APS Boundary tool--anyone get it to work yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

100% agree. And the only way to address it is to balance out the demographics. They've got to send some higher-income planning units there. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a south Arlington parent of a toddler. High school is many years away for my family, but I'm following the discussion. We are inbetween gen x and millenials and were never concerned with Wakefield. Is this a generational divide, or will we change our tune as we get closer to middle school? Do you think the younger middle class families moving into south Arlington will stick around for high school?

As a South Arlington parent of children still 10 years away from high school myself, I can tell you that countless pages of DCUM threads haven't been able to answer that for me. I'm hoping families will stick around. We certainly intend to and are already trying to get involved with the community to the extent we can, using the pool, going to theater productions, following athletic results. One of my primary concerns has been that the school board will take action in some way to alienate the cautious young families who are moving in, but currently I'm cautiously optimistic that won't happen. As I understand it, the historical trend has been less a south to north thing and more an Arlington to Fairfax thing, and that trend has been slowing so I'm hopeful that the people who have gone South Arlington did so because they intend to stay. Unless the county/school board does something to make them want to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

[Anonymous]

I really wish you guys would take a moment and write to the county board. We are in this mess because of terrible housing policy. They need to be made accountable for their actions.

I can't believe I am considering voting in Clement, god help me. I don't know what else will get their attention. It's business as usual until they get smacked in the face. I don't think a fourth high school is in the cards no matter what we do, so it's not like Clement can hurt that. Garvey kicked this ridiculous can down the road when she was on the school board. She gets rewarded by a seat at the county board and wants a raise to boot. I just can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

Where is this being discussed on ArlNow? I can't find a thread. (Not sure I want to.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

say what now? Seriously, is that on the link? What the what? Are they saying those things are at Wakefield? ARE those things at Wakefield? No. really? No. really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

Where is this being discussed on ArlNow? I can't find a thread. (Not sure I want to.)

It was an editorial last week maybe? Search "boundary" - that should find it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

say what now? Seriously, is that on the link? What the what? Are they saying those things are at Wakefield? ARE those things at Wakefield? No. really? No. really?

This was said at the meeting last night, a concern expressed by a parent. I don't have kids at Wakefield but have no reason to believe those things are true other than reputationally.

[Anonymous]

^^ i haven't watched the entire video of the meeting. Does it include the arlington forest parents freaking out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ i haven't watched the entire video of the meeting. Does it include the arlington forest parents freaking out?

Nevermind. It doesn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

say what now? Seriously, is that on the link? What the what? Are they saying those things are at Wakefield? ARE those things at Wakefield? No. really? No. really?

This was said at the meeting last night, a concern expressed by a parent. I don't have kids at Wakefield but have no reason to believe those things are true other than reputationally.

I thought I heard a Spanish-speaking woman say that through the interpreter last night. I don't know if she was making those comments herself or if she was responding to them--it was hard to hear the interpreter, and I wasn't there for the entire discussion that preceded it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ i haven't watched the entire video of the meeting. Does it include the arlington forest parents freaking out?

Nevermind. It doesn't

No. They didn't video the breakout discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

say what now? Seriously, is that on the link? What the what? Are they saying those things are at Wakefield? ARE those things at Wakefield? No. really? No. really?

This was said at the meeting last night, a concern expressed by a parent. I don't have kids at Wakefield but have no reason to believe those things are true other than reputationally.

I thought I heard a Spanish-speaking woman say that through the interpreter last night. I don't know if she was making those comments herself or if she was responding to them--it was hard to hear the interpreter, and I wasn't there for the entire discussion that preceded it.

I'm the PP. I understand enough Spanish to believe she was saying she had heard those things. She was a W-L parent so I don't think she would have had firsthand knowledge but rather was expressing concerns. I found it not a little ironic, since I have to imagine her child or children fits within the stereotype that makes people believe those things about Wakefield in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't expect these issues, because they see no differences between the schools. All children will thrive at any arlington school. They all have excellent faculty Etc etc..
At least they were responsible enough to prioritize demographics.

And to the above poster who mentioned moving the same number of each group to each school- that won't work. You can't add more to a school that is at capacity.

Then they are really out of touch with their constituents. Because while I do not disagree that a student can get an excellent education at any of the three schools, there is an obvious and palpable sense within the general public (not south Arlington) that Wakefiled is inferior. And part of me is glad that they were witness to the way many regularly denigrate Wakefield and the students who attend. They need to address this, and it won't be by capitulating to those who feel they are "entitled" to something more because of a real estate transaction.

Jeez- just check out that Arlnow comments. Someone referred to Wakefield as " the unwashed masses" and the "people who work with their hands". It's bad yo.

I prefer the somewhat ironic tone of those comments to "drugs, gangs, and prostitution" which was heard last night.

say what now? Seriously, is that on the link? What the what? Are they saying those things are at Wakefield? ARE those things at Wakefield? No. really? No. really?

This was said at the meeting last night, a concern expressed by a parent. I don't have kids at Wakefield but have no reason to believe those things are true other than reputationally.

I thought I heard a Spanish-speaking woman say that through the interpreter last night. I don't know if she was making those comments herself or if she was responding to them--it was hard to hear the interpreter, and I wasn't there for the entire discussion that preceded it.

I'm the PP. I understand enough Spanish to believe she was saying she had heard those things. She was a W-L parent so I don't think she would have had firsthand knowledge but rather was expressing concerns. I found it not a little ironic, since I have to imagine her child or children fits within the stereotype that makes people believe those things about Wakefield in the first place.

Thanks! Did you also hear the woman who said something about men exposing themselves? I could not follow what she was saying (through the interpreter) or what she was referring to with that comment.