Hmm...where were the South Fairlington to Abingdon Walkers today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is pretty aggressive. You must be threatened by the boundary changes. I am sure Columbia Heights was convening at their "town square" Columbia Pike in the rain as well....

The difference is the CH families never claimed to be walkers. They have very simply asked to keep their community together, because they supported giving Nauck a neighborhood school in Drew and sacrificed their physical neighborhood school building location to accommodate giving Nauck a neighborhood school. They were told the whole Henry community would go to Fleet. CH families also haven't retracted comments from the walk zone survey stating they need a bus b/c it's too dangerous to walk to school like the SF families did. CH never called out another neighborhood and pointed at them and demanded APS create a map that moves them. CH families are classy, intelligent and polite and have been so from the start and no I don't live in CH, but I sure do respect their grace and composure.

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Don’t stop with the accusation. Back it up with facts and examples, please.

See the person on AEM who threw in the fact that the Henry principal tragically died a couple of years ago as a reason to keep the entire school together. Some of those kids weren't even there at that time. It's emotional blackmail, and pretty shitty. Even other Henry parents agreed.

Yeah, that was horrible and appalling. She's not a current Henry parent and doesn't speak for anyone I know. But FWIW, that terrible tragedy happened last April, so not even a full year ago. I don't think it's a reason to keep the school together, but it is recent and raw, which is another reason it was horrible to bring up.

My guess is the kids are mostly fine, but not so the teachers and staff. And parents.

I think parents think kids are a lot less resilient than they are. It's more that the parents don't want to have to make new connections.

Didn't an Abingdon parent bring up a child with cancer as part of their need to stay together. Sadly, there are tragic situations in many, if not all, schools. Not a reason not to change a boundary.

What????? OMG.

No. She brought up the 5k which donates the funds to Abingdon and ACureForEllie. Her daughter has a rare genetic disease.

Ellie lives in SF and the 5K was started to help fund research for that disease. She's in maybe 3rd grade at Abingdon now?

---- Just a bystander with no dog in the fight.

Which, yes, is sad. But still not a reasonable argument against a boundary change.

[Anonymous]

See the person on AEM who threw in the fact that the Henry principal tragically died a couple of years ago as a reason to keep the entire school together. Some of those kids weren't even there at that time. It's emotional blackmail, and pretty shitty. Even other Henry parents agreed.

Yes. That was disgraceful. And to make it worse, the email was cloaked as a "let's do what's good for all" email, then she snuck in the part about the principal at the end.

And why would she share with all of AEM?! Just send your email to Engage like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.



even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

I get this, but serious question: How are communities supposed to engage with APS in the future? If APS asks a school or a group to make a big move (or stop fighting a plan) with the assurance that X will happen in the future, then the future comes and they are told nope on X, and shame on you for assuming we meant it. That is crappy, no? Looking back, APS never should have said or pretended that it could keep the school together, and people could have decided to keep fighting the new school. That's at least more honest. But why should any community work with APS in good faith on anything now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

I get this, but serious question: How are communities supposed to engage with APS in the future? If APS asks a school or a group to make a big move (or stop fighting a plan) with the assurance that X will happen in the future, then the future comes and they are told nope on X, and shame on you for assuming we meant it. That is crappy, no? Looking back, APS never should have said or pretended that it could keep the school together, and people could have decided to keep fighting the new school. That's at least more honest. But why should any community work with APS in good faith on anything now?

The thing is APS shouldn't be making these promises as part of school location decisions. Just make a damn decision and put up with people being uphappy with you.

[Anonymous]

^^^ So no community should ever work with APS at all, is that the lesson? Or fight them on everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

I get this, but serious question: How are communities supposed to engage with APS in the future? If APS asks a school or a group to make a big move (or stop fighting a plan) with the assurance that X will happen in the future, then the future comes and they are told nope on X, and shame on you for assuming we meant it. That is crappy, no? Looking back, APS never should have said or pretended that it could keep the school together, and people could have decided to keep fighting the new school. That's at least more honest. But why should any community work with APS in good faith on anything now?

