Thoughts on McKinley or Discovery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like y'all need to get organized and figure out who you want to kick out to other schools. Hope it's none of the planning units that just moved in the last few years, I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that to those kids.

This is partly why we're in this mess, the zero-sum approach that people like the Nottingham parents used. These are kids, and they are all negatively impacted by the overcrowding situation. Nobody wants to move, it's disruptive, but if the SB and APS staff would appropriately do their jobs and use accurate data they could have made different decisions. The question is whether it's now bad enough to do something for 2018 rather than letting these 800 kids suffer the consequences while waiting for the 2019 shifts.

How is it not a "zero-sum" issue, as you put it? These kids have to go to school somewhere, so the only way McKinley's numbers go down any time soon is if other schools' numbers go up. What alternative do you see?

Numbers go up, but not to the point where anyone really has to be bursting at the seams. The difference between a 650-kid school and an 800-kid school is huge in terms of resources, as well as space. I'm depressed that 10:57 is right. That Chadwick and team are so unwilling to correct the impacts of their huge mistakes, so hundreds of children are being fucked by this supposedly-awesome school system.

[Anonymous]

If the Chadwick or SB crew actually cared, they would have actively advertised the transfer option. The difference between 650 and 800 is enormous and it was completely avoidable if someone in power actually cared.

[Anonymous]

Well the only silver-lining is that Chadwick got pulled from boundaries and projections in the APS re-org this summer. He's not in charge of that anymore.

The Nottingham PTA has zero credibility at this point. They lost it all when they claimed Nottingham was going to be sooooo crowded and now they are sitting with enrollment under 500. Sure, Discovery is under-capacity-- but Nottingham is too. And it sits on a huge piece of property with no classes in trailers.

[Anonymous]

What about moving some of the McKinley units toward Ashlawn and pushing more of Ashlawn into Barrett? Ashlawn is lower capacity than Nottingham and Barrett is lower capacity than Discovery, so this seems like a more sensible solution than pushing McKinley units into Nottingham and Nottingham units into Discovery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the only silver-lining is that Chadwick got pulled from boundaries and projections in the APS re-org this summer. He's not in charge of that anymore.

Hallelujah! I've never been more condescended to in my life than from that man. When I brought up a concern to him, he basically said something to the effect of "don't worry your pretty little head about it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about moving some of the McKinley units toward Ashlawn and pushing more of Ashlawn into Barrett? Ashlawn is lower capacity than Nottingham and Barrett is lower capacity than Discovery, so this seems like a more sensible solution than pushing McKinley units into Nottingham and Nottingham units into Discovery?

Why? What's so special about Nottingham that their school population can't be touched? Ashlawn and Barrett will probably need to take some capacity as boundaries are adjusted with making ASF a neighborhood school and removing some from Long Branch. Long Branch is also very overcrowded and has the added complication of a tiny site with zero space. Nottingham's big field should be put to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about moving some of the McKinley units toward Ashlawn and pushing more of Ashlawn into Barrett? Ashlawn is lower capacity than Nottingham and Barrett is lower capacity than Discovery, so this seems like a more sensible solution than pushing McKinley units into Nottingham and Nottingham units into Discovery?

Why? What's so special about Nottingham that their school population can't be touched? Ashlawn and Barrett will probably need to take some capacity as boundaries are adjusted with making ASF a neighborhood school and removing some from Long Branch. Long Branch is also very overcrowded and has the added complication of a tiny site with zero space. Nottingham's big field should be put to use.

Glebe is also crazy overcrowded, nearly as bad as McKinley, so if we're doing boundary shifts some of that extra capacity needs to be filled by Glebe kids. It's not all about McKinley.

[Anonymous]

No. Glebe is not nearly as overcrowded as McKinley. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Glebe is not nearly as overcrowded as McKinley. Try again.

Glebe was at 114% capacity last year. If McKinley is at 795 this year, it will be at 116% capacity. You're saying that 2% (assuming Glebe hasn't also seen an enrollment increase this fall) is a critical difference and Glebe's doing just fine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Glebe is not nearly as overcrowded as McKinley. Try again.

Glebe was at 114% capacity last year. If McKinley is at 795 this year, it will be at 116% capacity. You're saying that 2% (assuming Glebe hasn't also seen an enrollment increase this fall) is a critical difference and Glebe's doing just fine?

Shouldn't Glebe just be happy that the county spent half a million dollars to pay above-market rate for a house next to the school that they're going to tear down & leave empty just to have emergency access to the campus, despite the fact they already have that access for free from N. Buchanan Street?

APS is awesome!

[Anonymous]

No. I'm not saying Glebe is doing just fine, but the % comparison isn't valid and that's part of what was wrong with the previous reports. That 2% difference you are referencing means nothing unless you look at the actual numbers. 70 more kids than seats vs. 160 more kids than seats is what tells the real story.

[Anonymous]

McK would be happy to only have 70 more kids that seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. I'm not saying Glebe is doing just fine, but the % comparison isn't valid and that's part of what was wrong with the previous reports. That 2% difference you are referencing means nothing unless you look at the actual numbers. 70 more kids than seats vs. 160 more kids than seats is what tells the real story.

But you also have the capacity for substantially more children than Glebe (and all of the rest of the surrounding schools being talked about here). It would be stupid to bring your total student number to the same number at the other schools, you'd be wildly under capacity and the other schools would be massively over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. I'm not saying Glebe is doing just fine, but the % comparison isn't valid and that's part of what was wrong with the previous reports. That 2% difference you are referencing means nothing unless you look at the actual numbers. 70 more kids than seats vs. 160 more kids than seats is what tells the real story.

Where is this 160 coming from? McKinley has a stated capacity (without relocatables) of 684. 795 students is 111 students over capacity, not 160.

[Anonymous]

its extremely important to McKinley parents that they be THE MOST overcrowded. They can twist all data to support this view.
They are not the only ones to do this- the Claremont folks also share those tendencies.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections17-26_Final_Web.pdf