Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alcova being re-districted elsewhere would be fewer SFHs to Barcroft; but what apartment building is adding CAF's in that attendance zone? Food Star redevelopment is market rate - not affordable housing/CAFs. There's a small condominium building under construction on Columbia Pike; but that's supposed to be ownership units, not affordable housing. But I agree, the boundary changes in south Arlington are not going to help Carlin Springs, Randolph, or Barcroft.

As someone else pointed out, Alcova is 4 planning units. Two are multi-family buildings, two predominately the increasingly expensive SFHs. I would think the Civic association would try to work as a monolith and have the whole area be zoned to the same school. However, I could see a scenario where the smallest PUs with the multi-family buildings go to Fleet, but keep the SFHs at Barcroft. You'd keep UMC families in Barcroft and reduce the number of ELL and FARMs at Barcroft too. It would look better than all of Alcova fighting to go to Fleet, which is a virtual unknown, except that it will include the other majority SFH civic associations.

Fleet is hardlyl going to be an unknown. The vast majority of it will be the existing Patrick henry community. The multi-unit housing on the northern side of Alcova, which is disconnected from the rest of the neighborhood by the fire station, is not just low-income ELL kids. There are native English-speaking middle class families there, too. And the condominiums and SFHs in that section also house middle class white families. So, severing just part of Alcova isn't going to significantly lower the FRL % at Barcroft - any you've removed will be replaced by Gilliam Place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB is already perfectly happy to carve out Gillian Place for Barcroft while having the planning units full of nice homes go to Fleet. The SB wants more higher performing schools in South Arlington. Fleet would have been even with the old Henry boundary, but easier to have just a couple very low performing schools (Barcroft, Randolph and Carlin Springs) and concentrate resources there. They don't care about property values.

I'm not worried about that. I'm worried that they don't care about segregation or "tracking" if it's done by school rather than classroom either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here who lives in one of the SFH neighborhoods zoned for Barcroft (but has a child at a choice school). Does it still seem likely that the Barcroft year-round calendar will be changed in the near future? I know that some of my neighbors with kids at Barcroft (yes, some neighbors do send their kids to Barcroft) more or less assumed that the year-round calendar would be abandoned soon. They got the sense that the new principal was not fully committed to the modified calendar. But it was a while ago that I had those conversations, and I haven't heard much about the calendar - one way or the other - since then. Is doing away with the modified calendar still on the table?

For what it's worth, I like the calendar. It's much more like the school calendar I grew up with (in Europe) than the traditional American school calendar is. I think it's a superior calendar (and would be even better if adopted across the board in APS). When DC was nearing kindergarten and we were considering schools, I viewed the Barcroft calendar as a plus for that school. But it wasn't a big enough draw to make up for the fact that our choice options were higher performing schools.

This. I also like the sound of the calendar. It's a lot more like the private school I went to, that followed a particular schooling style - can't remember the name. We had shorter summers, but longer fall and spring breaks. We had seminars, much like the intercessions. For me, it's the test scores - a school like this should be doing great, but the test scores give me pause. I think the high level of English learners is part of it, though when you look at their scores, I think they are doing a good job getting caught up, but it seems like the rest of the students suffer.

There's no tracking. The most able students are running on 3 cylinders instead of being challenged every day.

And that would make me send my special little snowflakes to a choice school, or if I had to, one of the parochial ones.

Anonymous wrote:The SB is already perfectly happy to carve out Gillian Place for Barcroft while having the planning units full of nice homes go to Fleet. The SB wants more higher performing schools in South Arlington. Fleet would have been even with the old Henry boundary, but easier to have just a couple very low performing schools (Barcroft, Randolph and Carlin Springs) and concentrate resources there. They don't care about property values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB is already perfectly happy to carve out Gillian Place for Barcroft while having the planning units full of nice homes go to Fleet. The SB wants more higher performing schools in South Arlington. Fleet would have been even with the old Henry boundary, but easier to have just a couple very low performing schools (Barcroft, Randolph and Carlin Springs) and concentrate resources there. They don't care about property values.

I'm not worried about that. I'm worried that they don't care about segregation or "tracking" if it's done by school rather than classroom either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alcova being re-districted elsewhere would be fewer SFHs to Barcroft; but what apartment building is adding CAF's in that attendance zone? Food Star redevelopment is market rate - not affordable housing/CAFs. There's a small condominium building under construction on Columbia Pike; but that's supposed to be ownership units, not affordable housing. But I agree, the boundary changes in south Arlington are not going to help Carlin Springs, Randolph, or Barcroft.

As someone else pointed out, Alcova is 4 planning units. Two are multi-family buildings, two predominately the increasingly expensive SFHs. I would think the Civic association would try to work as a monolith and have the whole area be zoned to the same school. However, I could see a scenario where the smallest PUs with the multi-family buildings go to Fleet, but keep the SFHs at Barcroft. You'd keep UMC families in Barcroft and reduce the number of ELL and FARMs at Barcroft too. It would look better than all of Alcova fighting to go to Fleet, which is a virtual unknown, except that it will include the other majority SFH civic associations.

It’ll be fun watching that property values of the units zoned Fleet rocket upward. The walking map supports Gilliam Place at Barcroft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alcova being re-districted elsewhere would be fewer SFHs to Barcroft; but what apartment building is adding CAF's in that attendance zone? Food Star redevelopment is market rate - not affordable housing/CAFs. There's a small condominium building under construction on Columbia Pike; but that's supposed to be ownership units, not affordable housing. But I agree, the boundary changes in south Arlington are not going to help Carlin Springs, Randolph, or Barcroft.

As someone else pointed out, Alcova is 4 planning units. Two are multi-family buildings, two predominately the increasingly expensive SFHs. I would think the Civic association would try to work as a monolith and have the whole area be zoned to the same school. However, I could see a scenario where the smallest PUs with the multi-family buildings go to Fleet, but keep the SFHs at Barcroft. You'd keep UMC families in Barcroft and reduce the number of ELL and FARMs at Barcroft too. It would look better than all of Alcova fighting to go to Fleet, which is a virtual unknown, except that it will include the other majority SFH civic associations.

Anonymous wrote:The SB is already perfectly happy to carve out Gillian Place for Barcroft while having the planning units full of nice homes go to Fleet. The SB wants more higher performing schools in South Arlington. Fleet would have been even with the old Henry boundary, but easier to have just a couple very low performing schools (Barcroft, Randolph and Carlin Springs) and concentrate resources there. They don't care about property values.

Anonymous wrote:Even with the walk zones, Gilliam Place is much closer to Fleet than Barcroft. It is just right outside the walk zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alcova being re-districted elsewhere would be fewer SFHs to Barcroft; but what apartment building is adding CAF's in that attendance zone? Food Star redevelopment is market rate - not affordable housing/CAFs. There's a small condominium building under construction on Columbia Pike; but that's supposed to be ownership units, not affordable housing. But I agree, the boundary changes in south Arlington are not going to help Carlin Springs, Randolph, or Barcroft.

As someone else pointed out, Alcova is 4 planning units. Two are multi-family buildings, two predominately the increasingly expensive SFHs. I would think the Civic association would try to work as a monolith and have the whole area be zoned to the same school. However, I could see a scenario where the smallest PUs with the multi-family buildings go to Fleet, but keep the SFHs at Barcroft. You'd keep UMC families in Barcroft and reduce the number of ELL and FARMs at Barcroft too. It would look better than all of Alcova fighting to go to Fleet, which is a virtual unknown, except that it will include the other majority SFH civic associations.