S/O - What’s up with AEM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate here, a lot of the "race-baiting" can also be seen as pushing UMC white folks (like me) to consider our implicit biases. A PP posted: "If a black child was dissuaded or incorrectly told they had to do something to take an AP class or whatever, it is because the child is black. Full stop." The implicit point in the post, leading to the PP's conclusion that such accusations would chill the teacher/counselor from giving good advice, is that the teacher/counselor had a valid reason and that it wasn't just because the child is black. But none of us know that for a fact as applied to any particular situation. If a black parent is saying that's the issue and the teacher is saying that's not the issue, why do we assume the black parent is wrong and the teacher is right? Why would we not consider that as a possibility? It's not considered polite to talk about race anymore among the white community, which is fine and dandy when it comes to no longer making gross generalizations about minorities/people of color, but it's also a convenient way to shut down points about things that white folks continue to do to preserve their own privilege.

In addition, a lot of the recent racially tinged discussion began with the infamous "whitesplaining" post during the boundary discussion. That post was largely correct. The historically black community around Drew had been asked what it wanted and said what it wanted. At the last minute, white outsiders to that community came in and said, no you don't understand THIS would be better for you. The proposal may have come from a good place, but it was absolutely contrary to what the community clearly said it wanted and it was billed as "what's best" for that community. Whitesplaining was a provocative way to put it, but that is in fact what was going on.

All that said, the political posts, from Parisa vs. Theo to whether charter schools are a good idea, are ridiculous and detract from real discussion of issues. I generally think less of everyone who posts on those threads because they have such poor reasoning skills. And the reason they have such poor reasoning skills is that they are never tested by having to defend their positions outside of the echo chamber. That's the real problem with all of this political correctness.

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Okay, but again, why not just take a minute to consider whether whiteness has anything to do with the system of higher education and how we assess merit and prestige? What does it cost you to think about that? Are you really that insulted to be called white? The comment was obnoxious but the point may be valid.

DP - not insulted to be called white; but I don't appreciate being equated with elitist or racist or privileged because I happen to be white. That's just as prejudicial and racist as a white person making generalized comments or equating "Black" with something. And yes, I get the systemic "privileges" bestowed to all white people by virtue of being white; but it doesn't mean all white people have the attitudes or actually are privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had to take AEM out of my news feed because it was raising my blood pressure. I've left the group once before, and I think I just need to do it again. I consider myself pretty liberal, but I'm genuinely conflicted on the CA race and that makes me a racist on AEM. F that.

I hear ya!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To play devil's advocate here, a lot of the "race-baiting" can also be seen as pushing UMC white folks (like me) to consider our implicit biases. A PP posted: "If a black child was dissuaded or incorrectly told they had to do something to take an AP class or whatever, it is because the child is black. Full stop." The implicit point in the post, leading to the PP's conclusion that such accusations would chill the teacher/counselor from giving good advice, is that the teacher/counselor had a valid reason and that it wasn't just because the child is black. But none of us know that for a fact as applied to any particular situation. If a black parent is saying that's the issue and the teacher is saying that's not the issue, why do we assume the black parent is wrong and the teacher is right? Why would we not consider that as a possibility? It's not considered polite to talk about race anymore among the white community, which is fine and dandy when it comes to no longer making gross generalizations about minorities/people of color, but it's also a convenient way to shut down points about things that white folks continue to do to preserve their own privilege.

In addition, a lot of the recent racially tinged discussion began with the infamous "whitesplaining" post during the boundary discussion. That post was largely correct. The historically black community around Drew had been asked what it wanted and said what it wanted. At the last minute, white outsiders to that community came in and said, no you don't understand THIS would be better for you. The proposal may have come from a good place, but it was absolutely contrary to what the community clearly said it wanted and it was billed as "what's best" for that community. Whitesplaining was a provocative way to put it, but that is in fact what was going on.

All that said, the political posts, from Parisa vs. Theo to whether charter schools are a good idea, are ridiculous and detract from real discussion of issues. I generally think less of everyone who posts on those threads because they have such poor reasoning skills. And the reason they have such poor reasoning skills is that they are never tested by having to defend their positions outside of the echo chamber. That's the real problem with all of this political correctness.

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Okay, but again, why not just take a minute to consider whether whiteness has anything to do with the system of higher education and how we assess merit and prestige? What does it cost you to think about that? Are you really that insulted to be called white? The comment was obnoxious but the point may be valid.

DP - not insulted to be called white; but I don't appreciate being equated with elitist or racist or privileged because I happen to be white. That's just as prejudicial and racist as a white person making generalized comments or equating "Black" with something. And yes, I get the systemic "privileges" bestowed to all white people by virtue of being white; but it doesn't mean all white people have the attitudes or actually are privileged.

Exactly. If someone doesn’t want all of their race to be viewed as a monolith, then it’s logical not to do the same to others. It’s very hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

And then of course the SB didn’t fill Drew, doing Drew and the rest of Arlington a disservice. In the next boundary change, one has to imagine NA will go bananas if a NA school is over capacity and Drew is still under. That didn’t happen this time because all the players didn’t want to go to Drew and weren’t going to complain so long as they weren’t at Drew. But someone living North of Lee Highway will. And they have every right and solid grounding to do so. They will be called racist. Told to bus their kid to Drew if they want an under capacity school. But it will all show the absolute ridiculousness of what the SB just did. You cannot have some schools sitting overcapacity and others under immediately after a boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

This is not exactly accurate. The idea was to make Drew science focus so that there wouldn’t be a fight to stay out of it, but more of a fight to get into it. The problem is the idea wasn’t presented clearly enough and the immediate reaction was you are a racist for even having an idea about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

This is not exactly accurate. The idea was to make Drew science focus so that there wouldn’t be a fight to stay out of it, but more of a fight to get into it. The problem is the idea wasn’t presented clearly enough and the immediate reaction was you are a racist for even having an idea about it.

