APS elementary planning initiative called off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to ideas... please.

I understand the small spaces and multiple owners on Lee, but it can be done. And yes, it will cost more up front, but it costs the county and community less in the long run if the schools have some semblance of diversity and poverty is not so concentrated. Unless the regulators here stop seeking as much affordable housing as they can get in the south, and fund a smaller but valuable amount in the north, nothing will change. "Cost" is not just the funding needed to purchase the land. And, studies show that the cost to purchase commercial land in North Arlington is not that much more than south. Someone did a study of purchases over the last decade and it was shocking that in some instances land was more costly in South Arlington.

The American Legion in Clarendon is being redeveloped as entirely affordable housing. It’s a fairly big parcel about 1.25 acres.

And within walking distance of ASFS, Stratford and W-L.

Interesting. I heard that back before the initiative was put on pause, some Cherrydale parents had been proposing a new boundary for ASFS that was basically Cherrydale + Lyon Village (except the couple blocks east of Barton, ie the block where Key sits) and the mostly SFHs in the ASFS walkzone. I guess all the apartments currently in Key/ASFS zone would be sent to Key under that plan? Was that ever a real proposal or was that just a rumor?

That was exactly what they were proposing and lobbying for. They had all these spreadsheets showing how well it worked to have the dividing line be Barton.

Yeah I don’t believe the cherrydale faction intended to be racist/classist but combining Lyon village and Cherrydale SFH definitely would have that outcome.

Most current families at ASFS want to keep the current population And maybe tack on a small walk zone. It’s the usurping Cherrydale families looking to seize the school for their neighborhood who have a scorched earth approach and don’t care if they end up kicking out families with less means.

How did this go from talking about getting more affordable housing spread across Arlington to the crazy ASFS discussion again. I feel sorry for the kids who go there. I wouldn’t want any part of that hatred. This isn’t a war we’re talking about.

Same here. Feel for those kids. I'm sure if parents are name calling here they are doing it in the home too. Sad to see so much disinformation spread. People will always fear what they cannot see and think bad things about others who they truly don't know at all. I'm really glad my kids don't attend and aren't part of this but I don't buy for a minute the "usurping" family descriptors. Sorry - fear monger elsewhere.

You haven’t been at the PTA meetings, it is pretty tense. And when a set of families have designs on taking a school that they do not attend, and actively campaign to have Rosslyn families bused elsewhere b/c they didn’t want their new school over crowded. They met with SB members, so yes active campaigning.

And concern for outsiders influencing our schools interests is far more germane to this thread than any discussion on affordable housing.

Honestly I wish they canned the Arlington way for zone policy; let the staff make a professional recommendation without neighbors infighting

so let me understand ... because "they met with SB members" they were OBVIOUSLY speaking in a manner that negative impacts you? give me a break - again i don't buy the fear mongering.
agree, let the experts do their job and accept their professional recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to ideas... please.

I understand the small spaces and multiple owners on Lee, but it can be done. And yes, it will cost more up front, but it costs the county and community less in the long run if the schools have some semblance of diversity and poverty is not so concentrated. Unless the regulators here stop seeking as much affordable housing as they can get in the south, and fund a smaller but valuable amount in the north, nothing will change. "Cost" is not just the funding needed to purchase the land. And, studies show that the cost to purchase commercial land in North Arlington is not that much more than south. Someone did a study of purchases over the last decade and it was shocking that in some instances land was more costly in South Arlington.

The American Legion in Clarendon is being redeveloped as entirely affordable housing. It’s a fairly big parcel about 1.25 acres.

And within walking distance of ASFS, Stratford and W-L.

Interesting. I heard that back before the initiative was put on pause, some Cherrydale parents had been proposing a new boundary for ASFS that was basically Cherrydale + Lyon Village (except the couple blocks east of Barton, ie the block where Key sits) and the mostly SFHs in the ASFS walkzone. I guess all the apartments currently in Key/ASFS zone would be sent to Key under that plan? Was that ever a real proposal or was that just a rumor?

