Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:18 - yes. that's my point. instead of the weird calendar at Barcroft, have a regular school schedule plus full-summer programming. Then you'd attract both the families who need year-round care and the families who want a normal neighborhood school plus other camps.

Yes, the argument that the lower SES families or however someone put it a few pages back, *need* the year round calendar for childcare, is of course, nonsense. Change is hard to entertain for many people.

Weren't there boundary adjustments made to South Arlington elementaries in 2003, the same year that Barcroft became "year-round"? Seems to me like going year round probably had at least something to do with balancing enrollment, and possibly was done to attract middle class families to the school by giving it a somewhat forward looking identity/approach/branding. Wouldn't be the first time. APS's own history brochure states that

"As the Hispanic population grew in the area surrounding Key Elementary, a Spanish Immersion Program was introduced in 1986 in part to attract non-Hispanic families and provide a balanced enrollment at the school."

People forget that parts of North Arlington - including Lyon Village! - used to look a lot more like South Arlington than they do now.

I agree. People forget quickly. A friend's parents couldn't bring themselves to send her to Washington-Lee at the time (decades ago) and parts of N. Arlington were run down and iffy. They ended up moving to Fairfax. Times change!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:18 - yes. that's my point. instead of the weird calendar at Barcroft, have a regular school schedule plus full-summer programming. Then you'd attract both the families who need year-round care and the families who want a normal neighborhood school plus other camps.

Yes, the argument that the lower SES families or however someone put it a few pages back, *need* the year round calendar for childcare, is of course, nonsense. Change is hard to entertain for many people.

Weren't there boundary adjustments made to South Arlington elementaries in 2003, the same year that Barcroft became "year-round"? Seems to me like going year round probably had at least something to do with balancing enrollment, and possibly was done to attract middle class families to the school by giving it a somewhat forward looking identity/approach/branding. Wouldn't be the first time. APS's own history brochure states that

"As the Hispanic population grew in the area surrounding Key Elementary, a Spanish Immersion Program was introduced in 1986 in part to attract non-Hispanic families and provide a balanced enrollment at the school."

People forget that parts of North Arlington - including Lyon Village! - used to look a lot more like South Arlington than they do now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:18 - yes. that's my point. instead of the weird calendar at Barcroft, have a regular school schedule plus full-summer programming. Then you'd attract both the families who need year-round care and the families who want a normal neighborhood school plus other camps.

Yes, the argument that the lower SES families or however someone put it a few pages back, *need* the year round calendar for childcare, is of course, nonsense. Change is hard to entertain for many people.

Anonymous wrote:10:18 - yes. that's my point. instead of the weird calendar at Barcroft, have a regular school schedule plus full-summer programming. Then you'd attract both the families who need year-round care and the families who want a normal neighborhood school plus other camps.

Anonymous wrote:Instead of year-round school, couldn't they have a normal school schedule and a heavily subsidized (income-scaled) summer camp during the weeks school was closed? Then the kids at the Title I schools who needed year-round instruction and care could go year-round and the neighborhood kids who had more options could attend other camps during the summer? Kids at the summer camp could have school work for a few hours every day and then do fun themed activities the rest of the time. We already offer this to a smaller degree for incoming kindergartners.

this program could be offered at Barcroft, Carlin Springs, Randolph and/or any other school that had a critical mass of FARMS kids, or the program could be consolidated to a couple of schools depending on demand.

Anonymous wrote:Instead of year-round school, couldn't they have a normal school schedule and a heavily subsidized (income-scaled) summer camp during the weeks school was closed? Then the kids at the Title I schools who needed year-round instruction and care could go year-round and the neighborhood kids who had more options could attend other camps during the summer? Kids at the summer camp could have school work for a few hours every day and then do fun themed activities the rest of the time. We already offer this to a smaller degree for incoming kindergartners.

this program could be offered at Barcroft, Carlin Springs, Randolph and/or any other school that had a critical mass of FARMS kids, or the program could be consolidated to a couple of schools depending on demand.

Anonymous wrote:Go private.

The publics suck here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go private.

The publics suck here.

Apparently they are hell bent on making us into ACPS.

Anonymous wrote:Go private.

The publics suck here.

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 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 wrote:

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?