I said arguably akin. I know the author didn't design it to be the same as the two programs/one school thing. But the issue remains: it was presented in a "this is best for you" kind of way, from a white community to a black community. As I understand the at-issue term, leaving aside whether I think it's a useful or productive one, that's pretty much what it means. And I think the reason it was used was to get people to consider the history and context that were also in play, separate and apart from the merits of the idea or the chaos of the boundary process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

Oh and you’re racist for not wanting to be zoned to a historically underperforming school or a school with a high FARMS rate. But also, if minorities don’t want to attend a school with those characteristics, those concerns are totally legitimate and we should fix that! It’s only racist to care about school qualities when you’re white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

I expressed the sentiment when the rezoning happened and I was told that the community really doesn’t feel that way. It was a few outspoken people. The PTA president publicly made a few statements I found less than desirable for someone in her shoes at the time, but I’m able to overlook that. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing and I definitely see both sides.

[Anonymous]

Oh and I’m not clued in enough to know if this is true, but apparently at least one of the “whitesplaining” posters doesn’t live in Nauck. I think there were several Montessori families who felt entitled to speak on behalf of Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

Talk to some of the "old timer" Black residents directly - they specifically have complained about other people coming into their neighborhood to attend their neighborhood school. And they ARE getting their neighborhood school and not another hybrid. So if that's the only point, what's the problem?

I expect those comments were based on Montessori being located there and dominating the neighborhood program in size, resources, attention, and performance for years.

There is no problem. I was trying to explain the context of the "whitesplaining" comment and why I believe it was a mostly correct observation, if provocative.

I understand why black residents of Nauck felt like there was whitesplaining. But I also understand why that comment would discourage residents of other races from wanting to attend Drew. Are white parents of kids at Drew allowed to express opinions about what is best for the school? Are they allowed to have any say when it comes to school policies? I wouldn’t feel welcomed or encouraged to join the Drew community if I were another race. The message received was this is the long promised neighborhood school for black residents, and everyone else zoned in is there to fill seats but shut up because this school is not actually for them.

Oh and you’re racist for not wanting to be zoned to a historically underperforming school or a school with a high FARMS rate. But also, if minorities don’t want to attend a school with those characteristics, those concerns are totally legitimate and we should fix that! It’s only racist to care about school qualities when you’re white.

Yeah, I think it was hard for some of the Montessori posters to see what is/was at stake because those who live in Nauck choiced out themselves but insisted they were told to do so by the former principal, etc. Understandably there were a lot of emotions involved from those who were coming from Henry - but I don’t think they did a great job of articulating their concerns either. No one was really trying to listen to each other and it was tough to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That all gets lost with comments like: “whi.....I mean elitist"

Sorry, I disagree a bit here. Every community in Arlington says what it wants; but does not necessarily get it. Yeah, the wealthy white communities in the north get it more than not. However, the Black community of Nauck wants its own neighborhood school. They don't want anyone from outside their neighborhood coming to "their promised neighborhood school." Again, sorry; but no neighborhood gets that. Randolph ES is probably the closest thing to it; but even the majority of those students are technically from outside the Douglas Park neighborhood. I don't believe the Black community around Drew said it specifically wanted an 80% FRL neighborhood school. Even if they did, I don't think it's right to let them have that.

The issue that was specifically the subject of the comment was whether Drew would be a neighborhood school or some sort of hybrid, arguably akin to what it previously had with Montessori. It is true that not every community gets what it wants, but typically that plays out as everyone else saying, you can't have that b/c it's not best for Arlington, and not, you can't have that b/c it's not best for YOU.

There is zero basis to say that the black community and/or Nauck didn't want anyone outside the neighborhood going to "their" school. Zero. The boundary process was about figuring out how to fill Drew, and about all the other nearby communities fighting to stay out of Drew. To the extent there was a coherent Drew voice or movement, it generally just wanted a reasonable boundary. (If you're one of those conspiracy theory folks about how Drew "didn't want" SF or something, nonsense. I was there and that is not true.)

This is not exactly accurate. The idea was to make Drew science focus so that there wouldn’t be a fight to stay out of it, but more of a fight to get into it. The problem is the idea wasn’t presented clearly enough and the immediate reaction was you are a racist for even having an idea about it.

I said arguably akin. I know the author didn't design it to be the same as the two programs/one school thing. But the issue remains: it was presented in a "this is best for you" kind of way, from a white community to a black community. As I understand the at-issue term, leaving aside whether I think it's a useful or productive one, that's pretty much what it means. And I think the reason it was used was to get people to consider the history and context that were also in play, separate and apart from the merits of the idea or the chaos of the boundary process.

This is PP. I disagree that it was “arguably akin,” but I can’t disagree with the rest of your statement. The whole thing was a mistake, and the originator apologized and recognized that well-intentioned people can do unintentionally racist things. But the way it played out was awful and hurtful—and not just because of white fragility. I just wish that people would at least try to recognize when people are trying to be on the good side and make a mistake.