That was exactly what they were proposing and lobbying for. They had all these spreadsheets showing how well it worked to have the dividing line be Barton.

Yeah I don’t believe the cherrydale faction intended to be racist/classist but combining Lyon village and Cherrydale SFH definitely would have that outcome.

Most current families at ASFS want to keep the current population And maybe tack on a small walk zone. It’s the usurping Cherrydale families looking to seize the school for their neighborhood who have a scorched earth approach and don’t care if they end up kicking out families with less means.

How did this go from talking about getting more affordable housing spread across Arlington to the crazy ASFS discussion again. I feel sorry for the kids who go there. I wouldn’t want any part of that hatred. This isn’t a war we’re talking about.

Same here. Feel for those kids. I'm sure if parents are name calling here they are doing it in the home too. Sad to see so much disinformation spread. People will always fear what they cannot see and think bad things about others who they truly don't know at all. I'm really glad my kids don't attend and aren't part of this but I don't buy for a minute the "usurping" family descriptors. Sorry - fear monger elsewhere.

You haven’t been at the PTA meetings, it is pretty tense. And when a set of families have designs on taking a school that they do not attend, and actively campaign to have Rosslyn families bused elsewhere b/c they didn’t want their new school over crowded. They met with SB members, so yes active campaigning.

And concern for outsiders influencing our schools interests is far more germane to this thread than any discussion on affordable housing.

Honestly I wish they canned the Arlington way for zone policy; let the staff make a professional recommendation without neighbors infighting

so let me understand ... because "they met with SB members" they were OBVIOUSLY speaking in a manner that negative impacts you? give me a break - again i don't buy the fear mongering.
agree, let the experts do their job and accept their professional recommendations.

Even if they were, pp could have met with school board members as well. They hold open office hours almost every week during the school year, and you can also call the main office to schedule an appointment with your liaison if you can't make it to open office hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to ideas... please.

I understand the small spaces and multiple owners on Lee, but it can be done. And yes, it will cost more up front, but it costs the county and community less in the long run if the schools have some semblance of diversity and poverty is not so concentrated. Unless the regulators here stop seeking as much affordable housing as they can get in the south, and fund a smaller but valuable amount in the north, nothing will change. "Cost" is not just the funding needed to purchase the land. And, studies show that the cost to purchase commercial land in North Arlington is not that much more than south. Someone did a study of purchases over the last decade and it was shocking that in some instances land was more costly in South Arlington.

The American Legion in Clarendon is being redeveloped as entirely affordable housing. It’s a fairly big parcel about 1.25 acres.

And within walking distance of ASFS, Stratford and W-L.

Interesting. I heard that back before the initiative was put on pause, some Cherrydale parents had been proposing a new boundary for ASFS that was basically Cherrydale + Lyon Village (except the couple blocks east of Barton, ie the block where Key sits) and the mostly SFHs in the ASFS walkzone. I guess all the apartments currently in Key/ASFS zone would be sent to Key under that plan? Was that ever a real proposal or was that just a rumor?

That was exactly what they were proposing and lobbying for. They had all these spreadsheets showing how well it worked to have the dividing line be Barton.

Yeah I don’t believe the cherrydale faction intended to be racist/classist but combining Lyon village and Cherrydale SFH definitely would have that outcome.

Most current families at ASFS want to keep the current population And maybe tack on a small walk zone. It’s the usurping Cherrydale families looking to seize the school for their neighborhood who have a scorched earth approach and don’t care if they end up kicking out families with less means.

How did this go from talking about getting more affordable housing spread across Arlington to the crazy ASFS discussion again. I feel sorry for the kids who go there. I wouldn’t want any part of that hatred. This isn’t a war we’re talking about.

