Transfers in Arl. at elementary level

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling the drain.

Are you talking about the school system?

I am very concerned that they are always late to the game with new seats. I'm even more concerned that they aren't balancing the seats they have or have added. Why spend tax payer money on building a new school and then leave it undercapacity when there are students only a mile away who are in very overcrowded schools? They come up with bounadary changes years out and when the data changes, they dig in their heels at the expense of education.

The issue is that the actual numbers were significantly different from the projections APS was working from when they decided last year to move those extra planning units to McKinley. They can't rebalance numbers every year, kids need some consistency, not bouncing from school to school each year. Also, you have to look at long-term projections. If you look at what's expected to happen in 2020, McKinley's enrollment is expected to be down from where it is now, but Discovery is expected to gain nearly 100 students and Nottingham is projected to gain almost 150. I realize that's cold comfort for people whose kids won't be in McKinley in 2020, but the school board can't just ignore it.

[Anonymous]

OP, this was so 2 years ago

[Anonymous]

The ironclad rule is that, those who are rich and white prevail on stuff like this.

[Anonymous]

Except this is North Arlington, so that's just about everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling the drain.

Are you talking about the school system?

I am very concerned that they are always late to the game with new seats. I'm even more concerned that they aren't balancing the seats they have or have added. Why spend tax payer money on building a new school and then leave it undercapacity when there are students only a mile away who are in very overcrowded schools? They come up with bounadary changes years out and when the data changes, they dig in their heels at the expense of education.

The issue is that the actual numbers were significantly different from the projections APS was working from when they decided last year to move those extra planning units to McKinley. They can't rebalance numbers every year, kids need some consistency, not bouncing from school to school each year. Also, you have to look at long-term projections. If you look at what's expected to happen in 2020, McKinley's enrollment is expected to be down from where it is now, but Discovery is expected to gain nearly 100 students and Nottingham is projected to gain almost 150. I realize that's cold comfort for people whose kids won't be in McKinley in 2020, but the school board can't just ignore it.

The thing is, they HAVEN'T moved those kids, yet. They wouldn't be bouncing all over. It makes much more sense to move the planning unit when there is space in the future rather than overcrowding a school past 725 in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you one of the Tuckahoe/Nottingham refugees? Or Glebe?

If the former, your special pleading is getting really annoying at this point. It was only a few months ago that you all were arguing that EVEN MORE OF YOU should be allowed to move over to McKinley because you didn't want your neighborhood split up. Never mind the giant burden this would have placed on McKinley to find seats for all your kids, you thought McKinley should take 150 of you instead of 80. Now all of a sudden you care about McKinley's overpopulation and trailers?

Moreover, NOW you think you should be allowed to go to the new school with the slide, and by the way the county should pay for your buses, too? Because your kids shouldn't be exposed to trailers, even though most schools in Arlington have them?

Here's some advice: it's not all about you, you, you. Your needs are not the MOST important in the county. The resources we have need to be shared. That doesn't mean your kid should get busing to the slide school. It means you should stop whining and work to make the school you do go to better. But above all stop whining.

Hi Discovery parent! It's nice that you want to make sure your kid doesn't have to mix with those below Lee Highway, but maybe it isn't all about you. Maybe it's about making it so kids aren't eating lunch so early in the day that they can't focus on their education (you know, the reason they are at schools - not for the dumb slide). If my school were at 90% and my friends across the road were at 105%, I'd welcome them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Circling the drain.

Are you talking about the school system?

I am very concerned that they are always late to the game with new seats. I'm even more concerned that they aren't balancing the seats they have or have added. Why spend tax payer money on building a new school and then leave it undercapacity when there are students only a mile away who are in very overcrowded schools? They come up with bounadary changes years out and when the data changes, they dig in their heels at the expense of education.

