Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Anonymous wrote:Montessori PTAs abandonment of Drew this year is shameful. Shameful.

In what sense has the Montessori PTA abandoned Drew? Not challenging you on that, it's not my school and I'm not familiar with what's going on with the PTA.

Anonymous wrote:Montessori PTAs abandonment of Drew this year is shameful. Shameful.

It's no worse than creating a school with an 85% farms rate that can't form a functional PTA. I know at least one of the PTA members has kids in both programs so it's more complicated than you portray. They're going to Henry. What do you expect, for them to be the Drew graded programs pta forever?

Anonymous wrote:Is social engineering in this context (school boundaries) the use of one’s child to change the economic and social dynamic of the school?

Look, everything is social engineering. That's what humanity does. If something seems "natural" or "appropriate" or "common sense" to one person, it's usually because it's to their material benefit. Drawing boundaries is an exercise in social engineering, plain and simple. And APS is not following its stated parameters for this "engineering" project. That is the issue.

Montessori PTAs abandonment of Drew this year is shameful. Shameful.

Is social engineering in this context (school boundaries) the use of one’s child to change the economic and social dynamic of the school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

The problem, though, is that the people you are calling out are minorities and are not rich or even MC, by Arlington standards.

Minorities aren't a thing that Arlington considers. They are not allowed to. Diversity means economic diversity and that's it. And frankly that's probably how policy should be made at this point anyway.

I think we might be talking past each other. I would have more sympathy for your position if the people you are calling out on FB were white and UMC. The people who are saying “my child is not your social engineering project” are not white and lower MC (by Arlington standards). You are coming off as a white savior.

And I would agree with you if I was talking about busing a Discovery unit down Glebe to Drew. The Henry units in question are closer to Drew than the Columbia Forest units currently proposed to go to Drew. In fact, it is arguably more socially engineered to put Columbia Heights up to Fleet because it is farther and because, apparently, Henry's stated goal is to "keep its diversity." That sounds a lot more like social engineering than simply drawing a reasonably shaped boundary around the neighborhoods that are closest to a school. And, for the record, the person who actually made the "social engineering experiment" comment is white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

The problem, though, is that the people you are calling out are minorities and are not rich or even MC, by Arlington standards.

Minorities aren't a thing that Arlington considers. They are not allowed to. Diversity means economic diversity and that's it. And frankly that's probably how policy should be made at this point anyway.

I think we might be talking past each other. I would have more sympathy for your position if the people you are calling out on FB were white and UMC. The people who are saying “my child is not your social engineering project” are not white and lower MC (by Arlington standards). You are coming off as a white savior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

The problem, though, is that the people you are calling out are minorities and are not rich or even MC, by Arlington standards.

Minorities aren't a thing that Arlington considers. They are not allowed to. Diversity means economic diversity and that's it. And frankly that's probably how policy should be made at this point anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

The problem, though, is that the people you are calling out are minorities and are not rich or even MC, by Arlington standards.

Don’t forget those Douglas Park Units zones Henry!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

+1 those comments in particular made me mad. The other one that burns me up is when the Henry folks say they just want to keep their diversity. As if all of these students exist just to provide one school in central Arlington with the perfect blend of diversity.

It's also not true. There is no way that the 3 PUs with fewer than 50 kids total on fr/l are providing Henry with its current diversity. Anyone who has the time and inclination should break down where their fr/l kids are actually coming from.

I have, and reported it earlier in this thread. There are some, but most of the farms kids live across Walter Reed from the Henry building, north of the pike.

Can everyone please point that out, including numbers, in feedback on the community survey and in emails to Engage and the School Board members?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

+1 those comments in particular made me mad. The other one that burns me up is when the Henry folks say they just want to keep their diversity. As if all of these students exist just to provide one school in central Arlington with the perfect blend of diversity.

It's also not true. There is no way that the 3 PUs with fewer than 50 kids total on fr/l are providing Henry with its current diversity. Anyone who has the time and inclination should break down where their fr/l kids are actually coming from.

I have, and reported it earlier in this thread. There are some, but most of the farms kids live across Walter Reed from the Henry building, north of the pike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

+1 those comments in particular made me mad. The other one that burns me up is when the Henry folks say they just want to keep their diversity. As if all of these students exist just to provide one school in central Arlington with the perfect blend of diversity.

It's also not true. There is no way that the 3 PUs with fewer than 50 kids total on fr/l are providing Henry with its current diversity. Anyone who has the time and inclination should break down where their fr/l kids are actually coming from.

I'm the immediate PP above and agree with that. I have done the numbers. It's more than 3 PUs and more than 50 kids (I'm talking 46010, 46011, 46130, 46131, 46132, 46133, 46120) but those units are about 1/3 low income, which mirrors Henry's overall %. Losing those units wouldn't make a difference to the %. That's why I get that Henry wants to preserve its school community, but this particular talking point is b.s. front to back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AEM discussion on this is classic. One person called out the Henry folks on their fight to stay together really being about the south-of-the-Pike people not wanting to go to Drew, and a few chimed in to basically say, "I'm one of those south-of-the-pike Henry people, yeah, you're right, but you're an asshole for calling us on it."

Yeah, I made that comment and got a flurry of very angry PMs, but there was enough "don't let me child be your social engineering project" comments that their true intentions are clear.

+1 those comments in particular made me mad. The other one that burns me up is when the Henry folks say they just want to keep their diversity. As if all of these students exist just to provide one school in central Arlington with the perfect blend of diversity.

It's also not true. There is no way that the 3 PUs with fewer than 50 kids total on fr/l are providing Henry with its current diversity. Anyone who has the time and inclination should break down where their fr/l kids are actually coming from.