Same here. Feel for those kids. I'm sure if parents are name calling here they are doing it in the home too. Sad to see so much disinformation spread. People will always fear what they cannot see and think bad things about others who they truly don't know at all. I'm really glad my kids don't attend and aren't part of this but I don't buy for a minute the "usurping" family descriptors. Sorry - fear monger elsewhere.

You haven’t been at the PTA meetings, it is pretty tense. And when a set of families have designs on taking a school that they do not attend, and actively campaign to have Rosslyn families bused elsewhere b/c they didn’t want their new school over crowded. They met with SB members, so yes active campaigning.

And concern for outsiders influencing our schools interests is far more germane to this thread than any discussion on affordable housing.

Honestly I wish they canned the Arlington way for zone policy; let the staff make a professional recommendation without neighbors infighting

so let me understand ... because "they met with SB members" they were OBVIOUSLY speaking in a manner that negative impacts you? give me a break - again i don't buy the fear mongering.
agree, let the experts do their job and accept their professional recommendations.

I don't know about these folks but I have certainly met with a SB member from time to time and guess what - we only discuss my child, as I imagine most folks who meet with SB members do. They don't go in "obviously" out to get someone else?!?! They are simply parents with concerns about THEIR children they want to discuss and that is their right to do so as it is for every parent.

[Anonymous]

I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to ideas... please.

I understand the small spaces and multiple owners on Lee, but it can be done. And yes, it will cost more up front, but it costs the county and community less in the long run if the schools have some semblance of diversity and poverty is not so concentrated. Unless the regulators here stop seeking as much affordable housing as they can get in the south, and fund a smaller but valuable amount in the north, nothing will change. "Cost" is not just the funding needed to purchase the land. And, studies show that the cost to purchase commercial land in North Arlington is not that much more than south. Someone did a study of purchases over the last decade and it was shocking that in some instances land was more costly in South Arlington.

The American Legion in Clarendon is being redeveloped as entirely affordable housing. It’s a fairly big parcel about 1.25 acres.

And within walking distance of ASFS, Stratford and W-L.

Interesting. I heard that back before the initiative was put on pause, some Cherrydale parents had been proposing a new boundary for ASFS that was basically Cherrydale + Lyon Village (except the couple blocks east of Barton, ie the block where Key sits) and the mostly SFHs in the ASFS walkzone. I guess all the apartments currently in Key/ASFS zone would be sent to Key under that plan? Was that ever a real proposal or was that just a rumor?

That was exactly what they were proposing and lobbying for. They had all these spreadsheets showing how well it worked to have the dividing line be Barton.

Yeah I don’t believe the cherrydale faction intended to be racist/classist but combining Lyon village and Cherrydale SFH definitely would have that outcome.

Most current families at ASFS want to keep the current population And maybe tack on a small walk zone. It’s the usurping Cherrydale families looking to seize the school for their neighborhood who have a scorched earth approach and don’t care if they end up kicking out families with less means.

How did this go from talking about getting more affordable housing spread across Arlington to the crazy ASFS discussion again. I feel sorry for the kids who go there. I wouldn’t want any part of that hatred. This isn’t a war we’re talking about.

Same here. Feel for those kids. I'm sure if parents are name calling here they are doing it in the home too. Sad to see so much disinformation spread. People will always fear what they cannot see and think bad things about others who they truly don't know at all. I'm really glad my kids don't attend and aren't part of this but I don't buy for a minute the "usurping" family descriptors. Sorry - fear monger elsewhere.

You haven’t been at the PTA meetings, it is pretty tense. And when a set of families have designs on taking a school that they do not attend, and actively campaign to have Rosslyn families bused elsewhere b/c they didn’t want their new school over crowded. They met with SB members, so yes active campaigning.

And concern for outsiders influencing our schools interests is far more germane to this thread than any discussion on affordable housing.

Honestly I wish they canned the Arlington way for zone policy; let the staff make a professional recommendation without neighbors infighting

How exactly does a family take a school they don’t attend? Anyone can meet with SB members. If their ideas are crazy as you say they are the SB is not going to listen to them.

