Barcroft elementary/ south Arlington crisis

[Anonymous]

PP here, I don't know about great school ratings, I was on,y looking at the most recent test scores. Both are about the same. But, if randolf is under enrolled, the kids have more access to resources.

What I don't understand is why the new dinwiddie development was slated for barcroft and not randollf, if barcrodt was already over enrolled (it was) and randolf was under enrolled. I believe the complex sits right on the boundary line. Unless there are so many new developments in the works in the randolf boundary that it too will be over enrolled soon.

As far as the teachers and staff go, kudos to them. Elementary school is hard enough, and they are doing the best they can. But the challenges are out of their control.

[Anonymous]

^^ hi there! Yeah, good questions. The only new developments slated for Randolph that I know of are the new Pike 3400 apts ( small % affordable) and the new highend town homes being built by the post office on Glebe- def not affordable. No idea what those projections are supposed to be. If anyone knows some figures please share. I'll see what I can find. I'm sure the county is looking at detailed mapping of what types of housing and where it is situated in relation to school zones. It doesn't, however, seem that way when you look at the demographics and achievement gaps. There's got to be a better way.

[Anonymous]

Which school district is the new development on S. Frederick Street? Two 8-story buildings (229 units). Is that Abingdon/Claremont?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which school district is the new development on S. Frederick Street? Two 8-story buildings (229 units). Is that Abingdon/Claremont?

Abingdon. They will have preference to claremont, but Abingdon is their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which school district is the new development on S. Frederick Street? Two 8-story buildings (229 units). Is that Abingdon/Claremont?

You forgot to mention that ALL 229 units are affordable housing. Just what the west side of the pike needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which school district is the new development on S. Frederick Street? Two 8-story buildings (229 units). Is that Abingdon/Claremont?

You forgot to mention that ALL 229 units are affordable housing. Just what the west side of the pike needs.

I didn't mean to imply that this is "market rate" housing. I was just asking if this affordable housing was going to send additional students to Barcroft or Randolph.

[Anonymous]

A lot of North Arlington homeowners and parents weren't thrilled about the traffic impact of Discovery being built on the Williamsburg Campus, but it passed anyway. A lot of people were protesting the conversion of Strathmore from HB Woodlawn to a middle school, but it passed anyway. That is how two new schools are being built in North Arlington. The land was there, and already owned by APS, so the construction is happening.

South Arlington homeowners and parents protested the addition of an elementary school to the campus of Thomas Jefferson MS to the point that it was not accepted. If you want a new elementary school in South Arlington, it needs to go somewhere. If the most likely location gets vetoed, then there needs to be another suggestion. I don't see anyone making suggestions. Where should a new elementary school go? Or should there be additions to all the existing elementary schools with overcrowding issues?

It's easy to say, "South Arlington gets no respect." But at some point you have to help find a solution and not just say there's a problem. Everyone knows there's a problem.

[Anonymous]

But ask yourself, why did the Board listen to this particular protest, and not others similar protests in N. Arlington? Was this protest so much more organized or vocal? I don't know. This was an opportune moment for our leaders to step in and say, "We have already exhausted our options, we are in a crisis, and there is no other reasonable solution." Maybe I have become jaded, but it seems to me like the Board is using the neighborhood's objection as cover, kicking the can down the road. Investment in any infrastructure South of 50 is looked on with a much more critical eye.

[Anonymous]

totally agree with 23:32. the board told citizens to look at the options, do a study and pick a place. That was done and then the county said no, knowing there is no other big space in S.A. Everyone smells a rat there. And, now a whole big comprehensive countywide study has to be done before anything happens in S.A. That is a classic delay tactic (used it myself working for Congress). It is a sign of backdoor dealmaking, which we all know happens. For all we know the Board approved the TJ site knowing that the county would reject it and the board would save face (that is likely what happened - don't think the board and county talk about these things????)

The problem with more trailers is that the footprint of S.A. schools is already so small, that more removes playgrounds and fields (assuming they even have a field)

[Anonymous]

The pike 3400 apartments, those are the ones on Glebe, right? That is not in the Randolf zone, which is much further west, even west of Barcroft.

There is a new development, in the works for 4 mile run and the pike. That is all Barcroft neighborhood. And another one in the early planning process for where Foodstar is, also in Barcroft. I don't know if those are all dedicated affordable or market rate affordable, but they are all surrounded by cheap housing/cheap retail and bad traffic so not expected to be luxury in any way. Within the next 5 years when people move into those developments, where are the kids to be educated?

