APS Construction - Never believe their schedules
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
THANK YOU. Please spread the word to neighbors. |
Anonymous
|
Maybe I missed this, but what is the APS explanation for not delaying the boundary change in light of the construction delays? That seems like a no brainer.
Who presented this information to the PTA? Was it APS staff? If so I am sure they cannot unilaterally decide to delay a boundary change, but with public pressure the Board could decide to do that. |
Anonymous
It's like English is the site's second language. |
Anonymous
It does seem like a no brainer, doesn't it? APS staff (the Asst. Superintendent, Facilities and Operations) explained that the numbers will be better in 5 years for McKinely, so they are making the change now. Yes, that's what he said. He also said it's better for everyone if McKinley has a deficit of 169 seats, while the schools that are losing students (and aren't under construction) have a deficit of 63 and 41 seats. I don't like that any school has a deficit, but it's a reality. At least APS could try to actually make it better for everyone instead of doing the exact opposite of that. |
Anonymous
| How does a county that is allegedly famous for prudent planning suck so badly at 1) zoning and 2) school population forecasting? |
Anonymous
| Can you imagine explaining to a group of parents that their kids are moving to a new school to be in trailers during construction, having early lunch b/c there are too many kids in the school, PE will be in a trailer, there will be no fields and there will be no parking, but that's OK b/c the population should be down in 5 years.......when your kid is no longer even in this school, but rather the overcrowded MS or HS? |
Anonymous
| When was McKinley supposed to be open? That building is still a steel shell!! |
Anonymous
| The 3 story addition was supposed to be done by the start of school in September 2016. They ran into site issues last year. APS didn't provide a community update until April. |
Anonymous
This is the part that makes me the most angry. They clearly knew this winter that construction was going to be delayed, but waited until this week to tell the McKinley parents and the McKinley staff. I think APS was trying to avoid delaying the boundary changes by cutting off any time for debate. Now they are going to say that they are too close to the new school year to make the changes. Neighbors are unhappy too about the parking situation. McKinley lost half their parking spaces because the gym trailer had to on the existing lot. There are only ~20 spaces for the entire school, so the overflow already goes heavily into the neighborhood. Adding more families without the parking will only make this problem worse. Imagine 712 students and 20 parking spaces-- that's what it will be next year. Unlike some of the other elementary schools, McK is smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood, so there is no place for any overflow parking that isn't right in front of someone's house. |
Anonymous
|
I'm a current McKinley parent and I guess I don't really think this is a big deal, and that the parents are having a harder time with it than the kids will.
My child LOVED having gym in the trailer, and all the echoey sounds you could make with your voice in there. The school dealt with space issues this year by making some specials classes "roaming" classes, so for example the kids might have Spanish or Art or Music in their own classrooms instead of going to a room dedicated to that subject. It would not be an ideal long term plan, but for a year or two I don't see any negative effects on my child or his education. My kid has never had class all year in a trailer, but my understanding is that the kids actually quite like the trailers. It seems to build class unity and make you feel like you are your own special community, plus you can do whatever you want to the walls. Again, I wouldn't want trailers as the long term plan (which is why they are doing this renovation/addition to the school in the first place), but as a temporary thing, it's fine. I appreciate that in general McKinley is not full of spoiled people who are constantly asking for special treatment and privileges and not taking "more than our share." When something is important -- like when Tuckahoe wanted to move two of its planning groups over so they could keep their neighborhood together even though that would have put McKinley at 110% capacity AFTER THE NEW ADDITION WAS ADDED -- we will talk reasonably to APS and get them to change their mind. In this case we are talking about a three month delay of the main new construction, so three months of a trailer fleet. I just don't think that's a big deal. And if a new child was coming to the school over from Glebe or Tuckahoe, they might find the whole thing fun and again, sort of community building. "Look we're all getting through this together." If they waited to come until the following year, they would have missed out on that. I don't think the parking is that big of a deal because there is quite a lot of street parking. I just think all this complaining is very much a spoiled North Arlington mindset -- "MY CHILD SHALL NOT BE INCONVENIENCED BY TRAILERS" -- when you are coming from schools that already have fleets of trailers in their fields. Maybe you just don't want to leave your home schools, and that's fair. I wouldn't want to either, probably. But we're all in this together, and we can get through it as a community. The new school is going to be really, really beautiful. |
Anonymous
Parking is actually a problem this year. With 712 students and even more teachers, it is going to get worse. |
Anonymous
| What problems are you having with parking? I always manage to find a space on the street, though sometimes that means a five minute walk instead of one minute, so I have to build that extra time into my schedule. But I have NEVER not been able to find a space. |
Anonymous
| As somebody who lives in the neighborhood, I can tell you that people who do *not* have kids at McKinley are getting really irritated by the parking situation. That is why so many of them showed up for the PTA meeting the other night. Sure, there is plenty of street parking, but it is all directly in front of somebody's house. I get that none of the spaces are reserved for the homeowners, but I am also sympathetic to the older residents who come home from work at 5:30 only to find that they can't park in front of their own house because all the Extended Day parents are taking up the spaces for pick-up. |
Anonymous
I'm a current Mck parent too, and I don't think this is true at all. It is not about the trailers. It is about having 712 kids crammed into an elementary school built for 684. I get that other schools are over-capacity too, but why are they cramming additional kids into the schools that already have the largest enrollment in North Arlington (i.e, McK and Ashlawn-- both built for 684 kids). You have schools like Nottingham (488 capacity), Discovery (630 capacity), and Jamestown (597 capacity) that all have projected to have *under enrollment* for next year and already way smaller than McK. Even with the extra classroom space that was built, McK and Ashlawn still need to share 1 gym, 1 library, 1 lunchroom, 1 playground, 1 field, etc. with 100+ more kids than any other elementary schools. That's what stinks about the over-enrollment, not the trailers. I love McK- the parents are super nice, and very down to earth, and always have a positive attitude. But I also think that is why we got screwed. When everybody else fought to protect their smaller school, McK took everyone in with open arms. I think the School Administration is screwing us over with the over-enrollment because they know McK parents don't fight back the way the other neighborhoods do. People say that Nottingham, Discovery, and Jamestown get preferential treatment because they are in the most wealthy part of Arlington--- I actually don't think that is the reason. I think it is because they just fight back harder than the rest of us and APS doesn't have the balls to stand up to them. |
Anonymous
| PP pointing out that more than 700 kids will be sharing one gym, cafeteria etc. that is the standard they are building the new S Arlington school too. They should have made the additions bigger. I do agree that it's very unfair that some of the other schools will be under capacity. |