APS does need to balance enrollment though so they don’t have to do another boundary process for a very long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to ideas... please.

I understand the small spaces and multiple owners on Lee, but it can be done. And yes, it will cost more up front, but it costs the county and community less in the long run if the schools have some semblance of diversity and poverty is not so concentrated. Unless the regulators here stop seeking as much affordable housing as they can get in the south, and fund a smaller but valuable amount in the north, nothing will change. "Cost" is not just the funding needed to purchase the land. And, studies show that the cost to purchase commercial land in North Arlington is not that much more than south. Someone did a study of purchases over the last decade and it was shocking that in some instances land was more costly in South Arlington.

The American Legion in Clarendon is being redeveloped as entirely affordable housing. It’s a fairly big parcel about 1.25 acres.

And within walking distance of ASFS, Stratford and W-L.

Interesting. I heard that back before the initiative was put on pause, some Cherrydale parents had been proposing a new boundary for ASFS that was basically Cherrydale + Lyon Village (except the couple blocks east of Barton, ie the block where Key sits) and the mostly SFHs in the ASFS walkzone. I guess all the apartments currently in Key/ASFS zone would be sent to Key under that plan? Was that ever a real proposal or was that just a rumor?

That was exactly what they were proposing and lobbying for. They had all these spreadsheets showing how well it worked to have the dividing line be Barton.

Yeah I don’t believe the cherrydale faction intended to be racist/classist but combining Lyon village and Cherrydale SFH definitely would have that outcome.

Most current families at ASFS want to keep the current population And maybe tack on a small walk zone. It’s the usurping Cherrydale families looking to seize the school for their neighborhood who have a scorched earth approach and don’t care if they end up kicking out families with less means.

How did this go from talking about getting more affordable housing spread across Arlington to the crazy ASFS discussion again. I feel sorry for the kids who go there. I wouldn’t want any part of that hatred. This isn’t a war we’re talking about.

Same here. Feel for those kids. I'm sure if parents are name calling here they are doing it in the home too. Sad to see so much disinformation spread. People will always fear what they cannot see and think bad things about others who they truly don't know at all. I'm really glad my kids don't attend and aren't part of this but I don't buy for a minute the "usurping" family descriptors. Sorry - fear monger elsewhere.

You haven’t been at the PTA meetings, it is pretty tense. And when a set of families have designs on taking a school that they do not attend, and actively campaign to have Rosslyn families bused elsewhere b/c they didn’t want their new school over crowded. They met with SB members, so yes active campaigning.

And concern for outsiders influencing our schools interests is far more germane to this thread than any discussion on affordable housing.

Honestly I wish they canned the Arlington way for zone policy; let the staff make a professional recommendation without neighbors infighting

How exactly does a family take a school they don’t attend? Anyone can meet with SB members. If their ideas are crazy as you say they are the SB is not going to listen to them.

APS does need to balance enrollment though so they don’t have to do another boundary process for a very long time.

APS policy is to review boundaries at each level no less than every five years. The county is growing and changing too rapidly for anyone to expect that the boundaries drawn now will be around for anything more than five years. Realistic expectations, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

1. You don't have to be in the current school zone to speak to the school board about where the school's boundaries should be. Anyone is allowed to opine about the boundaries anywhere. As a Discovery parent, I am perfectly within my rights to speak to the school board about where I think the Fleet boundaries should be. It is up to the school board member to decide whether my suggestions make sense.

2a. ASFS's PTA is governed by the National PTA, and as such is not allowed to limit its membership to only current school families; the National PTA requires that every member PTA "shall be open, without discrimination, to anyone who believes in and supports the mission and purposes of National PTA." You don't even need to have kids to be allowed to join a PTA. Thus, those other families who felt they had an interest in ASFS PTA governance (such as because they expected they may be members of the school community in the future) were perfectly within their rights to join the ASFS PTA.