---Barcroft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But ask yourself, why did the Board listen to this particular protest, and not others similar protests in N. Arlington? Was this protest so much more organized or vocal? I don't know. This was an opportune moment for our leaders to step in and say, "We have already exhausted our options, we are in a crisis, and there is no other reasonable solution." Maybe I have become jaded, but it seems to me like the Board is using the neighborhood's objection as cover, kicking the can down the road. Investment in any infrastructure South of 50 is looked on with a much more critical eye.

bc it was different boards. The school board had control over the N Arlington properties. The School Board needed the County Board agreement with the Jefferson site- and the County Board said no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:totally agree with 23:32. the board told citizens to look at the options, do a study and pick a place. That was done and then the county said no, knowing there is no other big space in S.A. Everyone smells a rat there. And, now a whole big comprehensive countywide study has to be done before anything happens in S.A. That is a classic delay tactic (used it myself working for Congress). It is a sign of backdoor dealmaking, which we all know happens. For all we know the Board approved the TJ site knowing that the county would reject it and the board would save face (that is likely what happened - don't think the board and county talk about these things????)

The problem with more trailers is that the footprint of S.A. schools is already so small, that more removes playgrounds and fields (assuming they even have a field)

Sometime in June the School Board is going to appoint another group of south Arlington people representing all the schools and all the civic associations to figure out possible sites (including TJ) for a new elementary, by the end of this year. Despite the whiny letter in the Sun Gazette saying that its too much to expect parents to attend meetings, that is how stuff gets done and people need to make an effort to participate in these public processes. The Arlington Way isn't going to play out on Twitter or DC Urban Moms (although the engagement on this thread is a very positive sign!). A minority of households in Arlington have kids in the public schools so if parents don't show up and take a seat at the table--including in discussions about things like housing policy or the countywide facilities study--the needs of the kids are going to be drowned out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pike 3400 apartments, those are the ones on Glebe, right? That is not in the Randolf zone, which is much further west, even west of Barcroft.

There is a new development, in the works for 4 mile run and the pike. That is all Barcroft neighborhood. And another one in the early planning process for where Foodstar is, also in Barcroft. I don't know if those are all dedicated affordable or market rate affordable, but they are all surrounded by cheap housing/cheap retail and bad traffic so not expected to be luxury in any way. Within the next 5 years when people move into those developments, where are the kids to be educated?

---Barcroft

You are incorrect about almost everything you wrote. The Pike 3400 is located within Doiglas Park and is closer east than Barcroft. If you look on a map you will see that Douglas Park is just east of Barcroft in general. If you look at the boundaries on the APS site you will see that Pike 3400 is zoned Randolph.
As for the other as yet built housing you mentioned, if you look and see who the developers are you will see that a) they are being developed along the form based code and b) they will be higher end. The Food Star development is being envisioned along the same lines as what happened over at Penrose. People said the same things about location and traffic when they started building the Pike 3400 apts. they aren't going to bother with market rate if that can't squeeze every penny out of it.
Yes, the Food Star development will be zoned Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

I live between Glebe and George Mason - currently zoned for Barcroft. Although I do not have school aged children now, we will in the next few years.

I think the county is forgetting to consider the huge turn around of SFH in that area- and the number of children who will be coming from those neighborhoods in addition to the apartments. Of our old retired neighbors who have moved out in the past few years - every single one was replaced with a young couple with a baby or is currently pregnant - and no plans of moving.

Although I have noticed a few families moving into the new Glebe townhomes with babies- my husband believes most will move to single family homes before the children are school aged ( similar to what happened in cameron station in alexandria- they built a new ES thinking those homes would need a local school, but most families moved before their kids were that old.)

I agree that most of the high end apartments at Pike 3400 and potentially near food star will be young single/newly married couples without kids in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live between Glebe and George Mason - currently zoned for Barcroft. Although I do not have school aged children now, we will in the next few years.

I think the county is forgetting to consider the huge turn around of SFH in that area- and the number of children who will be coming from those neighborhoods in addition to the apartments. Of our old retired neighbors who have moved out in the past few years - every single one was replaced with a young couple with a baby or is currently pregnant - and no plans of moving.

Although I have noticed a few families moving into the new Glebe townhomes with babies- my husband believes most will move to single family homes before the children are school aged ( similar to what happened in cameron station in alexandria- they built a new ES thinking those homes would need a local school, but most families moved before their kids were that old.)

I agree that most of the high end apartments at Pike 3400 and potentially near food star will be young single/newly married couples without kids in school.

Hey neighbor! I'm one of those couples with a baby and we're watching this closely. I doesn't seem that the county is planning ahead. After all, this is the same county that said South Arlington would remain the land of single adults, but there are kids everywhere now.

Also, in another post... " A minority of households in Arlington have kids in the public schools so if parents don't show up and take a seat at the table--including in discussions about things like housing policy or the countywide facilities study--the needs of the kids are going to be drowned out." Is this really true?