Anonymous wrote:From the walk zone maps, it appears Barcroft ES will be losing some sfh’s from Alcova and gaining Caf’s From the new apt building. I’m skeptical changing the calendar one way or another will make a difference to the demographics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.
Well, many of them are not residents of our neighborhood. Either you are unfamiliar with the Civic Association or you are being deliberately obtuse. The students residing in Buchanan Gardens are residents of our neighborhood. The students in the Barcroft Apartments are in the Douglas Park neighborhood and those from Arlington Mill do not reside in our neighborhood, but rather live in the Arlington Mill neighborhood. And the students who will eventually reside in Gilliam Place will be residents of Alcova Heights. These areas are part of the current school community because of current boundaries, boundaries that are about to change, and who knows whether any or all of those students will continue to be zoned to Barcroft. I was making the point that within the known walk zone, the area that will never be zoned to any school other than Barcroft, there are many children whose families do not like the year-round calendar. If what APS is doing is trying to encourage more walking and fewer bus routes, they should be trying to determine how to keep the kids living within the Barcroft walk zone at their neighborhood school. And they dynamics are quite "interesting" when you look at the transfer report and note that the majority of families are transferring their children to other diverse schools: 44 to Campbell, 16 to Barrett, 2 to Carlin Springs, 78 to Claremont, 10 to Drew, 9 to Key, 15 to Long Branch, 49 to Randolph. It's not like they're all transferring to Discovery (1), or even ATS (39).
Clearly the calendar has had driven out more families than it has attracted. It's not a good use of limited resources.
How many of those transfers out are families living within the BArcroft neighborhood and your "known walk zone"? How does that compare to the percentage of students in each of the other neighborhoods you cite? Cause, relative to the Barcroft neighborhood, there really aren't that many "outsiders" from Alcova Heights, and a lot of them have opted out of Barcroft for Immersion, Montessori, Campbell, and the handful or less of ATS-ers and private schoolers.
I only have "anecdata" for that, but I personally live in the walk zone in the neighborhood itself and there are a lot of kids living here. Not very many go to Barcroft, and the most often cited reason is the calendar. Are they all lying? I don't know. Why give them an excuse? And as another PP has pointed out, many families who move in already have their kids in a private or option school before moving here, so that suggests to me that there isn't some huge demand for this calendar from outside the neighborhood.
For myself, I can say that at the time we moved in we didn't have kids, and we didn't know whether we would live here until we did. Then when we did and the oldest was about to start K, we tried to keep an open mind as we toured schools. But the calendar was a real negative. I think that if we had stuck with it, we might've "gotten used to it" or "dealt with it" but we decided it was easier to accept the spot at an option school instead.
Other posters have pointed out that school performance is a consideration. I won't deny that's true for many. But that also suggests to me that this unique calendar isn't a positive in that regard. In other localities there are "magnet" schools with different calendars, and families opt into those schools, usually from a lower performing neighborhood school. Not because they love the calendar, but because they prefer a "better" school. But Barcroft isn't even an option school, it's just a neighborhood school that could maybe accommodate a handful of transfers.
So I've been told that this unique calendar isn't meant to be a draw, isn't meant to improve educational outcomes (as measured by test scores), and isn't meant to provide free summer care. So, what is it for? I need a real reason, and some data to support that reason. I think I understand why it was started, but I'm asking does it really make sense to continue it? When there are streets that are walkable to Barcroft that have multiple ES kids taking buses to three or maybe even more different ES outside the neighborhood?
Anonymous wrote:So it was a benefit to student performance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.
Well, many of them are not residents of our neighborhood. Either you are unfamiliar with the Civic Association or you are being deliberately obtuse. The students residing in Buchanan Gardens are residents of our neighborhood. The students in the Barcroft Apartments are in the Douglas Park neighborhood and those from Arlington Mill do not reside in our neighborhood, but rather live in the Arlington Mill neighborhood. And the students who will eventually reside in Gilliam Place will be residents of Alcova Heights. These areas are part of the current school community because of current boundaries, boundaries that are about to change, and who knows whether any or all of those students will continue to be zoned to Barcroft. I was making the point that within the known walk zone, the area that will never be zoned to any school other than Barcroft, there are many children whose families do not like the year-round calendar. If what APS is doing is trying to encourage more walking and fewer bus routes, they should be trying to determine how to keep the kids living within the Barcroft walk zone at their neighborhood school. And they dynamics are quite "interesting" when you look at the transfer report and note that the majority of families are transferring their children to other diverse schools: 44 to Campbell, 16 to Barrett, 2 to Carlin Springs, 78 to Claremont, 10 to Drew, 9 to Key, 15 to Long Branch, 49 to Randolph. It's not like they're all transferring to Discovery (1), or even ATS (39).
