The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

It’s publicly available on the McKinley PTA website, mckinleypta.org

Staff specifically said meetings would be community wide so everyone could participate. They want to end meeting with individual school groups. But from that letter it looks like they are meeting with McKinley PTA. That discussion should take place in a public forum. This is where we get last minute surprise proposals that were worked out behind the scenes.

That was a recommendation the County PTA made to staff. It's a good suggestion that it should be in a public forum with lots of publicity if they do meet with an individual group - but then it's probably technically not meeting with a particular group anymore anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Staff can do a meeting at McKinley but it should be open to the public. No back room deals this time by the SB or staff. Open dialogue.

There was NO APS STAFF at McK PTA meeting. Just PTA presenting in depth look at proposal and parents asking questions. A few parents were more emotional and spoke about the numbers but the rest of us just sat there to listen and learn.

DP. The McKinley letter indicates that the PTA had already made the meeting request and the staff responded that they were looking at dates.

[Anonymous]

I don't even think the letter is accurate. The addition was completed two years ago; not 5. The work started in 2015.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the very active McKinley PTA/volunteer Moms are most upset by this proposal, creating much of this resistance and upset. They will be losing their cliques and have to start over at a new school. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em and all the hard work and effort they put in on behalf of our school and students but at some point, they will have to give up the fight. The only resolution is either our school closes or another nearby NA school is eliminated... a lose-lose proposition if school parents start battling it out.

I'd be satisfied with my kids moving to Ashlawn but only if APS does not jam-pack that school to over capacity (I am not optimistic) and they would do fine as long as a few friends moved too. I myself will be thrilled as long as CB does not follow us to Ashlawn!

Amen!! Kind of glad we'll be going to Ashlawn.

Yes, the "silver lining" to my cloud!

What is CB?

[Anonymous]

APS hasn’t meet with the McK PTA, yet, but they are going to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

What are you talking about? Option 1 has Reed at 97%, Ashlawn at 91 and Glebe at 92. Contrast that with Tuckahoe at 83%, Nottingham at 85, Discovery at 80(!) and Jamestown at 89. The seats are in the far N with the $$.

[Anonymous]

McKinley has 91 days to fill 2,093 seats. Are they up to the task? It is going to be a real nail biter. Buying south of 66 can be risky....let's see what happens next.

[Anonymous]

If they meet with McK it should be advertised and open to public. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKinley has 91 days to fill 2,093 seats. Are they up to the task? It is going to be a real nail biter. Buying south of 66 can be risky....let's see what happens next.

That is only 23 students per day. Maybe Falls Church can send over a few buses to help out? McK....you....can.....do....it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

What are you talking about? Option 1 has Reed at 97%, Ashlawn at 91 and Glebe at 92. Contrast that with Tuckahoe at 83%, Nottingham at 85, Discovery at 80(!) and Jamestown at 89. The seats are in the far N with the $$.

Immediately after the redrawing, but not by 2023-24, which is the time horizon they’re looking at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

What are you talking about? Option 1 has Reed at 97%, Ashlawn at 91 and Glebe at 92. Contrast that with Tuckahoe at 83%, Nottingham at 85, Discovery at 80(!) and Jamestown at 89. The seats are in the far N with the $$.

Immediately after the redrawing, but not by 2023-24, which is the time horizon they’re looking at.

Where are the planning unit specific projections for 2023/24?

[Anonymous]

This thread sounds like two people talking to each other... What the heck is CB and why would McKinley need to fill over 2k seats? Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

What are you talking about? Option 1 has Reed at 97%, Ashlawn at 91 and Glebe at 92. Contrast that with Tuckahoe at 83%, Nottingham at 85, Discovery at 80(!) and Jamestown at 89. The seats are in the far N with the $$.

Immediately after the redrawing, but not by 2023-24, which is the time horizon they’re looking at.

Also, McKinley fudged the numbers by pulling out all pre-k classes. McKinley doesn’t have pre-k, so the numbers look more favorable to their position if you strip them out for everyone rather than looking at the real numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

What are you talking about? Option 1 has Reed at 97%, Ashlawn at 91 and Glebe at 92. Contrast that with Tuckahoe at 83%, Nottingham at 85, Discovery at 80(!) and Jamestown at 89. The seats are in the far N with the $$.

Immediately after the redrawing, but not by 2023-24, which is the time horizon they’re looking at.

Also, McKinley fudged the numbers by pulling out all pre-k classes. McKinley doesn’t have pre-k, so the numbers look more favorable to their position if you strip them out for everyone rather than looking at the real numbers.

But are they going to put income qualified VPI classes in the far north schools and BUS kids there, because they don’t live anywhere N of Lee Hwy? If they are, just to fill seats, or for diversity’s sake, maybe their arguments that this plan will save busing costs won’t be accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

What McKinley Letter? Can you post?

It’s publicly available on the McKinley PTA website, mckinleypta.org

Staff specifically said meetings would be community wide so everyone could participate. They want to end meeting with individual school groups. But from that letter it looks like they are meeting with McKinley PTA. That discussion should take place in a public forum. This is where we get last minute surprise proposals that were worked out behind the scenes.

That was a recommendation the County PTA made to staff. It's a good suggestion that it should be in a public forum with lots of publicity if they do meet with an individual group - but then it's probably technically not meeting with a particular group anymore anyway.

Staff said in its meeting with PTA Presidents and Ambassadors that meetings would be public community meetings and not individual school meetings.