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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of McK is going to Tuckahoe. McKrazy won’t be zoned there, but some of Madison Manor is contiguous to Tuck units

Is that a problem? I hear Tuckahoe is a pretty good school.

If I had little kids, I would rather be zoned to Tuckahoe than Reed. Who wants to be in a 750 student school when you could be in a 500 student school instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of McK is going to Tuckahoe. McKrazy won’t be zoned there, but some of Madison Manor is contiguous to Tuck units

Is that a problem? I hear Tuckahoe is a pretty good school.

No, McKinley moms have very little at stake because they are going to Reed, Ashlawn, Tuckahoe, etc. or could even lottery into expanded ATS. There’s not a bad option. This is why we mock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad that Arlnow is not covering this nonsense.

Lordy. Don’t conjure it. Can you imagine the comment section?

I'm really surprised it's not in ArlNow yet!

ArlNow doesn't have much interest in APS. When Alex Koma was a reporter there, he would follow these issues and report on them, but no one seems to have taken it up since he left.

[Anonymous]

They are all good options for the McKinley families. They can't go wrong. And wherever they go will be less crowded than where they are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad that Arlnow is not covering this nonsense.

Lordy. Don’t conjure it. Can you imagine the comment section?

I'm really surprised it's not in ArlNow yet!

ArlNow doesn't have much interest in APS. When Alex Koma was a reporter there, he would follow these issues and report on them, but no one seems to have taken it up since he left.

Also, this is not news. This is a small, handful of moms going off the rails b/c they didn't get their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad that Arlnow is not covering this nonsense.

Lordy. Don’t conjure it. Can you imagine the comment section?

I'm really surprised it's not in ArlNow yet!

ArlNow doesn't have much interest in APS. When Alex Koma was a reporter there, he would follow these issues and report on them, but no one seems to have taken it up since he left.

Also, this is not news. This is a small, handful of moms going off the rails b/c they didn't get their way.

Sounds like ArlNow material to me. They "reported" on MONA struggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad that Arlnow is not covering this nonsense.

Lordy. Don’t conjure it. Can you imagine the comment section?

I'm really surprised it's not in ArlNow yet!

ArlNow doesn't have much interest in APS. When Alex Koma was a reporter there, he would follow these issues and report on them, but no one seems to have taken it up since he left.

Also, this is not news. This is a small, handful of moms going off the rails b/c they didn't get their way.

Sounds like ArlNow material to me. They "reported" on MONA struggles.

That's because a prior editor made a big issue of MONA stuff. From what I heard, he was fired because he was turning it into a gossip rag and the owners wanted it to be a proper local news blog.

[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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

[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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

Please share your wisdom. My understanding is that the boundary process is next fall.

[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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

Which parts are untrue? The staff said in the Tuesday night meeting that they would be doing boundary refinements to balance capacity utilization. The spreadsheet referenced above projects for proposal #1:

Ashlawn at 75% capacity (169 extra seats)
Glebe at 89% capacity (55 extra seats)
Nottingham at 86% capacity (74 extra seats, plus lots of extra capacity that can be added with trailers)
Tuckahoe at 83% capacity (90 extra seats)

That is well more than enough excess capacity to absorb the 105 extra students who would need to be moved from Reed. What am I missing?

[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

Don’t these numbers assume an option school doesn’t replace a school in this equation?
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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

Which parts are untrue? The staff said in the Tuesday night meeting that they would be doing boundary refinements to balance capacity utilization. The spreadsheet referenced above projects for proposal #1:

Ashlawn at 75% capacity (169 extra seats)
Glebe at 89% capacity (55 extra seats)
Nottingham at 86% capacity (74 extra seats, plus lots of extra capacity that can be added with trailers)
Tuckahoe at 83% capacity (90 extra seats)

That is well more than enough excess capacity to absorb the 105 extra students who would need to be moved from Reed. What am I missing?

[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

Don’t these numbers assume an option school doesn’t replace a school in this equation?
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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

Which parts are untrue? The staff said in the Tuesday night meeting that they would be doing boundary refinements to balance capacity utilization. The spreadsheet referenced above projects for proposal #1:

Ashlawn at 75% capacity (169 extra seats)
Glebe at 89% capacity (55 extra seats)
Nottingham at 86% capacity (74 extra seats, plus lots of extra capacity that can be added with trailers)
Tuckahoe at 83% capacity (90 extra seats)

That is well more than enough excess capacity to absorb the 105 extra students who would need to be moved from Reed. What am I missing?

Ashlawn and Glebe only have extra seats if you kick out a ton of their current students. Nottingham and Tuckahoe have extra capacity. Including the four schools in the same statement is misleading.

[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.

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.

66? Please ! Above Washington or you’re risking sub-9 GS schools.

[Anonymous]

I am not a McKinley parent, but I really don't understand why McKinley was picked over Tuckahoe. Many Tuckahoe students would be rezoned to Reed anyway. Tuckahoe would fit into Reed better, and any overflow would go into under capacity Nottingham and Discovery. Tuckahoe has less walkers so less walkers would be turned into bus riders. Plus, who cares if they can't expand option schools there - they are option schools whose capacity can be controlled! While I completely agree some of the Save McKinley folks are going off the rails, they have raised valid points, especially about APS's flawed assumptions and data analysis. The problem is that they are being aggressive and undermining their own valid arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Don’t these numbers assume an option school doesn’t replace a school in this equation?
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.

That is not true. Please stop sharing false information.

Which parts are untrue? The staff said in the Tuesday night meeting that they would be doing boundary refinements to balance capacity utilization. The spreadsheet referenced above projects for proposal #1:

Ashlawn at 75% capacity (169 extra seats)
Glebe at 89% capacity (55 extra seats)
Nottingham at 86% capacity (74 extra seats, plus lots of extra capacity that can be added with trailers)
Tuckahoe at 83% capacity (90 extra seats)

That is well more than enough excess capacity to absorb the 105 extra students who would need to be moved from Reed. What am I missing?

Ashlawn and Glebe only have extra seats if you kick out a ton of their current students. Nottingham and Tuckahoe have extra capacity. Including the four schools in the same statement is misleading.

Yes, that's the whole point of the spreadsheet, to create projections of what things would look like if they make these proposed relocations and then move planning units accordingly. Based on that spreadsheet (which does assume that certain planning units are moved away from Ashlawn and Glebe, they are accounted for in other schools' projections), Reed is the only NA neighborhood school projected to be overcapacity. Therefore, it seems like there will be lots of options for rebalancing capacity utilization in NA during the boundary refinement process.