Specifically on-topic contributors to the Drew boundary issue only please -

[Anonymous]

Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

[Anonymous]

Maybe APS will just move Columbia Heights AND S. Fairlington and be done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe APS will just move Columbia Heights AND S. Fairlington and be done with it.

That’s what I’m going to support in my email

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

There are other PUs that could be moved into Henry to avoid that school becoming too wealthy and white. I didnt like the Orange Shirts, don't like the Green shirts, not a fan of Yellow (?) shirts

--Not Becki, but served on SAWG and think any promises made by staff or former SB members to the Henry community are no longer relevant, and certainly aren't more important than giving the majority of South Arlington students sensible boundaries that also provide better demographic balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

The reason I posted all of that to being with is a think it's silly that's there's this perfectly good community that will help bring the FARMs rate down that's adjacent to the school but nobody wants to talk about it.

I'm cool with moving some of Oakridge too but which planning units?

[Anonymous]

Agreed. This is verging on cyber bullying. She has been very open with all of her posts on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

If you really don't want your school to NOT get "more rich and white" your number one priority should be to get a CAF building in your zone. Fleet/Henry doesn't have any; that is why your farms rate has gone down by 35 points since 2002. It will keep going down as rents go up. Keeping the PUs south of the Pike won't help your stated goal of preserving your schools diversity, not for long if at all. I would take Henry's "diversity" argument at face value if the keep Henry together people were also saying, "hey, please send us Gilliam Place: we want the diversity, it's as close to our school as all the units currently going to Henry south of the pike, and it's a guarantee for the foreseeable future that we will have a significant number of disadvantaged kids. Our students will benefit from goi to class with kids from a very different background, and they will benefit from a well resourced community that welcomes them for who they are. But you're not doing that. Why? So Barcroft can climb to 70% farms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

If you really don't want your school to NOT get "more rich and white" your number one priority should be to get a CAF building in your zone. Fleet/Henry doesn't have any; that is why your farms rate has gone down by 35 points since 2002. It will keep going down as rents go up. Keeping the PUs south of the Pike won't help your stated goal of preserving your schools diversity, not for long if at all. I would take Henry's "diversity" argument at face value if the keep Henry together people were also saying, "hey, please send us Gilliam Place: we want the diversity, it's as close to our school as all the units currently going to Henry south of the pike, and it's a guarantee for the foreseeable future that we will have a significant number of disadvantaged kids. Our students will benefit from goi to class with kids from a very different background, and they will benefit from a well resourced community that welcomes them for who they are. But you're not doing that. Why? So Barcroft can climb to 70% farms?

I am PP and I did ask for Alcova Heights to be split so that Gilliam place could go to Fleet but the UMC single family homes could stay at Barcroft. We are also picking up 2 Alcova Heights PUs that have higher FARMS. On the downside, we are losing a higher-farms apartment building in Penrose. I would like for that PU to stay at fleet.

[Anonymous]

I’m late to the grilling here:

But if you are going to call people out by name, you should sign your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

If you really don't want your school to NOT get "more rich and white" your number one priority should be to get a CAF building in your zone. Fleet/Henry doesn't have any; that is why your farms rate has gone down by 35 points since 2002. It will keep going down as rents go up. Keeping the PUs south of the Pike won't help your stated goal of preserving your schools diversity, not for long if at all. I would take Henry's "diversity" argument at face value if the keep Henry together people were also saying, "hey, please send us Gilliam Place: we want the diversity, it's as close to our school as all the units currently going to Henry south of the pike, and it's a guarantee for the foreseeable future that we will have a significant number of disadvantaged kids. Our students will benefit from goi to class with kids from a very different background, and they will benefit from a well resourced community that welcomes them for who they are. But you're not doing that. Why? So Barcroft can climb to 70% farms?

I am PP and I did ask for Alcova Heights to be split so that Gilliam place could go to Fleet but the UMC single family homes could stay at Barcroft. We are also picking up 2 Alcova Heights PUs that have higher FARMS. On the downside, we are losing a higher-farms apartment building in Penrose. I would like for that PU to stay at fleet.

That's great. I'll take your word for it. It's too bad Henry didn't do that collectively, in sure if they had, the proposal map would have actually put Gilliam at Fleet. Lord knows that the South of the pike PUs are only at Fleet in the proposal because of such lobbying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. This is verging on cyber bullying. She has been very open with all of her posts on social media.

Posting anonymous pot shots at Becki, who is easily recognizable to those of us who read AEM, in a public forum creates an imbalance of power. I agree that this is cyber bullying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what Fairlington is saying right now on its FB page:

"This group of neighbors gathered at Abingdon tonight to stand #FairlingtonUnited! Join us in telling the school board that we are one Fairlington community and we all have a right to continue attending our neighborhood school, Abingdon!"

How exactly is that sabtoging Henry? I know the person who started the commenting on Fairlington's FB pages, and she's definitely not out to hurt Henry. She pays attention to this stuff, and knew that most of Fairlington thought they were "safe" from having to worry about being re-districted.

I wish APS would just go the Fairfax route and just tell people instead of engaging in this crazy process that does nothing but pit neighbors and neighborhoods against each other.

AMEN!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. This is verging on cyber bullying. She has been very open with all of her posts on social media.

Posting anonymous pot shots at Becki, who is easily recognizable to those of us who read AEM, in a public forum creates an imbalance of power. I agree that this is cyber bullying.

You’re right. It was a stupid thing to do. I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, not BK, but what did you guys expect? That we can’t read or see proximity? This is supposed to be a Drew thread but is now dominated by ppl crying crocodile tears over getting more rich (when the alternative is creating a school at least 2/3 low income) and whining that outsiders should just sit down and shut up (and accept some bs gerrymandered boundary). No wonder you don’t want to post on Aem.

You are setting up a false choice. Columbia Heights is not the ONLY option for lowering Drew’s FARMS rate. Personally, I’d like to see some options where more Oakridge units are drawn in. And lots of people have posted on AEM about why we want to stay together, but when you are saying we are crying “crocodile tears” you perpetuate the hate. And by the way, I live north of CP and yes, I don’t want my school to get more rich and white. So FU for saying otherwise.

The reason I posted all of that to being with is a think it's silly that's there's this perfectly good community that will help bring the FARMs rate down that's adjacent to the school but nobody wants to talk about it.

I'm cool with moving some of Oakridge too but which planning units?

So here's the conundrum with the Oakridge units, one that I think staff couldn't solve, so they moved none: since the time of SAWG, The Berkely has been "saved" by AHC and is being doubled in size (no. of overall units) and many of the 155 CAFs will be family-sized units. There's no way to grab the higher income Oakridge PUs while maintaining contiguity and not also taking that CAF currently under construction to Drew, not to mention really ignoring walk zones and putting a bunch of walkers onto a bus that will actually drive past their previous school. They've drawn a pretty fair and balanced boundary for both Oakridge and Hoffman-Boston. Now they need to tweak the rest.