The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

McKinley's current walkers are in the planning units south of 66 that will probably be moved to Ashlawn. The 40% walkability in the Options are those walkable in planning units north of 66.

Some of them will also be walkers to Ashlawn, so they won't even become bus riders.

No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.

They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.

People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.

My Ashlawn walker crosses Wilson with a crossing guard. We are the last block before the current McKinley boundary. What am I missing?
Did the poster mean kids can’t cross 66? Because they definitely can at Ohio Street or Patrick Henry.

Did they mean kids can’t cross Washington? Swanson already has a crossing guard at Washington and PH - they could work Jr high and then Elementary. Or put another crossing guard at McKinley and Washington.

Technically you can't cross Wilson at Elem level so you get a bus. There is one tiny street on the other side of the park that goes to Ashlawn (Lexington). No crossing guard there so they get a bus. Yes for the less than 1/2 mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet

Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.

So how is it you are worried about segregation for Drew, but not for Barcroft, Randolph and CS (or Campbell if moved). Do you think "segregation" only refers to African Americans? Such an outcry over Drew while supporting more segregation in the western part of the county. You are all hypocrites. Put all the immigrants together, they don't know any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet

Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.

So how is it you are worried about segregation for Drew, but not for Barcroft, Randolph and CS (or Campbell if moved). Do you think "segregation" only refers to African Americans? Such an outcry over Drew while supporting more segregation in the western part of the county. You are all hypocrites. Put all the immigrants together, they don't know any better.

Not the PP but that cake is baked. Those three schools are a done deal. Barcroft Apartments isn’t going anywhere. There is still an outside chance for Drew not to be a 70 percent plus FRL school in perpetuity but probably that opportunity was blown by South Fairlington’s massive resistance last fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

McKinley's current walkers are in the planning units south of 66 that will probably be moved to Ashlawn. The 40% walkability in the Options are those walkable in planning units north of 66.

Some of them will also be walkers to Ashlawn, so they won't even become bus riders.

No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.

They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.

People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.

My Ashlawn walker crosses Wilson with a crossing guard. We are the last block before the current McKinley boundary. What am I missing?
Did the poster mean kids can’t cross 66? Because they definitely can at Ohio Street or Patrick Henry.

Did they mean kids can’t cross Washington? Swanson already has a crossing guard at Washington and PH - they could work Jr high and then Elementary. Or put another crossing guard at McKinley and Washington.

Technically you can't cross Wilson at Elem level so you get a bus. There is one tiny street on the other side of the park that goes to Ashlawn (Lexington). No crossing guard there so they get a bus. Yes for the less than 1/2 mile.

False. There is a crossing guard on Wilson near the pool for the dominion hills folks to cross. Once you get east of the park trail there is bus service, but for the Ashlawn folks north of wilson right by the school, they are walkers, and there is a crossing guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Technically you can't cross Wilson at Elem level so you get a bus. There is one tiny street on the other side of the park that goes to Ashlawn (Lexington). No crossing guard there so they get a bus. Yes for the less than 1/2 mile.

You do know that the bike trail goes under Wilson between Lexington and Manchester, don't you?

Of course, I live North of 66 near Westover and alleged a bus took kids to McKinley because elem kids can't cross 66. Mind you that there is a perfect safe overpass at Ohio St. that does cross 66.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

Why don't you run for SB on that platform if you think it's so easy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

I personally think it makes more sense to move the ATS to Tuckahoe (smaller building), but even if Mckinley stays neighborhood, you will see a ton of those current McKinley kids at Reed, you understand how close they are, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

This is exactly right. We're going to end up with a map that has boundaries as crazy as the "What If?" map-- just drawn differently. Either that, or they leave extra capacity at Jamestown and Discovery, which will be effectively permanently locked in if they make this move. I really don't know what the solution is there though-- they built those two buildings way too close to each other given the density of the population in that area. Its the same reason they couldn't get Williamsburg filled in the MS boundaries.

Why not make everything neighborhood and embed option programs into the neighborhood schools. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, people "shopped" around for their elementary school based on the exemplary projects. That's why we have them. The main problem is that APS will say they can't afford all that busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

I really hope staff sends the planning units in the area where it makes the most sense rather than prioritizing sending more McKinley units to Reed (e.g. if Glebe/Tuckahoe/Ashlawn are closer or if McKinley units are bussed to Reed while kids walkable to Reed are bussed to Tuckahoe to fill it). Just RIP the bandaid off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

I really hope staff sends the planning units in the area where it makes the most sense rather than prioritizing sending more McKinley units to Reed (e.g. if Glebe/Tuckahoe/Ashlawn are closer or if McKinley units are bussed to Reed while kids walkable to Reed are bussed to Tuckahoe to fill it). Just RIP the bandaid off!

+1

[Anonymous]

Here's a thought... if ATS is so "special" and desirable, its model should be implemented at other schools--or EVERY APS school--to expand the program rather than adding seats.

I've been to several ATS tours, asked lots of questions, but besides the extra homework, weekly progress reports and stricter environment, I didn't walk away thinking the ATS curriculum covered more topics than other APS elementary schools.

I applied only to escape McKinley overcrowding and gain more playground space for my sporty kid.

And I don't care where DS moves as long as school is not grossly over capacity and DS can get a spot in extended day.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone? I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario. Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs. I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system. What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a thought... if ATS is so "special" and desirable, its model should be implemented at other schools--or EVERY APS school--to expand the program rather than adding seats.

I've been to several ATS tours, asked lots of questions, but besides the extra homework, weekly progress reports and stricter environment, I didn't walk away thinking the ATS curriculum covered more topics than other APS elementary schools.

I applied only to escape McKinley overcrowding and gain more playground space for my sporty kid.

And I don't care where DS moves as long as school is not grossly over capacity and DS can get a spot in extended day.

Carry on.

How would you feel about non-overcrowded school with plenty of playground space and open spots in extended day... that’s 60% FRL? Still carrying on? Realize your experience is not everyone’s experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the capacity percentages after the move, you will see this is going to one huge CF. By disbanding McKinley entirely, they have Reed at 96%, Glebe between 92-104 and Ashlawn between 91-108%. Meanwhile, they leave Tuckahoe at 83/77%, ASFS possibly at 76% and the Jamestown/Disc/Nott tried in the 80's. They clearly are moving ATS to the wrong school. It needs to go into a smaller capacity school to not totally mess up the balance all over again. Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

This:
Either that or they need to move a heck of a lot more McK into Tuckahoe and Glebe into ASFS.

I think we are going to see very few current McK families at Reed. It's going to be crazy. Do away with options and draw logical lines! and let kids cross busy roads with crossing guards. Dman people, this is not hard.

I really hope staff sends the planning units in the area where it makes the most sense rather than prioritizing sending more McKinley units to Reed (e.g. if Glebe/Tuckahoe/Ashlawn are closer or if McKinley units are bussed to Reed while kids walkable to Reed are bussed to Tuckahoe to fill it). Just RIP the bandaid off!

+1

As one of the families that would be impacted by this -- HELL no. We were a Nottingham family that got switched to McK just in time for construction/overcrowding. Now that they're building a new school within walking distance (.5 mile) of our house you'd want us to be bused back to Nottingham? No. I understand we have to go by more than fairness but that would be ridiculous. Also, if you're prioritizing walkability and keeping families together, then this is the opposite of that. Also the current "who goes where" chart doesn't say anything about this -- which would then be bait and switch. I know that's often what happens in Arlington but still.