The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

They have explained why one of the smaller schools doesn't make sense. They will end up having to bus more kids. Almost all of McK can walk to Reed or Ashlawn. Smaller schools will end up absorbing the overflow needed to keep Reed from being overenrolled. And they can do it while minimizing bus riders b/c they are positioned to the north and west of Reed. It really does make sense if you're not being vindictive about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have explained why one of the smaller schools doesn't make sense. They will end up having to bus more kids. Almost all of McK can walk to Reed or Ashlawn. Smaller schools will end up absorbing the overflow needed to keep Reed from being overenrolled. And they can do it while minimizing bus riders b/c they are positioned to the north and west of Reed. It really does make sense if you're not being vindictive about it.

Then why are they showing the fill rates for smaller Tuckahoe at 84 and 77% with the 2 options? Why is Nottingham at 86 and 94? Why is Jamestown at 89 and 78%? It's not to help out Discovery (the largest school above Lee). They will be sitting pretty at 81 or 88%. I understand the skeptics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a "Save McKinley" proponent but why can't ATS stay right where it is? It's not in the IPP so why are we trying to move it to a bigger building, and why is it a "pro" under both proposals that 100 more kids could go there? I'm a South Arlington resident and I think ATS is bad for South Arlington.

And, ATS is a not a walkable school so keep it as an option but without moving Immersion or Campbell there. What's wrong with Immersion to Carlin Springs, full stop? Yes, there will be a somewhat wide swath of West Pike with no neighborhood school, but Campbell is functionally a neighborhood school for Glencarlyn anyway. Split up the non-Glencarlyn PUs between Abingdon and Ashlawn and do tons of outreach to that community to get them to apply to CS as Immersion. McK, Reed, and ASFS can take Ashlawn's long boundary and some of Glebe.

That part of South Arlington is already facing a seating shortage, and you want to take away hundreds more seats while NW elementary schools sit with empty classrooms because they're so under capacity? We're Discovery so that would be great for us, but even I can't pretend this isn't a terrible idea.

Plenty of room at Drew and Fleet. Move SF to Drew and some of CS's boundary to Ashlawn and see what happens.

In any event, neither proposal 1 or 2 address the seat shortage in that area anyway. The first doesn't affect it at all, and the second makes an option school into a neighborhood school in order to take on the population of a school with a substantially bigger enrollment (in a smaller, older, crappier building).

So we're abandoning any pretense of sensible boundaries?

SF to Drew, a Staff proposal that was previously made, is not sensible? Or is it Ashlawn's boundary moving 2 miles south instead of almost 2.5 miles east that is not sensible?

How would that SF to Drew help with Carlin Springs area over crowding?

Because the latest numbers show that Abingdon is already just over full capacity. If you move SF to drew you get the school a bit of room to help absorb continued in full development to the west.

Yes, I know that no one in SF wants to go to drew, and that no one else at Abingdon want to see SF (which is 100 percent non-FRL) moved to make room for another 100 disadvantaged kids who don’t live in Arlington county yet.

Especially since Abingdon already has a high FRL rate right? I would much rather see kids move north if possible. Raise the rates of schools lower than 20% instead.

[Anonymous]

So let me get this straight. We have actual present day major seat deficits in 3 quadrants. APS is proposing a good solution that will also open up more seats at ATS. And the NW quadrant is I happy because they aren’t sure it hoards enough seats for possible future overcrowding. Even though APS has said they will likely build 3 more schools? That’s some crazy opportunity hoarding. Not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. We have actual present day major seat deficits in 3 quadrants. APS is proposing a good solution that will also open up more seats at ATS. And the NW quadrant is I happy because they aren’t sure it hoards enough seats for possible future overcrowding. Even though APS has said they will likely build 3 more schools? That’s some crazy opportunity hoarding. Not a good look.

The only people in NW who are complaining are a small subset of the McKinley community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. We have actual present day major seat deficits in 3 quadrants. APS is proposing a good solution that will also open up more seats at ATS. And the NW quadrant is I happy because they aren’t sure it hoards enough seats for possible future overcrowding. Even though APS has said they will likely build 3 more schools? That’s some crazy opportunity hoarding. Not a good look.

The only people in NW who are complaining are a small subset of the McKinley community.

+ 1. NW here and not complaining. I think this plan makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight. We have actual present day major seat deficits in 3 quadrants. APS is proposing a good solution that will also open up more seats at ATS. And the NW quadrant is I happy because they aren’t sure it hoards enough seats for possible future overcrowding. Even though APS has said they will likely build 3 more schools? That’s some crazy opportunity hoarding. Not a good look.