2b. Any alleged bullying (which, based on your post, appears to have been committed by current ASFS community members rather than by these outside members) is the sole responsibility of those doing the actual bullying.

3. See 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

how can you join the PTA if you are neither a parent or a teacher?

I have heard a similar story from several sources. It’s fine to advocate for your kid, but to push for other neighbors kids is beyond the pale.

And please getting from Rosslyn to Taylor be Cherrydale to Taylor is a whole ‘nother beast.

Having this an issue for 2019 and 2021 is terrible , b/c you get two chances for strife to form

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

1. You don't have to be in the current school zone to speak to the school board about where the school's boundaries should be. Anyone is allowed to opine about the boundaries anywhere. As a Discovery parent, I am perfectly within my rights to speak to the school board about where I think the Fleet boundaries should be. It is up to the school board member to decide whether my suggestions make sense.

2a. ASFS's PTA is governed by the National PTA, and as such is not allowed to limit its membership to only current school families; the National PTA requires that every member PTA "shall be open, without discrimination, to anyone who believes in and supports the mission and purposes of National PTA." You don't even need to have kids to be allowed to join a PTA. Thus, those other families who felt they had an interest in ASFS PTA governance (such as because they expected they may be members of the school community in the future) were perfectly within their rights to join the ASFS PTA.

2b. Any alleged bullying (which, based on your post, appears to have been committed by current ASFS community members rather than by these outside members) is the sole responsibility of those doing the actual bullying.

3. See 1.

Discovery parent, my a$$.

I’m sure So Arlington parents would welcome suggestions from a No Arlington parent on their bondaries, you are a piece of work.

You don’t join a school PTA you don’t attend with the intention of influencing the leadership and election. Sure you want to know when the class Picnic is, great.

And the parents in rosslyn being pushed out are generally two working families of much more limited means and making the PTA is much more of a challlenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

1. You don't have to be in the current school zone to speak to the school board about where the school's boundaries should be. Anyone is allowed to opine about the boundaries anywhere. As a Discovery parent, I am perfectly within my rights to speak to the school board about where I think the Fleet boundaries should be. It is up to the school board member to decide whether my suggestions make sense.

2a. ASFS's PTA is governed by the National PTA, and as such is not allowed to limit its membership to only current school families; the National PTA requires that every member PTA "shall be open, without discrimination, to anyone who believes in and supports the mission and purposes of National PTA." You don't even need to have kids to be allowed to join a PTA. Thus, those other families who felt they had an interest in ASFS PTA governance (such as because they expected they may be members of the school community in the future) were perfectly within their rights to join the ASFS PTA.

2b. Any alleged bullying (which, based on your post, appears to have been committed by current ASFS community members rather than by these outside members) is the sole responsibility of those doing the actual bullying.

3. See 1.

Discovery parent, my a$$.

I’m sure So Arlington parents would welcome suggestions from a No Arlington parent on their bondaries, you are a piece of work.

You don’t join a school PTA you don’t attend with the intention of influencing the leadership and election. Sure you want to know when the class Picnic is, great.

And the parents in rosslyn being pushed out are generally two working families of much more limited means and making the PTA is much more of a challlenge.

Yes, I am a Discovery parent. And when I said in an earlier post that both sides were insufferable at times, this is you being insufferable.

When boundaries are drawn, ASFS will be within its own boundary. The school board has been very clear about this, so the boundaries will have to change to accommodate it. Most likely planning unit 23170 will be as well since it's definitively within the ASFS walk zone. Based on the location review analysis, these two planning units will fill only about 18% of the school's capacity, leaving 82% to be filled by other planning units. There are a lot of different ways boundaries can be drawn to fill that 82%, so stop losing your head about how including those two planning units in ASFS means everyone in Rosslyn is going to be kicked out, because you simply do not know this to be true and screaming it anyway makes you look like a lunatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seem to recall the First Amendment specifically protects the right to petition the government. Surely no one here would advocate for anyone's Constitutional rights to be constrained based on the substance of their advocacy.

