Grace Hopper Center Updates

[Anonymous]

Not supporting the move as currently proposed is not the same as opposing it. they are looking for more details and reassurance that their program will not have substantial changes which is reasonable

[Anonymous]

People can watch the meeting for themselves. I think we need to ignore the person who is so dug in. The real question I think it’s important to ask is why didn’t this proposal come much sooner in the process? If the goal is really to increase access for Langston students why did that just come up in the last six months? What are they planning on doing with the Langston building? APS is not being honest about the reason for this change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure sounds like AT parents are upset about this

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/12/11/change-in-plans-for-new-career-center-facility-angers-arlington-tech-parents/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPx4gxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeMXzm5DuYVGE9hdgUZgH3I3cBS6JzWKwVPxZkKd9HMZyi-4kb-Vs84MsINqk_aem_cyZ5NANVpr4dBJ-zubSppQ

Fake news, pseudologia fantastica practitioner. That was right after the no plan plan was released. read their own words published 1/26.

+1 APS published a plan, has very few details and then immediately backtracked.

are we having fun playing with the fuzzy little troll? I didn't know that their moss covered selves were so soft.

No post has demonstrated recent opposition.

Are you saying I'm a troll because I posted the Arl Now article. I'm trying to understand the opposition to the plan from AT. First someone said no AT parents were opposed. Now we have shown that's clearly not true so I'm a troll?!

No post has demonstrated recent opposition.

Last night’s comments before school board were opposed. Is that recent enough for you?

Not without proof.

It's recorded and you can watch it. How is that not enough proof for you? Also it doesn't really matter if you believe it or not. I heard it. So did everyone else who was there, including the school board who votes. If you want to deny reality, you just look even more insane.

I do not believe a trolls interpretation of what they heard and you are quoting one person...if accuratly, I don't know.

classic troll behavior:
"I'm too lazy to go listen myself so I'll just make up false claims about what those who did say"

The PP is asking for specific evidence, not an interpretation. That's the opposite of trolling.

thank you. Every accusation is an admission.

What evidence do you want? We pointed you to the recording. Even gave you a link. It's right there. In the time you spend on here trolling, you could just go watch it yourself. But then you'd see what I told you - Arl Tech opposing Langston coming and Langston saying they want to come- and you clearly don't want to admit that's real.

The lengths you will go to deny reality!!! You look ridiculous and we can all see it.

So what you told us is untrue. The AT kids did NOT say they were opposed to Langston coming.

That’s why the PPs were asking for evidence. Because they suspected (rightly) that you were full of sht.

Your efforts to deny reality are truly laughable. Anyone can go listen and see for themselves you are wrong. Those of us who already went to the meeting already know. So does the school board. I'm concerned for you, PP. you don't live in reality.

This troll is hopeless. But for anyone who wants to listen to the comments, all school board meetings including this one are recorded. https://www.apsva.us/arlington-school-board/school-board-meetings/watch-school-board-meetings/
You can watch for yourself the 4 AT students opposing the move and the 2 Langston commenters supporting it.

Summary of Arlington Tech student comments (APS School Board meeting, Feb. 5 2026 video)

From the public-comment segment of the Feb. 5 meeting video you provided, the Arlington Tech student speakers conveyed the following themes regarding the proposed relocation of programs (including Langston) to the Grace Hopper building:

1. Generally not opposed to shared facilities
• Students indicated that Arlington Tech already operates within a multi-program Career Center environment, so sharing a building with additional programs was viewed as manageable if planned properly.
• They emphasized that the issue should not be framed as a competition between student groups.

2. Main concern: preserving Arlington Tech resources and identity
• Students stressed that Arlington Tech should retain adequate dedicated classroom, lab, and common space.
• They asked that Arlington Tech’s program identity and hands-on learning opportunities not be diluted by overcrowding or scheduling conflicts.

3. Support contingent on clear planning
• Students requested transparent plans for space allocation, scheduling, and expansion capacity.
• Their comments focused more on ensuring operational clarity and future growth rather than opposing Langston’s relocation itself.

Bottom line:
Current Arlington Tech students who spoke on Feb. 5 did not express strong opposition to moving programs such as Langston to Grace Hopper. Their position was largely conditional support, centered on maintaining sufficient space, program integrity, and long-term growth for Arlington Tech.

Indicators suggesting possible veiled dissatisfaction:
• Repeated emphasis on protecting Arlington Tech space, resources, and identity rather than expressing affirmative support for the relocation itself.
• Requests for guarantees about expansion capacity and scheduling control, which typically arise when students anticipate potential crowding or program competition.
• Framing comments around “if planned properly” or “as long as Arlington Tech retains its facilities,” signaling conditional support.

First you left a lot out of your selective summary. But even so does this sound like support for the move? It’s clearly not. Why are you working so hard to pretend that that AT doesn’t oppose this OP? Just own it.

This was AI summary, copy and paste so it should not have too much bias (though I guess prompt engineering could steer it a but?). - DP

Clearly the prompt had an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, why does this one freak dislike AT so much? It’s pathological.

I wonder why you can’t have a discussion without insulting those who disagree with you.

DP. There is "disagreeing" and then there is lying like a sack of sht.

The garbage PP was blatantly lying. We can all watch the video and see that the students very clearly and explicitly say that they don't oppose the move.

