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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of the six factors are ever perfectly implemented, because that’s basically impossible. That alignment can’t always be done perfectly isn’t enough close to the staff just not caring about it.

Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I hope you're right this time. But I heard a SB member say in a past boundary process that it's just too hard to worry about alignment with ongoing boundary changes at all levels every few years, so we basically ignore it now. We know you're not aligned, we'll try to fix it in the next process (but then they did not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m calling you daft because you are purposefully ignoring that moving the schools results in less disruptive move of actual individual students.

You are trying to frame it as if the staff’s proposal is not the least disruptive solution b/c you don’t want your school moved.

I’m rezoned either way, but it is clear which aligns school locations with school populations.

I won’t call you names if you don’t speak lies, deal?

So now I’m a liar and daft if I disagree with you. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

When APS needs a police officer at public meetings something is wrong with these people. When they just throw bad data against the wall to see what sticks....can we post actual names here?

I’m a parent at one of the affected schools and I initially was involved because of course I want to stay in the loop on what’s happening. Unfortunately, I’ve seen the level of entitlement and hysteria has gone off the rails. From someone comparing the move of a few option elementary schools to a genocidal regime (seriously, you can’t make this stuff up) to the last-minute antics, I’m saddened that parents I smile at in the halls are really like this.

I don’t think APS staff are infallible, but I trust them a lot more than a group of self-interested parents trying to convince the county that what’s best for them is best for everyone.

This is why we are leaving APS when my first kid hits HS next year, next kid soon to follow. It's become such a sh*t show.

Are you moving or going private? We are looking at alternatives but FCPS would mean a longer commute for both of us — I guess for HS that is less an issue?

The grass is always greener.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

When APS needs a police officer at public meetings something is wrong with these people. When they just throw bad data against the wall to see what sticks....can we post actual names here?

I’m a parent at one of the affected schools and I initially was involved because of course I want to stay in the loop on what’s happening. Unfortunately, I’ve seen the level of entitlement and hysteria has gone off the rails. From someone comparing the move of a few option elementary schools to a genocidal regime (seriously, you can’t make this stuff up) to the last-minute antics, I’m saddened that parents I smile at in the halls are really like this.

I don’t think APS staff are infallible, but I trust them a lot more than a group of self-interested parents trying to convince the county that what’s best for them is best for everyone.

This is why we are leaving APS when my first kid hits HS next year, next kid soon to follow. It's become such a sh*t show.

We are in the same boat and have our concerns with Yorktown as well. Please share your potential options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m calling you daft because you are purposefully ignoring that moving the schools results in less disruptive move of actual individual students.

You are trying to frame it as if the staff’s proposal is not the least disruptive solution b/c you don’t want your school moved.

I’m rezoned either way, but it is clear which aligns school locations with school populations.

I won’t call you names if you don’t speak lies, deal?

So now I’m a liar and daft if I disagree with you. Got it.

You keep responding as if I am so insult spewing foul mouthed troll, yet I used one of the gentlest reproaches in the English language (daft, I mean its bring to mind Daffy Duck), and then explained where you assertion doesn’t match reality.

Forget looking at the staff or McKinley maps, look at A MAP, and you will see all of the elementary schools clustered far from the dense population along the orange line. It’s common sense that opening up seats in a school desert should better distribute student populations and give staff reasonable boundaries.

Your response basically just jumps to indignation, rather than offering a true counter argument. I would welcome not moving the schools, I know how difficult that is for all students, but we are here because of a number of decisions largely dictated by mob action, so we should nip that in the bud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of the six factors are ever perfectly implemented, because that’s basically impossible. That alignment can’t always be done perfectly isn’t enough close to the staff just not caring about it.

Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I hope you're right this time. But I heard a SB member say in a past boundary process that it's just too hard to worry about alignment with ongoing boundary changes at all levels every few years, so we basically ignore it now. We know you're not aligned, we'll try to fix it in the next process (but then they did not).

Which board member, and during which boundary process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m calling you daft because you are purposefully ignoring that moving the schools results in less disruptive move of actual individual students.

You are trying to frame it as if the staff’s proposal is not the least disruptive solution b/c you don’t want your school moved.

I’m rezoned either way, but it is clear which aligns school locations with school populations.

I won’t call you names if you don’t speak lies, deal?

So now I’m a liar and daft if I disagree with you. Got it.

You keep responding as if I am so insult spewing foul mouthed troll, yet I used one of the gentlest reproaches in the English language (daft, I mean its bring to mind Daffy Duck), and then explained where you assertion doesn’t match reality.

Forget looking at the staff or McKinley maps, look at A MAP, and you will see all of the elementary schools clustered far from the dense population along the orange line. It’s common sense that opening up seats in a school desert should better distribute student populations and give staff reasonable boundaries.

Your response basically just jumps to indignation, rather than offering a true counter argument. I would welcome not moving the schools, I know how difficult that is for all students, but we are here because of a number of decisions largely dictated by mob action, so we should nip that in the bud.

My biggest point was that anyone who disagrees with the proposed moves on this board gets a nickname or insulted, and you then called me daft and accused me of lying. I don’t care what they decide, as our kids are aged out of elementary, but petty name calling to make one’s point bothers me and I call it out when I see it. That was the only reason for my post and it seems to have bothered you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m calling you daft because you are purposefully ignoring that moving the schools results in less disruptive move of actual individual students.

You are trying to frame it as if the staff’s proposal is not the least disruptive solution b/c you don’t want your school moved.

I’m rezoned either way, but it is clear which aligns school locations with school populations.

I won’t call you names if you don’t speak lies, deal?

So now I’m a liar and daft if I disagree with you. Got it.

You keep responding as if I am so insult spewing foul mouthed troll, yet I used one of the gentlest reproaches in the English language (daft, I mean its bring to mind Daffy Duck), and then explained where you assertion doesn’t match reality.

Forget looking at the staff or McKinley maps, look at A MAP, and you will see all of the elementary schools clustered far from the dense population along the orange line. It’s common sense that opening up seats in a school desert should better distribute student populations and give staff reasonable boundaries.

Your response basically just jumps to indignation, rather than offering a true counter argument. I would welcome not moving the schools, I know how difficult that is for all students, but we are here because of a number of decisions largely dictated by mob action, so we should nip that in the bud.

My biggest point was that anyone who disagrees with the proposed moves on this board gets a nickname or insulted, and you then called me daft and accused me of lying. I don’t care what they decide, as our kids are aged out of elementary, but petty name calling to make one’s point bothers me and I call it out when I see it. That was the only reason for my post and it seems to have bothered you.

Well yeah, b/c i felt like I had been fairly civil and then explained why your point was misrepresenting the situation. But it’s clear now you have no further actual argument, and you are old so clearly part of the parents who helped make this mess, so thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of the six factors are ever perfectly implemented, because that’s basically impossible. That alignment can’t always be done perfectly isn’t enough close to the staff just not caring about it.

No one ever said any of the six factors needed to be or is expected to be implemented perfectly. If you want that, then you have only one factor to begin with. The point is to balance all the factors the best you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of the six factors are ever perfectly implemented, because that’s basically impossible. That alignment can’t always be done perfectly isn’t enough close to the staff just not caring about it.

Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I hope you're right this time. But I heard a SB member say in a past boundary process that it's just too hard to worry about alignment with ongoing boundary changes at all levels every few years, so we basically ignore it now. We know you're not aligned, we'll try to fix it in the next process (but then they did not).

I don't see how you can fix alignment when you keep doing boundaries by individual school level. You need to adjust the elementary and middle school boundaries at the same time....then you have issues with middle alignment to high; but at least fewer issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid question, but why do we have to be grouped into planning units anyway?

because its useful for drawing boundaries and keeping track of numbers and stuff. what do you view a the alternative?

I don't know exactly. It just seems if you know how many kids are where, you can divide according to where you need the numbers to be rather than being restricted by whole planning units. Some PUs are big, others are really small. Might be good to demonstrate where who is; but seems like boundaries could be drawn wherever they're needed, taking into consideration civic associations and major streets and such as they do now, without having to take an entire planning unit in which some students may be an easy walk and others not. But you have to take the whole unit anyway, and therefore another closer PU might have to go somewhere else, etc.

It just seems restrictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

When APS needs a police officer at public meetings something is wrong with these people. When they just throw bad data against the wall to see what sticks....can we post actual names here?

I’m a parent at one of the affected schools and I initially was involved because of course I want to stay in the loop on what’s happening. Unfortunately, I’ve seen the level of entitlement and hysteria has gone off the rails. From someone comparing the move of a few option elementary schools to a genocidal regime (seriously, you can’t make this stuff up) to the last-minute antics, I’m saddened that parents I smile at in the halls are really like this.

I don’t think APS staff are infallible, but I trust them a lot more than a group of self-interested parents trying to convince the county that what’s best for them is best for everyone.

This is why we are leaving APS when my first kid hits HS next year, next kid soon to follow. It's become such a sh*t show.

We are in the same boat and have our concerns with Yorktown as well. Please share your potential options.

We are going private for HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid question, but why do we have to be grouped into planning units anyway?

because its useful for drawing boundaries and keeping track of numbers and stuff. what do you view a the alternative?

I don't know exactly. It just seems if you know how many kids are where, you can divide according to where you need the numbers to be rather than being restricted by whole planning units. Some PUs are big, others are really small. Might be good to demonstrate where who is; but seems like boundaries could be drawn wherever they're needed, taking into consideration civic associations and major streets and such as they do now, without having to take an entire planning unit in which some students may be an easy walk and others not. But you have to take the whole unit anyway, and therefore another closer PU might have to go somewhere else, etc.

It just seems restrictive.

It’s like moving puzzle pieces around. Without the PUs, you would have too many infinite puzzle pieces to work with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

None of the six factors are ever perfectly implemented, because that’s basically impossible. That alignment can’t always be done perfectly isn’t enough close to the staff just not caring about it.

No one ever said any of the six factors needed to be or is expected to be implemented perfectly. If you want that, then you have only one factor to begin with. The point is to balance all the factors the best you can.

Um, yes, that’s part of the point I was making.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, the people who received nicknames didn't get them just for disagreeing. Plenty of people have disagreed. They received nicknames for acting so irrationally at a board meeting that security was needed (and then outing themselves online) or using the word "data" so often and with an air of authority that only he truly knew what "data" meant that the arrogance was too much for most to ignore.