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

[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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

[Anonymous]

There is no way to fill 3 neighborhood schools as LARGE as McKinley, Reed, and Ashlawn in that area of Arlington. They would have to have crazy boundaries. We can debate boundaries next year, but honestly, one of those three huge schools adjacent schools needs to be an option. Reed was not added to that location because seats were needed there. It was added b/c it was APS property and Westover was willing to work with APS (low hanging fruit). It was always going to mean massive change for Ashlawn and McKinley. Always.

[Anonymous]

Also, not that many kids are moving from Tuckahoe to Reed. Look at the data. No real overlapping walk zone there. The massive overlap is McKinley/Reed walk zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

McKrazy said at last night's meeting that they were going to make them public. The way she said it made it sound like a threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not my dream. But the place has some exalted status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

McKrazy said at last night's meeting that they were going to make them public. The way she said it made it sound like a threat.

Yes, please assault us with some facts instead of hysterics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

McKrazy said at last night's meeting that they were going to make them public. The way she said it made it sound like a threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, not that many kids are moving from Tuckahoe to Reed. Look at the data. No real overlapping walk zone there. The massive overlap is McKinley/Reed walk zones.

Actually, the PUs directly north and to the west of Reed are Tuckahoe. It will be interesting to see if the boundaries bus McKinley kids to Reed while keeping potential Reed walkers at Tuckahoe. It would make sense to send the western-most McKinley kids (who aren't walkable to Reed) to Tuckahoe, but who knows if they'll preference keeping McKinley kids together over walking.

[Anonymous]

Hmm. Overlee vs. Madison Manor. Wonder who wins that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

He brought printed maps to the meeting - I didn’t get one. Someone from the Save McKinley camp would need to share them to AEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

He brought printed maps to the meeting - I didn’t get one. Someone from the Save McKinley camp would need to share them to AEM.

Was it the FOIA analytics guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

Post them if they are legit.

Clearly they’re not legit.

He brought printed maps to the meeting - I didn’t get one. Someone from the Save McKinley camp would need to share them to AEM.

And yet, as far as I can tell, they have not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Overlee vs. Madison Manor. Wonder who wins that?

What is winning in this context? Tuckahoe will be 2/3s the size of Reed, which will have a nice building but will surely have a couple of sh*t show years as a new school. Everybody wins!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. Overlee vs. Madison Manor. Wonder who wins that?

What is winning in this context? Tuckahoe will be 2/3s the size of Reed, which will have a nice building but will surely have a couple of sh*t show years as a new school. Everybody wins!

Both, because either way their kids will go to an excellent school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKrazy said at last night's meeting that they were going to make them public. The way she said it made it sound like a threat.

I've seen the McKinley analysis. It looks solid from someone who does analytics. Tuckahoe with minimal walk zone really should be the new home of ATS and not McKinley. I hope they do release the analysis as it's more analytical than what APS has provided. I'm not associated with McKinley.