The only people in NW who are complaining are a small subset of the McKinley community.

Most of McKinley is happy to move.

[Anonymous]

That is nice to hear. People opposing the plan because they think they may someday need more neighborhood seats in the NW (where they already have excess) are really looking selfish. They SHOULD be giving some more seats up--not hoarding them and offering up a smaller school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a "Save McKinley" proponent but why can't ATS stay right where it is? It's not in the IPP so why are we trying to move it to a bigger building, and why is it a "pro" under both proposals that 100 more kids could go there? I'm a South Arlington resident and I think ATS is bad for South Arlington.

And, ATS is a not a walkable school so keep it as an option but without moving Immersion or Campbell there. What's wrong with Immersion to Carlin Springs, full stop? Yes, there will be a somewhat wide swath of West Pike with no neighborhood school, but Campbell is functionally a neighborhood school for Glencarlyn anyway. Split up the non-Glencarlyn PUs between Abingdon and Ashlawn and do tons of outreach to that community to get them to apply to CS as Immersion. McK, Reed, and ASFS can take Ashlawn's long boundary and some of Glebe.

That part of South Arlington is already facing a seating shortage, and you want to take away hundreds more seats while NW elementary schools sit with empty classrooms because they're so under capacity? We're Discovery so that would be great for us, but even I can't pretend this isn't a terrible idea.

Plenty of room at Drew and Fleet. Move SF to Drew and some of CS's boundary to Ashlawn and see what happens.

In any event, neither proposal 1 or 2 address the seat shortage in that area anyway. The first doesn't affect it at all, and the second makes an option school into a neighborhood school in order to take on the population of a school with a substantially bigger enrollment (in a smaller, older, crappier building).

So we're abandoning any pretense of sensible boundaries?

SF to Drew, a Staff proposal that was previously made, is not sensible? Or is it Ashlawn's boundary moving 2 miles south instead of almost 2.5 miles east that is not sensible?

How would that SF to Drew help with Carlin Springs area over crowding?

Because the latest numbers show that Abingdon is already just over full capacity. If you move SF to drew you get the school a bit of room to help absorb continued in full development to the west.

Yes, I know that no one in SF wants to go to drew, and that no one else at Abingdon want to see SF (which is 100 percent non-FRL) moved to make room for another 100 disadvantaged kids who don’t live in Arlington county yet.

Especially since Abingdon already has a high FRL rate right? I would much rather see kids move north if possible. Raise the rates of schools lower than 20% instead.

Uh, do you have a map? To the N of Abingdon is Carlin Springs, 81% fr/l. If they move EL, that neighborhood school will be where Campbell is, and it will be a 100% walking school with an fr/l rate as high or higher and that will be at or above capacity from day one. Or Barcroft, that’s already at 65% fr/l and not set up to accommodate a lot of buses. Which of those schools gets hosed while Drew sits under capacity next door to Abingdon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is nice to hear. People opposing the plan because they think they may someday need more neighborhood seats in the NW (where they already have excess) are really looking selfish. They SHOULD be giving some more seats up--not hoarding them and offering up a smaller school.

The NW is still hoarding seats under this plan. McKinley is 98 students over capacity today. Reed is only 41 seats bigger than McKinley. The whole school doesn't fit. And the overflow isn't being pushed to another NW school. It is being pushed to Ashlawn, which is in Zone 2, and is projected to be at or over-capacity in both plans. Just look at the NW schools that are under-capacity today. They will still be under-capacity when this plan is implemented.

I'm not a Save McKinley person. But Reed, Glebe and Ashlawn families need to wake up and smell the coffee. Those are the kids about to get screwed. This plan does not leave enough room for growth in central Arlington.

[Anonymous]

The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

How can you say the proposed plans do quite nicely for central Arlington? Does anyone disagree that Ashlawn is getting hurt by the proposed plans???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

How can you say the proposed plans do quite nicely for central Arlington? Does anyone disagree that Ashlawn is getting hurt by the proposed plans???

Ashlawn hurt? It is just being filled with McK students and will become like most other NA schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

How can you say the proposed plans do quite nicely for central Arlington? Does anyone disagree that Ashlawn is getting hurt by the proposed plans???

Ashlawn hurt? It is just being filled with McK students and will become like most other NA schools.

Losing a massive part of your school community is pretty crappy, so yes, hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

How can you say the proposed plans do quite nicely for central Arlington? Does anyone disagree that Ashlawn is getting hurt by the proposed plans???

Emphatically.