I think the PP point was that just because other parents from your school advocate on behalf of their child does not necessarily mean they are also advocating against someone else. it is possible to simply advocate for what you want for your child alone without saying something about someone else's child.

I wasn't taking issue with that person's post, but rather with 16:07 who made the original complaint about people meeting with SB members to discuss boundaries, as if that were somehow inherently inappropriate.

i agree with you and add that maybe folks should not think the worse of others - just because parents are meeting with SB members does not necessarily mean they are saying something bad about other people - they may just be talking about their own children

So a few things are of note:
1. The people meeting with the school board do not attend asfs. They met in a large group (20-30 parents), and about half of them either were rising k children or parents of kids that currently attend Taylor.
2. These same non-asfs parents joined the asfs pta en masse to influence the asfs pta election. Who knows what theirmotivation was there. I can’t think of any good reason why people with child age kids would join a pta for a school they do not currently attend. When a large number of actual current asfs parents asked where these random parents came from, those current asfs parents were bullied by members of the cherrydale parents who have kids at asfs. Imagine mean texts, verbal cut downs at soccer games and school events, telling their kids that they aren’t allowed to play with so and so because that kids parents are trying to destroy the school. Totally inappropriate behavior. I don’t care what your personal stance on this is, but bullying is not right and this is not important enough to invite strangers into our community.
3. These same non-asfs parents showed up at pta meetings that school board meetings were present. At those meetings they kept lamenting: “those kids from the key zone are overcrowding our school. They’re taking resources from the rest of our kids. You promised us a walk zone.” Keep in mind these parents don’t have kids at asfs. I can’t imagine anyone who is an actual member of the community saying those hurtful borderline racist things!

This behavior is at best strange and at worst unhinged. So yes both side is insufferable, but the parents from the walk zone crossed so many lines.

1. You don't have to be in the current school zone to speak to the school board about where the school's boundaries should be. Anyone is allowed to opine about the boundaries anywhere. As a Discovery parent, I am perfectly within my rights to speak to the school board about where I think the Fleet boundaries should be. It is up to the school board member to decide whether my suggestions make sense.

2a. ASFS's PTA is governed by the National PTA, and as such is not allowed to limit its membership to only current school families; the National PTA requires that every member PTA "shall be open, without discrimination, to anyone who believes in and supports the mission and purposes of National PTA." You don't even need to have kids to be allowed to join a PTA. Thus, those other families who felt they had an interest in ASFS PTA governance (such as because they expected they may be members of the school community in the future) were perfectly within their rights to join the ASFS PTA.

2b. Any alleged bullying (which, based on your post, appears to have been committed by current ASFS community members rather than by these outside members) is the sole responsibility of those doing the actual bullying.

3. See 1.

Discovery parent, my a$$.

I’m sure So Arlington parents would welcome suggestions from a No Arlington parent on their bondaries, you are a piece of work.

You don’t join a school PTA you don’t attend with the intention of influencing the leadership and election. Sure you want to know when the class Picnic is, great.

And the parents in rosslyn being pushed out are generally two working families of much more limited means and making the PTA is much more of a challlenge.

Yes, I am a Discovery parent. And when I said in an earlier post that both sides were insufferable at times, this is you being insufferable.

When boundaries are drawn, ASFS will be within its own boundary. The school board has been very clear about this, so the boundaries will have to change to accommodate it. Most likely planning unit 23170 will be as well since it's definitively within the ASFS walk zone. Based on the location review analysis, these two planning units will fill only about 18% of the school's capacity, leaving 82% to be filled by other planning units. There are a lot of different ways boundaries can be drawn to fill that 82%, so stop losing your head about how including those two planning units in ASFS means everyone in Rosslyn is going to be kicked out, because you simply do not know this to be true and screaming it anyway makes you look like a lunatic.

+1