Thoughts on McKinley or Discovery?

[Anonymous]

McKinley & Glebe fighting each other keeps eyes off Nottingham. Carry on, ladies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKinley & Glebe fighting each other keeps eyes off Nottingham. Carry on, ladies!

I guess we should just keep the focus on McKinley and Glebe families should sit down and shut up, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

[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?

Nope, not unless there's some other movement of students away from Barrett. I think Barrett's projections may not be entirely accurate. APS has been bad at projecting students generated by CAF's, and they have a LOT of those and are getting another new building with hundreds of units in the next couple of years (where the Red Cross building along rt. 50 is being torn down). Problem is Long Branch, the next closest school, is pretty stuffed, too, and they have a VERY small lot that is owned at least partially by DPR. We will never get land back from DPR.

Discovery needs to be assigned more PU's, along with Jamestown and Nottingham. We all know there isn't going to be any high density housing built there, like ever, so you need to take more PU's to offset the density of the PU's assigned to other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

Not a McKinley parent, but my understanding is they do go outside. They still have a playground. But sports are played on the paved surfaces (maybe the drop-off circle or something). It's not the end of the world, but it's far from ideal. I don't think any of our ES should be over 700 students. That just seems crazy to me. But it's the new reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

McK has one playground for 800 kids. It is just that- a playground. We don't even have a basketball court. The kids get 20-30 min a day, where they usually overlap with another grade-- so there are often 250+ kids on the playground at once. Gym class is never outside because we have no field now. APS was going to restore our single baseball diamond after construction, but then they realized they needed to keep six trailers there to provide adequate class space. That's what some of these posters above do not get. And this is after 18 months of construction during which time our kids had no playground, no field space, and no gym.

Oakridge went over 800 students, but I noticed in one of the APS summer announcements that they are getting an additional gym trailer. And Oakridge borders parkland. I'm not saying Oakridge's enrollment should be that high (it shouldn't) but at least they have more green space than McKinley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

McK has one playground for 800 kids. It is just that- a playground. We don't even have a basketball court. The kids get 20-30 min a day, where they usually overlap with another grade-- so there are often 250+ kids on the playground at once. Gym class is never outside because we have no field now. APS was going to restore our single baseball diamond after construction, but then they realized they needed to keep six trailers there to provide adequate class space. That's what some of these posters above do not get. And this is after 18 months of construction during which time our kids had no playground, no field space, and no gym.

Oakridge went over 800 students, but I noticed in one of the APS summer announcements that they are getting an additional gym trailer. And Oakridge borders parkland. I'm not saying Oakridge's enrollment should be that high (it shouldn't) but at least they have more green space than McKinley.

I'm PP who mentioned Oakridge and I totally agree that the McKinley situation is unique (for now) and I'm saddened that this seems to be acceptable to anyone in charge, or any parents on this forum.

[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?

Glebe parent and I think it's doing fine. The school does not seem ridiculously overcrowded to me and they have lots of land for kids to play - unlike McKinley. I don't think it's a valid comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

McK has one playground for 800 kids. It is just that- a playground. We don't even have a basketball court. The kids get 20-30 min a day, where they usually overlap with another grade-- so there are often 250+ kids on the playground at once. Gym class is never outside because we have no field now. APS was going to restore our single baseball diamond after construction, but then they realized they needed to keep six trailers there to provide adequate class space. That's what some of these posters above do not get. And this is after 18 months of construction during which time our kids had no playground, no field space, and no gym.

Oakridge went over 800 students, but I noticed in one of the APS summer announcements that they are getting an additional gym trailer. And Oakridge borders parkland. I'm not saying Oakridge's enrollment should be that high (it shouldn't) but at least they have more green space than McKinley.

Why doesn't McKinley have a gym? How do they do P.E.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

McK has one playground for 800 kids. It is just that- a playground. We don't even have a basketball court. The kids get 20-30 min a day, where they usually overlap with another grade-- so there are often 250+ kids on the playground at once. Gym class is never outside because we have no field now. APS was going to restore our single baseball diamond after construction, but then they realized they needed to keep six trailers there to provide adequate class space. That's what some of these posters above do not get. And this is after 18 months of construction during which time our kids had no playground, no field space, and no gym.

Oakridge went over 800 students, but I noticed in one of the APS summer announcements that they are getting an additional gym trailer. And Oakridge borders parkland. I'm not saying Oakridge's enrollment should be that high (it shouldn't) but at least they have more green space than McKinley.

I'm PP who mentioned Oakridge and I totally agree that the McKinley situation is unique (for now) and I'm saddened that this seems to be acceptable to anyone in charge, or any parents on this forum.

Which posters here are saying the McKinkey situation is acceptable? You can have disagreements about how to solve a problem without anyone denying that it is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Glebe parent and I think it's doing fine. The school does not seem ridiculously overcrowded to me and they have lots of land for kids to play - unlike McKinley. I don't think it's a valid comparison.

You are correct that it's not a valid comparison. Take away field/park space at all elementary schools and then we can talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Maybe you should do your research and cite to the correct numbers before you start posting. You linked to the projection spreadsheet that was reviewed by the outside consultant this spring and found to be wrong. These numbers were all updated this spring and are available on the APS website. The link to the corrected projection spreadsheet is posted upthread.

And Claremont is bursting at the seams. They don't even have a room capable of holding all the kids for assembly. Have you ever been to the school? You sound like an uninformed jerk.

And Oakridge went over 800 students last year. This is a problem for a lot of schools. Difference is, AFAIK, Oakridge and even Claremont still have green space. And they didn't just complete a renovation and expansion at those schools only to find themselves STILL over capacity.

How does McKinley do outdoor recess without green space? Do the kids not get to go outside? That would suck.

McK has one playground for 800 kids. It is just that- a playground. We don't even have a basketball court. The kids get 20-30 min a day, where they usually overlap with another grade-- so there are often 250+ kids on the playground at once. Gym class is never outside because we have no field now. APS was going to restore our single baseball diamond after construction, but then they realized they needed to keep six trailers there to provide adequate class space. That's what some of these posters above do not get. And this is after 18 months of construction during which time our kids had no playground, no field space, and no gym.

Oakridge went over 800 students, but I noticed in one of the APS summer announcements that they are getting an additional gym trailer. And Oakridge borders parkland. I'm not saying Oakridge's enrollment should be that high (it shouldn't) but at least they have more green space than McKinley.

Why doesn't McKinley have a gym? How do they do P.E.?

So after 18 months of having no open space and things being tight, you want your school to have open space and not feel crowded. That's very understandable, I don't blame you for it and I hope APS finds a good solution for you soon.

I'm sure it can also make you empathize with how Nottingham parents were feeling a few years ago during the boundary discussion, when they'd been far more over capacity than you are now for several years, with their back fields littered with trailers as well. They'd had enough, they were fed up, and they wanted a break from closets turned into classrooms and a cafeteria without enough seats for everyone. I imagine that if the SB put up a proposal the next time around that put you at less over-capacity than you are now but still more over capacity than anyone else around, you'd be speaking up too.

[Anonymous]

Even with the capacity issue, Nottingham always has green space.