Clearly the calendar has had driven out more families than it has attracted. It's not a good use of limited resources.
How many of those transfers out are families living within the BArcroft neighborhood and your "known walk zone"? How does that compare to the percentage of students in each of the other neighborhoods you cite? Cause, relative to the Barcroft neighborhood, there really aren't that many "outsiders" from Alcova Heights, and a lot of them have opted out of Barcroft for Immersion, Montessori, Campbell, and the handful or less of ATS-ers and private schoolers.
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.
The year round calendar had nothing to do with balancing enrollment. As mentioned in another post somewhere in this thread or one of the others, it was an initiative on the part of the parents who were at the school at the time. And it was not to provide child care for the low-income families. No matter what calendar you go by, there are still ten weeks off of school that require child care.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.
Well, many of them are not residents of our neighborhood. Either you are unfamiliar with the Civic Association or you are being deliberately obtuse. The students residing in Buchanan Gardens are residents of our neighborhood. The students in the Barcroft Apartments are in the Douglas Park neighborhood and those from Arlington Mill do not reside in our neighborhood, but rather live in the Arlington Mill neighborhood. And the students who will eventually reside in Gilliam Place will be residents of Alcova Heights. These areas are part of the current school community because of current boundaries, boundaries that are about to change, and who knows whether any or all of those students will continue to be zoned to Barcroft. I was making the point that within the known walk zone, the area that will never be zoned to any school other than Barcroft, there are many children whose families do not like the year-round calendar. If what APS is doing is trying to encourage more walking and fewer bus routes, they should be trying to determine how to keep the kids living within the Barcroft walk zone at their neighborhood school. And they dynamics are quite "interesting" when you look at the transfer report and note that the majority of families are transferring their children to other diverse schools: 44 to Campbell, 16 to Barrett, 2 to Carlin Springs, 78 to Claremont, 10 to Drew, 9 to Key, 15 to Long Branch, 49 to Randolph. It's not like they're all transferring to Discovery (1), or even ATS (39).
Clearly the calendar has had driven out more families than it has attracted. It's not a good use of limited resources.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.
Well, many of them are not residents of our neighborhood. Either you are unfamiliar with the Civic Association or you are being deliberately obtuse. The students residing in Buchanan Gardens are residents of our neighborhood. The students in the Barcroft Apartments are in the Douglas Park neighborhood and those from Arlington Mill do not reside in our neighborhood, but rather live in the Arlington Mill neighborhood. And the students who will eventually reside in Gilliam Place will be residents of Alcova Heights. These areas are part of the current school community because of current boundaries, boundaries that are about to change, and who knows whether any or all of those students will continue to be zoned to Barcroft. I was making the point that within the known walk zone, the area that will never be zoned to any school other than Barcroft, there are many children whose families do not like the year-round calendar. If what APS is doing is trying to encourage more walking and fewer bus routes, they should be trying to determine how to keep the kids living within the Barcroft walk zone at their neighborhood school. And they dynamics are quite "interesting" when you look at the transfer report and note that the majority of families are transferring their children to other diverse schools: 44 to Campbell, 16 to Barrett, 2 to Carlin Springs, 78 to Claremont, 10 to Drew, 9 to Key, 15 to Long Branch, 49 to Randolph. It's not like they're all transferring to Discovery (1), or even ATS (39).
Clearly the calendar has had driven out more families than it has attracted. It's not a good use of limited resources.
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:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.
Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see much diffence between Barcroft and Randolph...
Other than Randolph posters don’t like the idea of their school excluding higher needs children in their neighborhood. Barcroft posters seem to not consider the farms kids currently attending Barcroft as part of their neighborhood.
Intersting dynamics at play.