Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Not everyone's life centers around W-L under any name. I am am (following your "are are" example) stupidly entrenched in elementary school boundary changes, which I naively believe is far more important in reflecting our values and providing education than the name of a high school. But rest assured, I am now "up to spend" (I may be stupid, but I assume you meant "speed") on the basics. However, I'm still ignorantly wondering who came up with the suggestion in the first place - was the committee handed a list to work from or did the committee develop the original list?

The whole process seems ridiculous to me. If "Lee" is the objection, just drop "Lee" and be George Washington HS Generals. I'd prefer Quincy HS. But I'm too ignorant, so I'll assume that's a stupid idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

DP here (obviously) - you can read this:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WL-Renaming-Comm-Minutes-11-14-18-Final.pdf

thank you.

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about what is so bad about naming a school after the Lovings. It seems like a cool name to me.

Just curious, but...
What other things do you find confusing?

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

My 9th grade DD at W-L agrees with your son and my 3 recent W-L graduates each say not once did they hear anyone complain about the current name and think it’s a waste of money to rename it but if it’s going to be renamed, that Washington- Loving makes no sense. They all prefer to be still known as the Generals. That is what each of them takes pride in.

I’m confused about what is so bad about naming a school after the Lovings. It seems like a cool name to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

What do they like?

I’m guessing Washington and Lee.

Anonymous wrote:I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

What do they like?

I asked my son who goes to W-L about the name and he said all the kids think it's awful and if they name his school that he's transferring to Wakefield.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yorktown and Wakefield share names with the streets they are on. Let’s just go with Quincy High. Make it all consistent.

That would make it Stafford High, not Quincy High, but Stafford was probably some white guy, so we can’t have that.

Wakefield is technically on Dinwiddie. I like Quincy High better than Stafford. Might get confused with middle school — Stratford.
Anything but Washington and Loving.

I’m all for Nat turner, but is naming a school after him really enough?
Shouldn’t we hatchet a few three year olds over near Tuckahoe while we’re at it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Let’s not call anyone ignorant. But I agree that about it not being named after the Lovings. If they do which one will it be named after?

Wouldn’t you agree that Nat Turner High is more appropriate? He was a very intelligent and courageous young man from Virginia and I never hear about him being honored.

Nat Turner is not in the committee’s list so that’s not an option. At this point, it’s time to persuade that committee and SB that while we respect and honor what the Lovings endured and accomplished, Washington-Loving is not the right name for a HS in Arlington.

They’d have to pick the woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Let’s not call anyone ignorant. But I agree that about it not being named after the Lovings. If they do which one will it be named after?

Wouldn’t you agree that Nat Turner High is more appropriate? He was a very intelligent and courageous young man from Virginia and I never hear about him being honored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

You are are too ignorant to even get up to spend on the basics. Start there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us who aren't quite as eddicated as the rest of y'all, could someone please explain who the Lovings are and why they are in contention?

Google it.

Thanks so much for your help. I'm sure Google is up to date on the rationale the committee is providing for its recommendation.

DP here (obviously) - you can read this:

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WL-Renaming-Comm-Minutes-11-14-18-Final.pdf