politics, but how many of those proposed 15k units will be constructed north of Rte 50?

[Anonymous]

Somehow this question doesn't seem like it's from someone new to Arlington.

Just remember that Arlington is ruled by one party and so this is all squabbling between "friends."