Reply to Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.
[/quote]

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward.  It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students.  There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and [b]CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs,[/b] say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's [u]not an expansion[/u], it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!
[/quote]

This is yet another load of crap. I simply don't know how to engage with someone whose definition of a wild personal attack is a CWG member asking direct, clearly articulated questions of the elected official posting misinformation. To make matters worse, said elected official responsible for posting misinformation replied to the listserv, saying "These are great questions to ask." He then stated that the source of his claims is "the Chancellor's announcement about the new school." Finally, he asked that this discussion being handled privately instead of on the listserv.

The CWG member then replied to the listserv that the elected official's reply was unsatisfactory. He posted the actual language from the Chancellor's announcement and asked directly -- again clearly articulated -- how this language could be construed to support the initial misinformation the elected official led off with. He further said that since the misinformation was spread on the listserv, understanding that it is, in fact, misinformation is important for the entire listserv readership to read.

Bottom line, the elected official was revealed to be regaling his readers with straight misinformation for the purposes of fear-mongering. The CWG member did not engage in "wild personal attacks" but, rather, provided an incredibly valuable, albeit uncomfortable, public service. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics