APS Sinking Ship

[Anonymous]

I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

[Anonymous]

I would hate to have to walk on eggshells thinking that my opinion would be Whitesplaining and a microagression, but from what I saw in the boundary process, that is what I expect. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

[Anonymous]

Fortunately for both PPs, the entire "whitesplaining" controversy was between two Penrose residents whose children will not be attending Drew in the fall.

To the extent it was clear in the process that it would be a Nauck school, I think that is a result of APS's decision to ensure a neighborhood school in Nauck, similar to how it has done so with Reed in Westover. No one is an afterthought; in fact, without the new planning units, Drew wouldn't have a full boundary. All children are welcome and yes, the goal is to go forward as a strong, unified school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

You must have missed it when the Drew PTA president stood up at a boundary discussion at Kenmore where she was surrounded by furious Abingdon parents who had just been hypothetically zoned to Drew and she said (not quoting) these people don’t look like my school (to the delight of the Abingdon crowd), or the UMC Nauck residents who send their kids to Montessori calling for certain neighborhoods to be drawn into Drew (a school they don’t even or will never send their own children to), there WERE Drew voices out there during the process and guess what, they got their way. Notwithstanding all of that, there is a great welcoming committee for the new Drew school and fortunately it doesn’t include the “whitesplaining” crew from AEM (who also don’t send their kids to Drew).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

You must have missed it when the Drew PTA president stood up at a boundary discussion at Kenmore where she was surrounded by furious Abingdon parents who had just been hypothetically zoned to Drew and she said (not quoting) these people don’t look like my school (to the delight of the Abingdon crowd), or the UMC Nauck residents who send their kids to Montessori calling for certain neighborhoods to be drawn into Drew (a school they don’t even or will never send their own children to), there WERE Drew voices out there during the process and guess what, they got their way. Notwithstanding all of that, there is a great welcoming committee for the new Drew school and fortunately it doesn’t include the “whitesplaining” crew from AEM (who also don’t send their kids to Drew).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

You must have missed it when the Drew PTA president stood up at a boundary discussion at Kenmore where she was surrounded by furious Abingdon parents who had just been hypothetically zoned to Drew and she said (not quoting) these people don’t look like my school (to the delight of the Abingdon crowd), or the UMC Nauck residents who send their kids to Montessori calling for certain neighborhoods to be drawn into Drew (a school they don’t even or will never send their own children to), there WERE Drew voices out there during the process and guess what, they got their way. Notwithstanding all of that, there is a great welcoming committee for the new Drew school and fortunately it doesn’t include the “whitesplaining” crew from AEM (who also don’t send their kids to Drew).

You're talking about me. My oldest child will be a 2nd grader at Drew next year.

The underlined portion of your post is the most important. I hope you and your neighbors will consider giving it a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

You must have missed it when the Drew PTA president stood up at a boundary discussion at Kenmore where she was surrounded by furious Abingdon parents who had just been hypothetically zoned to Drew and she said (not quoting) these people don’t look like my school (to the delight of the Abingdon crowd), or the UMC Nauck residents who send their kids to Montessori calling for certain neighborhoods to be drawn into Drew (a school they don’t even or will never send their own children to), there WERE Drew voices out there during the process and guess what, they got their way. Notwithstanding all of that, there is a great welcoming committee for the new Drew school and fortunately it doesn’t include the “whitesplaining” crew from AEM (who also don’t send their kids to Drew).

+1

Yeah I remember watching that as well and I think it could have been taken a few ways. Perhaps people took it out of context, perhaps they didn’t. Hard to know. Anyway, it was a misstep on her part to say anything like that and led to a lot of speculation.

There was not one person on any of the many threads about the boundary process who actually sent their kids to the neighborhood program, so it was hard to get a true read. The Montessori and other opt-out parents unable to acknowledge that they themselves were part of the whole problem was very annoying, especially when paired with the expectation that my neighborhood should just shut up. I hope the whole thing served as a lesson to everyone and I am hoping for the best “new Drew” possible.

[Anonymous]

The Drew voices I heard were extremely neutral and welcoming. They didn’t want kids bussed from all over to county just to make the numbers look good. But outside of that they were pretty quiet and positive.

The PTA president who spoke at the one meeting mentioned that the people around don’t look like the kids at Drew not to say they didn’t want the UMC neighborhoods but that they were not being represented at that neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

^huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Drew voices didn’t say they wanted or didn’t want certain planning units. Most were clear that they hoped newcomers would join them in creating a strong new school. But I think it also was clear in the process that this is the Nauck school and the other planning units are an afterthought. I hope all are welcomed at the new Drew and newcomers aren’t shut out as outsiders whose opinions are simply Whitesplaining.

