Thoughts on McKinley or Discovery?

[Anonymous]

Your problems are trivial. We need to focus on a new high school as the top priority.

[Anonymous]

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

Nottingham has always had green space, but it was far more limited in its use when they had the relocatables (kids couldn't use the green space past the relocatables because the recess supervisors couldn't see around them). It was a playground and some field space beyond it, but it got really crowded when Nottingham was at its max as well.

Does it really need to be a pissing contest, though? There are some things Nottingham had worse than McKinley does now, and some things McKinley had worse than Nottingham had then. As a Nottingham parent who lived through that period of overcrowding, I deeply empathize with what McKinley families are dealing with now, and I want the SB to find an effective long-term solution. I guess I'm also assuming that McKinley parents who are experiencing it now can empathize a bit with how Nottingham parents were feeling then, and why they were so freaked out about a plan that seemed like it was just going to push overcrowding back into Nottingham again.

[Anonymous]

If Nottingham had taken both planning units, neither schools would be in a bad situation now.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when you let realtors shape school
Policy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Nottingham had taken both planning units, neither schools would be in a bad situation now.

How many students were in those planning units? Given how much smaller a facility Nottingham is than McKinley, I have a hard imaging that there's a sufficient number of students you could move from McKinley to Nottingham that would relieve McKinley's overcrowding without overwhelming Nottingham. From what I understand from the office staff, Nottingham is at around 500 students for this coming year, and the building's capacity is only 513. That's nearly 98% capacity before you start moving kids over from McKinley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you let realtors shape school
Policy...

TRUTH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your problems are trivial. We need to focus on a new high school as the top priority.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your problems are trivial. We need to focus on a new high school as the top priority.

This

It doesn't and shouldn't have to be one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nottingham has always had green space, but it was far more limited in its use when they had the relocatables (kids couldn't use the green space past the relocatables because the recess supervisors couldn't see around them). It was a playground and some field space beyond it, but it got really crowded when Nottingham was at its max as well.

Does it really need to be a pissing contest, though? There are some things Nottingham had worse than McKinley does now, and some things McKinley had worse than Nottingham had then. As a Nottingham parent who lived through that period of overcrowding, I deeply empathize with what McKinley families are dealing with now, and I want the SB to find an effective long-term solution. I guess I'm also assuming that McKinley parents who are experiencing it now can empathize a bit with how Nottingham parents were feeling then, and why they were so freaked out about a plan that seemed like it was just going to push overcrowding back into Nottingham again.

This is a ridiculous post. So the elementary schools are supposed to take turns being grossly overcrowded, while others get to sit under-capacity? No, no. We need to equitably distribute the over-enrollment. Period. Also, if you go back to 2013, McKinley was just as overcrowded as Nottingham. Pre-construction, McKinley's capacity was 443 and enrollment was 600 (157 students over). Nottingham's capacity was 513 and enrollment was at 709 (196 students over). On a percentage basis, that is exactly the same. These numbers are still posted on the APS website btw. There was never a time when McKinley was sitting around with no trailers while Nottingham was suffering. Honestly, the Nottingham PTA is insufferable. I hope we do get a chance to have another pissing match over boundaries, because I think the entire 22205 zip code will rise up in revolt if Nottingham pulls the same political crap that it did last time. All the SALA folks better buy their popcorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nottingham has always had green space, but it was far more limited in its use when they had the relocatables (kids couldn't use the green space past the relocatables because the recess supervisors couldn't see around them). It was a playground and some field space beyond it, but it got really crowded when Nottingham was at its max as well.

Does it really need to be a pissing contest, though? There are some things Nottingham had worse than McKinley does now, and some things McKinley had worse than Nottingham had then. As a Nottingham parent who lived through that period of overcrowding, I deeply empathize with what McKinley families are dealing with now, and I want the SB to find an effective long-term solution. I guess I'm also assuming that McKinley parents who are experiencing it now can empathize a bit with how Nottingham parents were feeling then, and why they were so freaked out about a plan that seemed like it was just going to push overcrowding back into Nottingham again.

This is a ridiculous post. So the elementary schools are supposed to take turns being grossly overcrowded, while others get to sit under-capacity? No, no. We need to equitably distribute the over-enrollment. Period. Also, if you go back to 2013, McKinley was just as overcrowded as Nottingham. Pre-construction, McKinley's capacity was 443 and enrollment was 600 (157 students over). Nottingham's capacity was 513 and enrollment was at 709 (196 students over). On a percentage basis, that is exactly the same. These numbers are still posted on the APS website btw. There was never a time when McKinley was sitting around with no trailers while Nottingham was suffering. Honestly, the Nottingham PTA is insufferable. I hope we do get a chance to have another pissing match over boundaries, because I think the entire 22205 zip code will rise up in revolt if Nottingham pulls the same political crap that it did last time. All the SALA folks better buy their popcorn.

Any popcorn they buy today will be stale by the time the NA border evaluation starts in 2019-20.

[Anonymous]

SALA got its own problems. Carry on.

[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.

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.

As a parent at ASFS, another overcrowded disaster, they just took the basketball court and put another relocatable (aka a trailer) on it. It was a choice between losing the hardtop surface or the playing field. I have a little boy. We're looking at our options (private or Fairfax Co), because every school is projected to just see increased enrollment each year. No one seems to know how to get elementary schools back to 700 and restore outdoor playspaces for our kids.

[Anonymous]

This is funny N Arlington schools wanting something a S Arlington school has -- green space ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is funny N Arlington schools wanting something a S Arlington school has -- green space ?

They just don't want the brown kids to go with it.

-N.A. parent who thinks an awful lot of N.A. parents act like jerks around these school issues

[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.

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.

As a parent at ASFS, another overcrowded disaster, they just took the basketball court and put another relocatable (aka a trailer) on it. It was a choice between losing the hardtop surface or the playing field. I have a little boy. We're looking at our options (private or Fairfax Co), because every school is projected to just see increased enrollment each year. No one seems to know how to get elementary schools back to 700 and restore outdoor playspaces for our kids.

It's takes money and space to build more schools. Space is hard to find, and there's a large enough population that doesn't have school-aged kids and who are increasingly pushing back on school bonds. The board had to keep the bonds more modest or they risk them not getting passed at all, but it means there's simply less funding for school infrastructure than the county needs to keep up with the growing school-aged population.