See, you're already framing yourselves as victims by claiming APS said something they did not. For MONTHS on this board, maybe a year, people have been pointing out that APS staff chose their words very carefully because they knew that the boundary process might involve moving Henry PUs. They said things like He ru is moving to Fleet, not, every kid and house currently zoned to Henry is going to Fleet. You're adults. You know this is true. Aps didn't wanna get boxed in. Now you're saying they broke a promise they never made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

I get this, but serious question: How are communities supposed to engage with APS in the future? If APS asks a school or a group to make a big move (or stop fighting a plan) with the assurance that X will happen in the future, then the future comes and they are told nope on X, and shame on you for assuming we meant it. That is crappy, no? Looking back, APS never should have said or pretended that it could keep the school together, and people could have decided to keep fighting the new school. That's at least more honest. But why should any community work with APS in good faith on anything now?

Well, i suppose it means that communities should be the "adult" in the room in discussions with APS and ask themselves, "Are there other communities potentially impacted by this decision who do not have a voice in this discussion"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Henry folks have behaved just as badly. Nobody can claim any higher ground here. We all use what we got. There’s no special zone of morality in CH.

Agreed. If I hear one more time how they were "promised" they would all stay together because they "agreed" to give up their school.

even worse, that they "sacrificed" their school.

I get this, but serious question: How are communities supposed to engage with APS in the future? If APS asks a school or a group to make a big move (or stop fighting a plan) with the assurance that X will happen in the future, then the future comes and they are told nope on X, and shame on you for assuming we meant it. That is crappy, no? Looking back, APS never should have said or pretended that it could keep the school together, and people could have decided to keep fighting the new school. That's at least more honest. But why should any community work with APS in good faith on anything now?

I think this is a fair question (and I'm not in CH). I don't think APS made any assurances, but that is what you heard. I think APS might have a different definition of "community" that is more porous in its boundaries than some of these parents would like to admit. We all (re)define community in a way that is beneficial to us as individuals.

I think all of the concerned parents involved in this discussion are used to speaking their minds and getting their way, especially since they all feel that their arguments about community are more rational than others. The county is simply too complex for easy answers.

[Anonymous]

Okay, so why didn’t APS say “we are opening a completely new additional elementary school in S. Arlington”? They could have NEVER associated it with any other school or process except this new boundary change. Oh wait, they needed Henry to leave to give Drew its neighborhood school. They have continuously conflated Henry with Fleet. You can’t lead a horse to water and then get upset when it drinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, so why didn’t APS say “we are opening a completely new additional elementary school in S. Arlington”? They could have NEVER associated it with any other school or process except this new boundary change. Oh wait, they needed Henry to leave to give Drew its neighborhood school. They have continuously conflated Henry with Fleet. You can’t lead a horse to water and then get upset when it drinks.

They are using the Henry building for something else. So what?
You don’t own the building. It belongs to all of APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, so why didn’t APS say “we are opening a completely new additional elementary school in S. Arlington”? They could have NEVER associated it with any other school or process except this new boundary change. Oh wait, they needed Henry to leave to give Drew its neighborhood school. They have continuously conflated Henry with Fleet. You can’t lead a horse to water and then get upset when it drinks.

+1

[Anonymous]

This is just a repeat of the HS process. There are only so many places to site a school in this county. APS looks at the possibilities, engages the community, NIMBYs inevitably push back, APS finally picks a site, the Arlington Heights area hears promises be made that weren't made, turns out those promises may not be fulfilled (because they weren't made), and the neighborhood gets upset.

It's not that I don't think the Career Center HS is a bad idea. I do. I'm just kinda tired of hearing about promises made to that neighborhood that haven't panned out, because there shouldn't be promises made to any of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just a repeat of the HS process. There are only so many places to site a school in this county. APS looks at the possibilities, engages the community, NIMBYs inevitably push back, APS finally picks a site, the Arlington Heights area hears promises be made that weren't made, turns out those promises may not be fulfilled (because they weren't made), and the neighborhood gets upset.

It's not that I don't think the Career Center HS is a bad idea. I do. I'm just kinda tired of hearing about promises made to that neighborhood that haven't panned out, because there shouldn't be promises made to any of us.

Then they shouldn’t engage the community and they should just do whatever they want. It’s disingenious to “engage” the community and get everyone spun up if no one’s input is even going to matter.

They should have just opened Fleet as an entirely new school, left everything else as-is, drawn whatever boundaries relieve overcrowding at other schools (literally the entire point) and have been done with it. Instead, we’re in this nonsensical game of promises and not me. To leave Drew under capacity like that is an insult to everyone.