The issue is that the actual numbers were significantly different from the projections APS was working from when they decided last year to move those extra planning units to McKinley. They can't rebalance numbers every year, kids need some consistency, not bouncing from school to school each year. Also, you have to look at long-term projections. If you look at what's expected to happen in 2020, McKinley's enrollment is expected to be down from where it is now, but Discovery is expected to gain nearly 100 students and Nottingham is projected to gain almost 150. I realize that's cold comfort for people whose kids won't be in McKinley in 2020, but the school board can't just ignore it.

The thing is, they HAVEN'T moved those kids, yet. They wouldn't be bouncing all over. It makes much more sense to move the planning unit when there is space in the future rather than overcrowding a school past 725 in the near future.

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

I feel like there must be some disconnect there. I'm very involved in the process. The planning unit moving from Tuckahoe to McKinley will move next year. Those kids haven't gone anywhere, yet. Even though McKinley is under construction right now, the projections for the next two years are way over the number of seats they will have. Glebe is also sending students to McKinley next year. The planning unit from Tuckahoe is right up against Lee Highway. It's not like the students would be bussed to Oakridge. The question is, why are they moving them from Tuckahoe trailers to McKinley trailers? It doesn't solve anything?

Also, size matters. Yes, Nottingham has trailers (who doesn't, really?), but they also have classes with less than 20 kids. That means that lunches and recess are more manageable. When you get above a certain size (the SB determined that's 725, BTW), there are impacts to how the school can function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except this is North Arlington, so that's just about everybody.

And yet, some schools are whiter and richer than others....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

I feel like there must be some disconnect there. I'm very involved in the process. The planning unit moving from Tuckahoe to McKinley will move next year. Those kids haven't gone anywhere, yet. Even though McKinley is under construction right now, the projections for the next two years are way over the number of seats they will have. Glebe is also sending students to McKinley next year. The planning unit from Tuckahoe is right up against Lee Highway. It's not like the students would be bussed to Oakridge. The question is, why are they moving them from Tuckahoe trailers to McKinley trailers? It doesn't solve anything?

Also, size matters. Yes, Nottingham has trailers (who doesn't, really?), but they also have classes with less than 20 kids. That means that lunches and recess are more manageable. When you get above a certain size (the SB determined that's 725, BTW), there are impacts to how the school can function.

I don't understand your point. They're moving the kids from Tuckahoe to McKinley to finish the process of redistributing elementary kids. The more years they keep that process open, the more time and effort that will be focused on pointless arguing about it, and the school board has other things it needs to focus on as well (like the middle and high schools). Do you really think staying at Tuckahoe will be dramatically better? How so? As for Nottingham, some grades have less than 20 in a class, not every grades, because grade sizes are not consistent through the years. Also, the 725 number beyond which the school become too big isn't applicable to all schools, that number was developed in looking at the maximum size new schools should be. Many of the older schools couldn't even come close to managing 725, so simply looking at one school and seeing a small population than another doesn't tell you anything if you're not comparing it to actual capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except this is North Arlington, so that's just about everybody.

And yet, some schools are whiter and richer than others....

+$1.5M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

I feel like there must be some disconnect there. I'm very involved in the process. The planning unit moving from Tuckahoe to McKinley will move next year. Those kids haven't gone anywhere, yet. Even though McKinley is under construction right now, the projections for the next two years are way over the number of seats they will have. Glebe is also sending students to McKinley next year. The planning unit from Tuckahoe is right up against Lee Highway. It's not like the students would be bussed to Oakridge. The question is, why are they moving them from Tuckahoe trailers to McKinley trailers? It doesn't solve anything?

Also, size matters. Yes, Nottingham has trailers (who doesn't, really?), but they also have classes with less than 20 kids. That means that lunches and recess are more manageable. When you get above a certain size (the SB determined that's 725, BTW), there are impacts to how the school can function.

Okay Tuckahoe parent, how about answering my earlier question. If you are really so concerned about McKinley's overpopulation, why were you arguing in favor of moving BOTH Tuckahoe units to McKinley several months ago even though that would have clearly pushed McKinley to be overcapacity?

