Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Dude, it's dead. The overwhelming feedback was about not just Reeb but also the K-12 vision that divided the county E/W rather than N/S. Guess who doesn't like that? Trust that this is dead. RG is one person, out of five.

Wait. E/W is moving forward with how they are splitting immersion, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Dude, it's dead. The overwhelming feedback was about not just Reeb but also the K-12 vision that divided the county E/W rather than N/S. Guess who doesn't like that? Trust that this is dead. RG is one person, out of five.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:39 - would you have said this if you were zoned for Discovery in its first year of operations? That was a complete unknown - brand new building, new principal, new staff. The building was barely even finished when kids moved in, and kids were moved in from 3 different schools. Or is your view just based on the new school being in South Arlington?

Serisouly? Get your head out of your ass.

Anonymous wrote:Also, remember Claremont is not going to have a neighborhood guarantee any longer. So those kids have to be dispersed. I think a lot of them will be pulled into Drew. This is going to be such a CF. I think there's a good chance that some of the option programs get moved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume option at Randolph is off the table. The overwhelming feedback they received was about REED. Can we just once, this one time, actually speak up for our wishes and not let north Arlington dictate everything? Westover is a mess and they want another neighborhood school, so of course they pitched a fit at Reed becoming IB choice. Fine, let that be.
But we shouldn’t let that derail us from something that would be beneficial for us. RG is still on board with this idea.

Anonymous wrote:7:39 - would you have said this if you were zoned for Discovery in its first year of operations? That was a complete unknown - brand new building, new principal, new staff. The building was barely even finished when kids moved in, and kids were moved in from 3 different schools. Or is your view just based on the new school being in South Arlington?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.

I think I am (one) of the PP you're referring to. I'm not implying that they're worthless. Or without merit in some cases. You're just super late to the party. There have been a series of events unfolding since 2015 that have gotten us here, and I think a lot of decisions have already been made, by default. A school opens in a new location= it gets a new boundary. It may not be radically different, but I think there are going to be some PU's that are further away who don't make the cut. Especially since they decided to move Montessori out of Drew and redraw the Drew boundary. That decision triggered a lot of this. If you've followed the SB meetings over the last few years, as regards boundaries, it's pretty clear the direction they're going in. Granted, we have a new member, but the rest of them have shown what they're thinking and it's really all about proximity for all but one member. But one or even two dissenting votes doesn't get it done. There have been chances to weigh in on various initiatives, including one that would have made Randolph an option school, but the feedback they received about that was SO overwhelmingly negative that it's not going to happen. That idea has disappeared from the conversation entirely. Poof! So, we are where we are. Do I think all these things are going to be good for every school or every family? No. But bringing up ideas that have already been defeated does not help.

Anonymous wrote:Several (or perhaps it’s just one) posters have mentioned previous meetings, and implied that all of the suggestions here are worthless. That’s interesting.
I’d love to hear their thoughts on what is likely to happen.