South Arlington elementary school boundary adjustments 2019

[Anonymous]

Well, reading this will ensure I will go to Kindergarten information night today, even though we're a few years off. At least then I'll have an idea of what might be happening, even though boundaries are sure to shift before my kid starts school in 2020. At will be that less foreign.

[Anonymous]

Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

[Anonymous]

I agree my kid is not going to be subject to “maybe we’ll see if the school improves” for his entire elementary school. I am not sending my kindergartener to an unknown in 2919. We are actually closest geographically now to HB then Fleet then Randolf/Drew from Arlington Village. I still hope we stay at Fleet. The recent email from APS said ALL elementary boundaries are on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I'm a different poster and have been mostly posting about the Montessori program and meetings related to that, also some about Drew. I know much less about Randolph/Barcroft/etc. I've only lived in this county for about 4 years, so I don't have the experience that many others do. That said, I have been trying to follow closely. I think a lot of ppl, myself included, are reading into the latest SB decisions a turn towards walkability/proximity as THE factor, with a corresponding turn away from demographics as a factor. Will this still be the case when favoring walkability/proximity means kids moving out of the farther away Fleet/Henry (highly regarded) and into the closer Drew (at best an unknown but not well regarded now), vs. meaning kids get to stay at Swanson vs. moving to the farther away Kenmore? I guess we'll see.

[Anonymous]

7:39 - would you have said this if you were zoned for Discovery in its first year of operations? That was a complete unknown - brand new building, new principal, new staff. The building was barely even finished when kids moved in, and kids were moved in from 3 different schools. Or is your view just based on the new school being in South Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Different poster. But these are not the same. Everyone knows Fleet will be fine. 7:39 knows Fleet will be fine. We are talking about rolling the dice on "improvement" at Drew or Barcroft. That is nothing like the Discovery situation. Those are schools with known, long-standing problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:39 - would you have said this if you were zoned for Discovery in its first year of operations? That was a complete unknown - brand new building, new principal, new staff. The building was barely even finished when kids moved in, and kids were moved in from 3 different schools. Or is your view just based on the new school being in South Arlington?

Serisouly? Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Dude, it's dead. The overwhelming feedback was about not just Reeb but also the K-12 vision that divided the county E/W rather than N/S. Guess who doesn't like that? Trust that this is dead. RG is one person, out of five.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember Claremont is not going to have a neighborhood guarantee any longer. So those kids have to be dispersed. I think a lot of them will be pulled into Drew. This is going to be such a CF. I think there's a good chance that some of the option programs get moved.

I could somewhat see this as a possibility, if the SB was trying to move choice programs closer to 50 and the "middle" of the county. But even if they did so, where would Claremont draw from? Claremont the neighborhood obviously, but also Columbia Forest, Douglas Park and Abingdon. Maybe that affects the demographics at Randolph, but can't see it doing much for Barcroft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:39 - would you have said this if you were zoned for Discovery in its first year of operations? That was a complete unknown - brand new building, new principal, new staff. The building was barely even finished when kids moved in, and kids were moved in from 3 different schools. Or is your view just based on the new school being in South Arlington?

Serisouly? Get your head out of your ass.

+1. This is not even remotely comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Dude, it's dead. The overwhelming feedback was about not just Reeb but also the K-12 vision that divided the county E/W rather than N/S. Guess who doesn't like that? Trust that this is dead. RG is one person, out of five.

Wait. E/W is moving forward with how they are splitting immersion, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Dude, it's dead. The overwhelming feedback was about not just Reeb but also the K-12 vision that divided the county E/W rather than N/S. Guess who doesn't like that? Trust that this is dead. RG is one person, out of five.

Wait. E/W is moving forward with how they are splitting immersion, right?

Immersion has always been E/W. There was talk of making two options schools for each program, one for E and one for W how they do immersion, but that's not moving forward. The other option schools are all countywide now.

[Anonymous]

7:39 here and no the Discovery boundary adjustment is nothing like what’s happening with Fleet to Drew.