You must have missed it when the Drew PTA president stood up at a boundary discussion at Kenmore where she was surrounded by furious Abingdon parents who had just been hypothetically zoned to Drew and she said (not quoting) these people don’t look like my school (to the delight of the Abingdon crowd), or the UMC Nauck residents who send their kids to Montessori calling for certain neighborhoods to be drawn into Drew (a school they don’t even or will never send their own children to), there WERE Drew voices out there during the process and guess what, they got their way. Notwithstanding all of that, there is a great welcoming committee for the new Drew school and fortunately it doesn’t include the “whitesplaining” crew from AEM (who also don’t send their kids to Drew).

BULLSH!T. I was sitting three seats away. She somewhat clumsily was trying to communicate to a mob of hysterical Abingdon moms that she wished there were more drew families there so that some actual communication could take place. There were fewer than 10 parents of drew or future drew students there. South fairlington has over 50 people there. And they said horrible thin this about their children don’t belong “there”; using kids as props(f’’n gross) and bellyaching about property values (angry guy in the back row.) sorry to bring up old wounds but Im not going to let that misinfo stand without a rebuttal. It’s all on tape too.

[Anonymous]

^ I agree
But PSA:
South Arlington homeowners have a right to care about their property values. You guys are allowed to have some self interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I agree
But PSA:
South Arlington homeowners have a right to care about their property values. You guys are allowed to have some self interest.

Agree, but wish it didn't have to be discussed in this way. If only the US (b/c this isn't just an Arlington problem), could find a way to provide equal education for all. Instead, we've got this block by block battle for scarce school resources. FWIW, I'd be happy to go Drew.

[Anonymous]

Agreed but I would not be happy to go to Drew. Mark my word it is going to open very high FRL, higher than projected. We will know in the fall for sure though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed but I would not be happy to go to Drew. Mark my word it is going to open very high FRL, higher than projected. We will know in the fall for sure though.

Please see the last page of the “modest proposal” thread. Be the change you want to see in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Busing and teams will just subject some kids to long bus rides, and then you will have a white flight situation like ACPS.



This is a joke, right? Arlington is the smallest county in America. There is no such thing as a long bus ride in Arlington.


Actually there is one route that takes from 1:06-1:20 for drew elementary this year. That’s the longest route.

Thanks for proving my point!

That is an idiotically long ride for ES kids. Why put a kid on a bus at 7:30 when they don't need to be there until 8:50? On the flip side, they aren't getting home until close to 5! Ridiculous.

I’m not sure anyone actually rides it. Any route that long to Drew would be a Montessori student, and would have to live near Chain Bridge. My guess is such student doesn’t actually exist.

Yep, must be Montessori and if that ride exists, it was your CHOICE to have your child in Montessori and thus not on a much shorter bus ride to your neighborhood school. The boundary for the Drew neighborhood program is tiny and no one rides the bus very far.

This chain is about the idea of teams to desegregate, right? That would have to include non-optional busing or else nothing would change. APS would also have to do some creative and gerrymandered drawing of team boundaries, and even then I can't see how you get Nottingham, Discovery, and Jamestown into a group with any low income schools without making islands.

I don't have time to create the actual map, but I think you could draw boundaries such that the teams are a little more balanced and palpable.
Something like:
Abingdon, Drew, Oakridge, Hoffman-Boston
Fleet, Long Branch, Barcroft, Randolph
Ashlawn, Carlin Springs, Mckinley, Tuckahoe
ASFS, Taylor, Jamestown, new neighborhood school at Key if that ever happens
Glebe, Barrett, Discovery, Nottingham

All this does is spread the low-income students more across the south arlington schools. Not many Latino families in the Carlin Springs community are going to opt for Ashlawn, let alone McKinley or Tuckahoe. This simply brings Oakridge and Fleet back in the direction they came from.
What's the point of ASFS, Taylor Jamestown, Key? That's exactly what there is NOW - and look how diverse those schools are!

People need to start thinking outside the box....There are ways to integrate schools and make them all great schools.
My recommendation is to breakout the elementary schools to a K-2 school and a 3-5 school. Combine boundaries and integrate two schools to form a separate community. Benefits and drawbacks? Yes - You will be in your neighborhood school for 3 years, and then you will have to go to another school a little farther way, but the schools may be more reflective of the overall Arlington Community. For example, combine Ashlawn and Carlin Springs, McKinley and Barrett, Fleet and Randolph, Oakridge and Hoffman Boston, etc. The key is to start thinking outside of the box.

What are other communities doing? People spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME on DCUM complaining. Instead, we can think about people researching best practices, and other initiatives happening in like-communities across the country? Research how successfully/unsuccessfully Sweden and other countries are educating and assimilating their immigrant populations. We are a county full of smart people from all different perspectives. I think we should stop bit**ing and start looking at best practices. Think beyond the normal. This is not a new problem and now we have the ability to understand best practices from a global perspective.