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

[Anonymous]

How did last night's meeting go? I couldn't go, but I haven't heard much about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did last night's meeting go? I couldn't go, but I haven't heard much about it.

From the news footage, it looks like it was pretty lightly attended. But the same McKinley screamer came out for a second night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

But are those staff statements correct? I'm not a data person, but it sounds like McKinley's data person has created four alternative scenarios that do a better job balancing capacity and meeting APS's stated goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

But are those staff statements correct? I'm not a data person, but it sounds like McKinley's data person has created four alternative scenarios that do a better job balancing capacity and meeting APS's stated goals.

Are those scenarios posted publicly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

But are those staff statements correct? I'm not a data person, but it sounds like McKinley's data person has created four alternative scenarios that do a better job balancing capacity and meeting APS's stated goals.

Are those scenarios posted publicly?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

But are those staff statements correct? I'm not a data person, but it sounds like McKinley's data person has created four alternative scenarios that do a better job balancing capacity and meeting APS's stated goals.

Are those scenarios posted publicly?

How could they have done this when the SB hasn't even started the boundary process? Is this just more McKrazy?

[Anonymous]

guessing the school board just postpones this for five more years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The staff has addressed this. They said that for all of the challenges they previously anticipated drawing boundaries around Tuckahoe/Nottingham/Discovery if they all stayed neighborhood, the boundaries would be even worse if they kept Reed/McKinley/Ashlawn all as neighborhood schools because there's simply no reasonable way to pull in enough students to fill those seats. If they make McKinley optino instead, they can draw pretty reasonable boundaries for all the rest of those schools.

But are those staff statements correct? I'm not a data person, but it sounds like McKinley's data person has created four alternative scenarios that do a better job balancing capacity and meeting APS's stated goals.

Are those scenarios posted publicly?

How could they have done this when the SB hasn't even started the boundary process? Is this just more McKrazy?

Sure sounds that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:guessing the school board just postpones this for five more years.

LOL, no, they’re not going to delay opening Reed five more years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guessing the school board just postpones this for five more years.

LOL, no, they’re not going to delay opening Reed five more years.

OK, but i’ll be shocked if Key immersion actually has to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guessing the school board just postpones this for five more years.

LOL, no, they’re not going to delay opening Reed five more years.

OK, but i’ll be shocked if Key immersion actually has to move.

Why? Too much time on AEM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guessing the school board just postpones this for five more years.

LOL, no, they’re not going to delay opening Reed five more years.

OK, but i’ll be shocked if Key immersion actually has to move.

Dream on. The boundaries would be too nuts otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Sure, this totally makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, this totally makes sense.

Still can’t get over the Key parents on AEM talking about how the ATS site would make it very difficult for parents to handle with aftercare. Seriously? Looks at where you’re telling Courthouse and Rosslyn to go. It’s the same thing but worse because it’s not a CHOICE. Wow.