APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the #SaveMcKinleys think about the no-moves option. The McK they "bought" into won't be the same school, not at all.

It would depend on whether they get to stay.

I guess those who purchased below 66 have chosen poorly. Can't wait for the boundary discussions next fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the #SaveMcKinleys think about the no-moves option. The McK they "bought" into won't be the same school, not at all.

Anyone idea of what the boundaries would look like if McK, Reed and Ashlawn are all neighborhood schools? That is a lot of seats to fill.

In the no-moves map, McK kept the immediate neighborhood and then went way down into S. Arlington.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Representative-Boundary-Scenario.png

Let McKrazy have that, then we will talk about her house value.

McKrazy could walk...isn't that all that really matters in the end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the #SaveMcKinleys think about the no-moves option. The McK they "bought" into won't be the same school, not at all.

Anyone idea of what the boundaries would look like if McK, Reed and Ashlawn are all neighborhood schools? That is a lot of seats to fill.

In the no-moves map, McK kept the immediate neighborhood and then went way down into S. Arlington.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Representative-Boundary-Scenario.png

Let McKrazy have that, then we will talk about her house value.

McKrazy could walk...isn't that all that really matters in the end?

Yes, let's make all decisions around what is best for McKrazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, they can change the ATS lottery to one like HB where spots are allotted based on neighborhood school size. That would be much more equitable

But look at the economic diversity at HB v. ATS. ATS gets its economic diversity from the VPI classes. Before then, it looked more like HB - perhaps even less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

And they've already said they would make refinements in the boundary process to address this, so I'm not seeing the issue. Ashlawn, Tuckahoe, Nottingham and Glebe are all projected to be well under capacity, there's plenty of space to reassign units to those schools to balance capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Staff can't win here. If they produce a well thought out plan and defend it, they are accused of not listening to community feedback and having a predetermined outcome.
If they put out their initial thoughts as plans they are accused of coming up with half baked plans without doing the work to back it up.
Here- they clearly spent the summer working on the best plans they could get to. They are 'showing their work' in that in the engagement sessions they are showing some other plans they thought about and why they discarded them.

But here's the problem -- they're not "showing their work". They're saying, we see the work and you need to trust us that it'll all work out -- and McK got burned the last time they did this. I think "showing their work" would alleviate a lot of the concerns many parents have. Clearly they know which planning units they're planning to send to each school: they couldn't have formulated this plan without it. But they're NOT showing.

Huh? That data has been available for a while on the engage website. It’s there if you want it.

It does not show which planning unit is moving where.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT BOUNDARIES THEY ARE GOING TO PROPOSE. Yes, they have general ideas; but THEY HAVE NOT DESIGNED SPECIFIC BOUNDARY PROPOSALS and THEY ARE NOT LOCKED IN A CLOSET WAITING TO BE BROUGHT OUT when they get to boundary proposal time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the #SaveMcKinleys think about the no-moves option. The McK they "bought" into won't be the same school, not at all.

Anyone idea of what the boundaries would look like if McK, Reed and Ashlawn are all neighborhood schools? That is a lot of seats to fill.

In the no-moves map, McK kept the immediate neighborhood and then went way down into S. Arlington.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Representative-Boundary-Scenario.png

Let McKrazy have that, then we will talk about her house value.

McKrazy could walk...isn't that all that really matters in the end?

Why don't they just let her opt to stay at McKinley? They can plan to leave McKinley at a capacity that allows for neighborhood transfers and she can transfer back in to stay. Those remaining at McKinley will just have to sacrifice themselves for everyone else's salvation from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

And they've already said they would make refinements in the boundary process to address this, so I'm not seeing the issue. Ashlawn, Tuckahoe, Nottingham and Glebe are all projected to be well under capacity, there's plenty of space to reassign units to those schools to balance capacity.

I have no idea where my kids will end up and I'm sure they'll be fine anywhere. The problem is APS is selling this as "The majority of McK goes to Reed! Everyone moves together!" And while that may be technically accurate, because they may send 395 of the kids making it exactly half, that's not at all how they're presenting this. And if they really intend to split the student population into 5 different schools to balance enrollment all around, they should just say that. None of the presentations that I've seen show that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

How do we see the list of all planning units? Excel newbie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

How do we see the list of all planning units? Excel newbie.

3rd tab

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

How do we see the list of all planning units? Excel newbie.

3rd tab

on this one:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-26-Revised-Walk-Zone-Scenarios.xlsx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

How do we see the list of all planning units? Excel newbie.

3rd tab

on this one:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-26-Revised-Walk-Zone-Scenarios.xlsx

Thank you. When I click on the 3rd tab (Date uased to create tables), i only see a few lines 2646-2666 (first line says A. Fleet and rest say Nottingham). what am i doing wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

And they've already said they would make refinements in the boundary process to address this, so I'm not seeing the issue. Ashlawn, Tuckahoe, Nottingham and Glebe are all projected to be well under capacity, there's plenty of space to reassign units to those schools to balance capacity.

I have no idea where my kids will end up and I'm sure they'll be fine anywhere. The problem is APS is selling this as "The majority of McK goes to Reed! Everyone moves together!" And while that may be technically accurate, because they may send 395 of the kids making it exactly half, that's not at all how they're presenting this. And if they really intend to split the student population into 5 different schools to balance enrollment all around, they should just say that. None of the presentations that I've seen show that.

Proposal 1 assumed that most would go to Reed, a good portion going to Ashlawn, and then one PU goes to Glebe. But that's not binding - it's just an assumption they made for this higher-level planning. The details will get worked out in the boundary process.

[Anonymous]

Let's just get to February and vote to move ahead with Proposal 1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If what the PP said is true, Save McKinley needs to distance itself from the McKrazies who obviously only care about themselves and are willing to make sure everyone else suffers because of their own entitlement. However, the queen of screamers was wearing a SaveMcK shirt on tv, so.........

The #SaveMcKinley crew is a self-created group of parents who got pissed at the McKinley PTA for not being aggressive enough to advocate for their family's interests. Emilie Heller-- aka McKrazy-- has yelled at our PTA leadership the same way she has yelled at APS staff. She yelled at our PTA president for being "too nice" during two of the recent PTA meetings. (And yes, I mean yelled.) Note, our PTA president is a 5th grade parent who got stuck in this role for a 2nd year in a row because no other parents volunteered to take over for her last year. Emilie should be thanking her, but instead she just throws insults. Most of the more vocal #SaveMcKinley crew are parents who never show up for PTA meetings and never volunteer. I don't think closing McKinley is the right decision because we can't open Reed with 830 students (see Proposal #1) but I am so horrified at the way some of these parents are acting.

Where is this 830 number coming from? From what I can see, proposal #1 puts an estimated 702 at Reed (and that's without boundary refinements).

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analsysis-of-Students-Moving-rev_2019_Nov_16.pdf

That's the old version. APS updated it after some errors were pointed out in the Nov. 16 analysis. You need to download the "Analysis of Walkers and Bus Eligible Students by Proposal" spreadsheet that was released on November 27. You can find that spreadsheet here. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/

I am not making up the 830 number for Reed. Its on the spreadsheet-- Tab 2, Cell X32.

How do we see the list of all planning units? Excel newbie.

3rd tab

on this one:
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2019-11-26-Revised-Walk-Zone-Scenarios.xlsx

Thank you. When I click on the 3rd tab (Date uased to create tables), i only see a few lines 2646-2666 (first line says A. Fleet and rest say Nottingham). what am i doing wrong?

It's filtered. To change the filters click on the little filter icon in the header (A1 - since it's filtered on PU right now). Select all if you want to see all PUs.