We can all watch the recording and see that Langston supports the move and AT does not support the move. From the testimony, AT appears to have a very coordinated campaign which is so very interesting. Your attempts to spread information are looking like part of ATs campaign too. You have put so much time into this! That is very interesting and telling. It shows us his hard AT is working to keep Langston out. Thanks for illuminating this.

Signed,
Garbage PP lol

You are 100% lying.

Please give us a timestamp of a single student saying that they oppose the move.

PP didn’t say they oppose the move, but that AT doesn’t support the move. That’s the veiled dissatisfaction the LLM identified; their comments reveal their trepidation but they want to be supportive in general.

Wrong. PP repeatedly said that the AT kids opposed the move.

"Well. AT students are speaking now in opposition to the move."

"Last night’s comments before school board were opposed"

"Arlington Tech's ugly opposition to keeping out "those kids" from Langston. Trying to hoard opportunity and not share the nice new building. Not nice, AT, not nice. And we can all see it."

"Arl Tech opposing Langston coming and Langston saying they want to come"

"4 AT kids spoke and all were against the move of Langston to their building. "

"You can watch for yourself the 4 AT students opposing the move"

"AT is working to keep Langston out"

"Well they already did. One from each class at AT did this very thing." (re: "You think some teenager is going to stand up in public and announce “i don’t want those kids and adults” at our school?")

You sound obsessed

I hate liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not supporting the move as currently proposed is not the same as opposing it. they are looking for more details and reassurance that their program will not have substantial changes which is reasonable

Exactly.

They wanted details about the transition; they clearly said they didn’t oppose the move itself.

[Anonymous]

What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Who is we? Are you with Langston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

Just stop. I don't know why you're trying to trash these kids, but we can all see for ourselves from the School Board meeting that you are completely full of sht.

It's really disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AT is supposed to double its current program size over the next years.

I asked a school board member if adding this additional program would reduce the number of seats at AT and she looked at me like I was crazy and said no, so the campus will either hold an additional 100 students than they stated or they never considered this (I’m guessing the latter)

They are not good with numbers. They build brand new buildings and are immediately out of space despite using every closet. Every.d&mn.time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

We watched the video and you are misrepresenting it. Why? Are you a pathological nutjob? Multiple people have also watched the video. We all see your lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People can watch the meeting for themselves. I think we need to ignore the person who is so dug in. The real question I think it’s important to ask is why didn’t this proposal come much sooner in the process? If the goal is really to increase access for Langston students why did that just come up in the last six months? What are they planning on doing with the Langston building? APS is not being honest about the reason for this change.

I think it is because APS is heavily shuffling buildings and leases around. They see the writing on the wall, in relation to funding. They have been ridiculously overspending (iPads for every pre-K student, gobs of free programs for adults, and we have a very high needs student population. Etc.). Otherwise their shuffling of all these programs makes zero sense, and is contrary to what they shared as their vision for AT (to intensively grow it in size and reputation, among other things).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AT is supposed to double its current program size over the next years.

I asked a school board member if adding this additional program would reduce the number of seats at AT and she looked at me like I was crazy and said no, so the campus will either hold an additional 100 students than they stated or they never considered this (I’m guessing the latter)

They are not good with numbers. They build brand new buildings and are immediately out of space despite using every closet. Every.d&mn.time.

Actually they forget to add closets much to the chagrin of the teachers with no place to put their stuff 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can watch the meeting for themselves. I think we need to ignore the person who is so dug in. The real question I think it’s important to ask is why didn’t this proposal come much sooner in the process? If the goal is really to increase access for Langston students why did that just come up in the last six months? What are they planning on doing with the Langston building? APS is not being honest about the reason for this change.

I think it is because APS is heavily shuffling buildings and leases around. They see the writing on the wall, in relation to funding. They have been ridiculously overspending (iPads for every pre-K student, gobs of free programs for adults, and we have a very high needs student population. Etc.). Otherwise their shuffling of all these programs makes zero sense, and is contrary to what they shared as their vision for AT (to intensively grow it in size and reputation, among other things).

I think you’re right and wish they would be honest if it was about budget, we all know that the budget was a huge issue last year. Kim Graves told ATAC. It wasn’t about budget, the school board member told me the same. I don’t believe them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AT is supposed to double its current program size over the next years.

I asked a school board member if adding this additional program would reduce the number of seats at AT and she looked at me like I was crazy and said no, so the campus will either hold an additional 100 students than they stated or they never considered this (I’m guessing the latter)

They are not good with numbers. They build brand new buildings and are immediately out of space despite using every closet. Every.d&mn.time.

Actually they forget to add closets much to the chagrin of the teachers with no place to put their stuff 😂

Seriously?! So on brand for APS. Omg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I see is a highly orchestrated campaign to oppose the move and to not say the quiet part (we don't want those bad kids here) out loud. Instead couch it in terms that are easier to defend (not enough planning, open questions, etc). Of course, we heard the quiet part on here when people are anonymous (we don't want those ankle bracelet kids in our school). With their own names, they are inventing reasosn such as "concern" that another program in the building won't work because they now suddently want their one school model with all programs with a single admin. Of course, we can all see through this. It's like when people resist boundary changes claiming they want walkable schoos when their kids don't even walk and when it's really they don't want to be rezoned to schools with brown kids.

And of course the more AT denies it - and the lengths they go to includng insults to those who call them out- the more we can tell this is your game.

We see what you're doing here.

We watched the video and you are misrepresenting it. Why? Are you a pathological nutjob? Multiple people have also watched the video. We all see your lies.

+1