APS Boundary tool--anyone get it to work yet?

[Anonymous]

Dp- Really? You are upset about references to underwear? There have been just one too many of those for your liking. Latent racism, classism, and general selfish a-hole behavior and rhetoric is cool. Just no one reference their drawers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dp- Really? You are upset about references to underwear? There have been just one too many of those for your liking. Latent racism, classism, and general selfish a-hole behavior and rhetoric is cool. Just no one reference their drawers!

NP here. You can hide behind the anonymity of this message board all you like. Your presumptions about others' racism, classism and general behavior is also appalling. I do not understand why you cannot present your opinions without devolving into insults and cusswords. Didn't one of the HS students mention this at one of the last meetings? It's ironic that you accuse others of "a--hole behavior" when a 3rd party bystander like myself thinks you're the one exhibiting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Option #3 is best to more closely align the demographics at W-L and Wakefield.

They are all pretty much the same in that respect.

+1

I'm sorry, but the difference between 45 and 48 percent is insignificant. You are not "improving" demographics by selecting 45% instead of 47 or 48. A real change in demographics would require a drop of around 10 percent to get the FARMS number down to 1/3. As housing prices rise this could happen naturally over time however the frequent addition of low cost housing within the Wakefield district perpetuates and exacerbates these numbers.

Actually, it is a 6.6% change. I don't consider that insignificant, but reasonable people can disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dp- Really? You are upset about references to underwear? There have been just one too many of those for your liking. Latent racism, classism, and general selfish a-hole behavior and rhetoric is cool. Just no one reference their drawers!

NP here. You can hide behind the anonymity of this message board all you like. Your presumptions about others' racism, classism and general behavior is also appalling. I do not understand why you cannot present your opinions without devolving into insults and cusswords. Didn't one of the HS students mention this at one of the last meetings? It's ironic that you accuse others of "a--hole behavior" when a 3rd party bystander like myself thinks you're the one exhibiting this.

When your opinions suck, expect people to call you out on it. Just posting "I'm with her" on Facebook isn't enough. You actually have to live your progressive ideals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dp- Really? You are upset about references to underwear? There have been just one too many of those for your liking. Latent racism, classism, and general selfish a-hole behavior and rhetoric is cool. Just no one reference their drawers!

NP here. You can hide behind the anonymity of this message board all you like. Your presumptions about others' racism, classism and general behavior is also appalling. I do not understand why you cannot present your opinions without devolving into insults and cusswords. Didn't one of the HS students mention this at one of the last meetings? It's ironic that you accuse others of "a--hole behavior" when a 3rd party bystander like myself thinks you're the one exhibiting this.

When your opinions suck, expect people to call you out on it. Just posting "I'm with her" on Facebook isn't enough. You actually have to live your progressive ideals.

OMG. Shut up already. You are not the only one in arlington who voted for Clinton. But if you want to talk about unrelated stuff why is it that both Clinton and obama sent their girls to sidwell rather than the local public schools? I guess they aren't real progressives like you huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dp- Really? You are upset about references to underwear? There have been just one too many of those for your liking. Latent racism, classism, and general selfish a-hole behavior and rhetoric is cool. Just no one reference their drawers!

NP here. You can hide behind the anonymity of this message board all you like. Your presumptions about others' racism, classism and general behavior is also appalling. I do not understand why you cannot present your opinions without devolving into insults and cusswords. Didn't one of the HS students mention this at one of the last meetings? It's ironic that you accuse others of "a--hole behavior" when a 3rd party bystander like myself thinks you're the one exhibiting this.

When your opinions suck, expect people to call you out on it. Just posting "I'm with her" on Facebook isn't enough. You actually have to live your progressive ideals.

OMG. Shut up already. You are not the only one in arlington who voted for Clinton. But if you want to talk about unrelated stuff why is it that both Clinton and obama sent their girls to sidwell rather than the local public schools? I guess they aren't real progressives like you huh?

