APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They never removed it. They just don’t prioritize it.

We live in the one planning unit at our elementary school that goes to a different middle school.

Which elementary is that?

Probably Nottingham - planning unit south of Lee highway.

If so, they’re being a bit disingenuous. As someone sees noted, that planning unit campaigned hard to go to Swanson rather than Williamsburg, in part because they anticipated being rezoned to Reed. I will sympathize with them if they don’t end up at Reed, but no one should pretend that unit was zoned to Swanson against their will.

[Anonymous]

OP here:

Hollah! Thought the thread would die at 4 or 5 pages but it lives! Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moves are on! And we hit 100 pages!

What? Says who?

Everyone except Key and Madison Manor!

Ugh. Please don’t act like there’s breaking news when there isn’t.

This thread is an echo chamber. Just because a few people obsess over their hatred of option schools and the McKinley crowd doesn’t mean the rest of Arlington feels the same way or is strongly in support of what promises to be a very disruptive shuffling of school locations.

You are daft. NOT moving the schools cause the MOST disruption and student shuffling b/c of the severe capacity imbalance. By moving the schools, fewer students across the system have to change schools.

[Anonymous]

Calling people who disagree with you “daft” reinforces the underlying point that this is an echo chamber and if you disagree with the moves you get a nickname or an insult. Most people I know in Arlington are only passively aware of the proposed moves, and just aren’t engaged because it’s not their school being moved around. You can declare the moves necessary and awesome and the only path forward all you want. You can insult anyone who disagrees with you. At the end of the day, though, we’re all still going to be in overcrowded schools with a large percentage of kids having been reassigned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone want to bet on how many pages this thread will go on before it finally dies? I'm going with 18 pages.

This didn’t age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calling people who disagree with you “daft” reinforces the underlying point that this is an echo chamber and if you disagree with the moves you get a nickname or an insult. Most people I know in Arlington are only passively aware of the proposed moves, and just aren’t engaged because it’s not their school being moved around. You can declare the moves necessary and awesome and the only path forward all you want. You can insult anyone who disagrees with you. At the end of the day, though, we’re all still going to be in overcrowded schools with a large percentage of kids having been reassigned.

If this forum is an echo chamber it is only because people who disagree with the prevailing sentiment on (the echo chamber that is) AEM come here to speak freely. If you don’t like this one there’s always that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They never removed it. They just don’t prioritize it.

We live in the one planning unit at our elementary school that goes to a different middle school.

Which elementary is that?

Probably Nottingham - planning unit south of Lee highway.

If so, they’re being a bit disingenuous. As someone sees noted, that planning unit campaigned hard to go to Swanson rather than Williamsburg, in part because they anticipated being rezoned to Reed. I will sympathize with them if they don’t end up at Reed, but no one should pretend that unit was zoned to Swanson against their will.

That PU has always been zoned to Swanson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They never removed it. They just don’t prioritize it.

We live in the one planning unit at our elementary school that goes to a different middle school.

Which elementary is that?

Probably Nottingham - planning unit south of Lee highway.

If so, they’re being a bit disingenuous. As someone sees noted, that planning unit campaigned hard to go to Swanson rather than Williamsburg, in part because they anticipated being rezoned to Reed. I will sympathize with them if they don’t end up at Reed, but no one should pretend that unit was zoned to Swanson against their will.

That PU has always been zoned to Swanson.

And when the staff proposed moving it to Williamsburg, they fought it. You can’t complain about the lack of alignment when you specifically demand not to be aligned with the rest of your elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They never removed it. They just don’t prioritize it.

We live in the one planning unit at our elementary school that goes to a different middle school.

Which elementary is that?

Probably Nottingham - planning unit south of Lee highway.

If so, they’re being a bit disingenuous. As someone sees noted, that planning unit campaigned hard to go to Swanson rather than Williamsburg, in part because they anticipated being rezoned to Reed. I will sympathize with them if they don’t end up at Reed, but no one should pretend that unit was zoned to Swanson against their will.

That PU has always been zoned to Swanson.

And when the staff proposed moving it to Williamsburg, they fought it. You can’t complain about the lack of alignment when you specifically demand not to be aligned with the rest of your elementary school.

That's because it will probably end up at Reed. If it does end up at Reed, and that PU had been switched to WMS, those kids would be orphaned again being the only ones heading to WMS. Plus it's walkable to Swanson.

We don't have to argue about this one PU. The larger point is that alignment doesn't always work out.

[Anonymous]

So what is the latest actual news? Will the squeaky wheels win?

[Anonymous]

If it works out for that PU, great. But they shouldn’t complain about being put upon Re alignment when they fought to stay at Swanson. That’s all we’re saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here:

Hollah! Thought the thread would die at 4 or 5 pages but it lives! Wow.

It did die a very long time ago. Repetitive loops have fed into a completely separate topic on boundary speculations. I don't consider this a "winner" in the 100-page category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the latest actual news? Will the squeaky wheels win?

They vote on the 6th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calling people who disagree with you “daft” reinforces the underlying point that this is an echo chamber and if you disagree with the moves you get a nickname or an insult. Most people I know in Arlington are only passively aware of the proposed moves, and just aren’t engaged because it’s not their school being moved around. You can declare the moves necessary and awesome and the only path forward all you want. You can insult anyone who disagrees with you. At the end of the day, though, we’re all still going to be in overcrowded schools with a large percentage of kids having been reassigned.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it works out for that PU, great. But they shouldn’t complain about being put upon Re alignment when they fought to stay at Swanson. That’s all we’re saying.

Yup cuz it's always the parents' fault, right?