You wanted to overpopulate McKinley just a little while ago, to the detriment of all students at that school, for your own personal benefit (so 2 giant planning units could stay together). I'm not really moved by your arguments now that McKinley's overpopulation is a deal breaker for you. McKinley being overpopulated was your best case scenario last year. STOP WHINING! Grow up. Stop using your white privilege to ask for everything to be switched around to just the way you want it. Go to meetings and stop complaining and work to make whatever school you go to better.

Not a Discovery parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

I feel like there must be some disconnect there. I'm very involved in the process. The planning unit moving from Tuckahoe to McKinley will move next year. Those kids haven't gone anywhere, yet. Even though McKinley is under construction right now, the projections for the next two years are way over the number of seats they will have. Glebe is also sending students to McKinley next year. The planning unit from Tuckahoe is right up against Lee Highway. It's not like the students would be bussed to Oakridge. The question is, why are they moving them from Tuckahoe trailers to McKinley trailers? It doesn't solve anything?

Also, size matters. Yes, Nottingham has trailers (who doesn't, really?), but they also have classes with less than 20 kids. That means that lunches and recess are more manageable. When you get above a certain size (the SB determined that's 725, BTW), there are impacts to how the school can function.

Okay Tuckahoe parent, how about answering my earlier question. If you are really so concerned about McKinley's overpopulation, why were you arguing in favor of moving BOTH Tuckahoe units to McKinley several months ago even though that would have clearly pushed McKinley to be overcapacity?

You wanted to overpopulate McKinley just a little while ago, to the detriment of all students at that school, for your own personal benefit (so 2 giant planning units could stay together). I'm not really moved by your arguments now that McKinley's overpopulation is a deal breaker for you. McKinley being overpopulated was your best case scenario last year. STOP WHINING! Grow up. Stop using your white privilege to ask for everything to be switched around to just the way you want it. Go to meetings and stop complaining and work to make whatever school you go to better.

Not a Discovery parent.

I'm pretty sure there were Tuckahoe parents at every school board meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would suggest educating yourself about the process more, perhaps attend some school board meetings, etc. Some of the kids you're talking about have been at Tuckahoe for a couple of years already. If you leave them at Tuckahoe, you're just shifting trailers from McKinley to Tuckahoe (because yes, even though numbers there have fallen, Tuckahoe and Nottingham still have trailers). If you move them to Discovery, then they're going from a couple of years in Tuckahoe to a couple of years in Discovery and then a couple of years in McKinley, which is way too much bouncing around.

Where are those kids going to go? No one is going to bus them past Tuckahoe and Nottingham to Discovery, so you'll just end up moving them from trailers at McKinley to trailers at one of those two schools.

I feel like there must be some disconnect there. I'm very involved in the process. The planning unit moving from Tuckahoe to McKinley will move next year. Those kids haven't gone anywhere, yet. Even though McKinley is under construction right now, the projections for the next two years are way over the number of seats they will have. Glebe is also sending students to McKinley next year. The planning unit from Tuckahoe is right up against Lee Highway. It's not like the students would be bussed to Oakridge. The question is, why are they moving them from Tuckahoe trailers to McKinley trailers? It doesn't solve anything?

Also, size matters. Yes, Nottingham has trailers (who doesn't, really?), but they also have classes with less than 20 kids. That means that lunches and recess are more manageable. When you get above a certain size (the SB determined that's 725, BTW), there are impacts to how the school can function.

coz they don't live close enough to Discovery

[Anonymous]

That's the one point you respond to?

Answer my question, please. Why did you want to burden McKinley with 2 planning units of 150, putting the whole school above capacity, just so your kids could have ~20 neighborhood friends in each grade instead of ~10? But suddenly NOW McKinley's being over capacity is the line over which you will not cross?

SMH at your selfishness.