Arlingtonian's are showing time and again that they are progressives in the booth and on twitter. As long as the local DNC maintains the status quo, everyone can pat themselves on the back at happy hour. Pathetic.
Oh, and it's been on the record for years that privacy, avoiding the media, and security play a huge roll in selecting Sidwell for presidential children. It's a different world since Carter sent his kid down the street to public school.
Don't worry you are still a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

It's funny how on the real estate forum people in Arlington will swear up and down that all the schools are good, but then put up a huge stink when they actually might get moved to Wakefield.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone seen the new option that kanninen asked for at the last work session? I thought Murphy told the sb it could be posted by tonight in advance of the meeting tomorrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen the new option that kanninen asked for at the last work session? I thought Murphy told the sb it could be posted by tonight in advance of the meeting tomorrow?

What was Kanninen asking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen the new option that kanninen asked for at the last work session? I thought Murphy told the sb it could be posted by tonight in advance of the meeting tomorrow?

What was Kanninen asking for?

She stupidly said it might not make sense to move any students if in the last year the size at all 3 schools were over 100%. Never mind that for the prior years the 3 schools would be under. Anyway she asked for option a Wakefield minus 3706 and Yorktown b. I wanted to see how overcapacity it would be with this option.

[Anonymous]

Is there any chance that any of the options BK likes have Yorktown (her neighborhood school) more crowded than Wakefield?

I know this doesn't affect her kids, but she seems to be looking out for her circle more than her community, which makes me sad because I hoped she was going to be bring some rationality to the SB, and she just keeps being more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen the new option that kanninen asked for at the last work session? I thought Murphy told the sb it could be posted by tonight in advance of the meeting tomorrow?

What was Kanninen asking for?

She stupidly said it might not make sense to move any students if in the last year the size at all 3 schools were over 100%. Never mind that for the prior years the 3 schools would be under. Anyway she asked for option a Wakefield minus 3706 and Yorktown b. I wanted to see how overcapacity it would be with this option.

I heard that, but was confused. Isn't Wakefield Option A without 3706 the same as Wakefield Option B?

The work session made my head spin. They asked APS for some 60/40 split options, then circled back to 50/50 options. The poor APS staff is probably going crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen the new option that kanninen asked for at the last work session? I thought Murphy told the sb it could be posted by tonight in advance of the meeting tomorrow?

What was Kanninen asking for?

She stupidly said it might not make sense to move any students if in the last year the size at all 3 schools were over 100%. Never mind that for the prior years the 3 schools would be under. Anyway she asked for option a Wakefield minus 3706 and Yorktown b. I wanted to see how overcapacity it would be with this option.

I heard that, but was confused. Isn't Wakefield Option A without 3706 the same as Wakefield Option B?

The work session made my head spin. They asked APS for some 60/40 split options, then circled back to 50/50 options. The poor APS staff is probably going crazy!

She didn't seem to make much sense. First she said she preferred only wl have trailers rather than all 3 schools. OK, so 5 trailers for all 4 years at WL rather than maybe trailers for the last year only. They did say they might be able to move up the bouindary change one year to address this. But than anfter saying this K asks whether these options leave enough room for IB transfers. So not only does she want no overcrosding at yorktown but then WL is somehow supposed to have enough space for IB transfers. What kind of logic is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance that any of the options BK likes have Yorktown (her neighborhood school) more crowded than Wakefield?

I know this doesn't affect her kids, but she seems to be looking out for her circle more than her community, which makes me sad because I hoped she was going to be bring some rationality to the SB, and she just keeps being more of the same.

She's there for Yorktown and nobody else. She wants combined option "A", with the one planning unit excluded per Emma's request because it sends the fewest students to YHS, 10 fewer than option 3, and she wants to see a new option with even fewer students being sent to YHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance that any of the options BK likes have Yorktown (her neighborhood school) more crowded than Wakefield?

I know this doesn't affect her kids, but she seems to be looking out for her circle more than her community, which makes me sad because I hoped she was going to be bring some rationality to the SB, and she just keeps being more of the same.

She's there for Yorktown and nobody else. She wants combined option "A", with the one planning unit excluded per Emma's request because it sends the fewest students to YHS, 10 fewer than option 3, and she wants to see a new option with even fewer students being sent to YHS.

The fewest kids and the fewest FRL kids.

In her first campaign, she only visited North Arlington neighborhoods. I hoped that was a mistake and that her changed behavior in the second campaign was a sign of a changed perspective.