The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

If Reed has a parking lot or a field it can have trailers, lol. Look at Swanson. That's just a fiction dreamed up by future Reed people trying to get their school at 80% capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.

It helps not to be too rigid in thinking about the zones because planning units can move between zones. For instance, Ashlawn is in zone 2, but is closer to zone 1 schools than to most of the other zone 2 schools. Rezone the Ashlawn tail to schools in the east, and that will both use up a lot of the excess capacity in the east under these plans and will free up seats to take more students from the west.

I guess I am just not getting that map. Wouldn't Taylor lose a bunch of kids to ASFS too and have space? How do they know they won't have a scenario in 5 years where they decide to build an addition onto Barrett (in the CIP) or a new ES at Buck (also in the CIP) and that creates a surplus in Zone 2. And then the only way to address the lack of seats in Zone 1 is to go back to making McKinley a neighborhood school. I don't know how they can make these decisions separately from the CIP process or without looking at projected enrollment at the school level (or the planning unit level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.

It helps not to be too rigid in thinking about the zones because planning units can move between zones. For instance, Ashlawn is in zone 2, but is closer to zone 1 schools than to most of the other zone 2 schools. Rezone the Ashlawn tail to schools in the east, and that will both use up a lot of the excess capacity in the east under these plans and will free up seats to take more students from the west.

I guess I am just not getting that map. Wouldn't Taylor lose a bunch of kids to ASFS too and have space? How do they know they won't have a scenario in 5 years where they decide to build an addition onto Barrett (in the CIP) or a new ES at Buck (also in the CIP) and that creates a surplus in Zone 2. And then the only way to address the lack of seats in Zone 1 is to go back to making McKinley a neighborhood school. I don't know how they can make these decisions separately from the CIP process or without looking at projected enrollment at the school level (or the planning unit level).

Well it would be nice to do everything all together but they have deadlines due to Reed coming online so they really can't. I imagine they will keep building in the next CIP. The SB has said to expect boundary changes every few years so brace yourself. In zone one, Nottingham could take an addition. They looked at that several years ago and decided it can take one, but then didn't follow through when they decided to build Discovery instead. But they can in the future. Although given where the growth is projected in other parts of the county, that doesn't seem like a priority right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't the original draft plan for all this for Key to move to Nottingham because a good percentage of students from there can walk to Discovery and Tuckaho, The rest would of gone to Reed with some from Mckinley.

Nottingham parents found out about this and made noise, so then went on to explore other options...

No.
and no.

Yes. We t was part of The Natrass Plan. Yes, Nottingham found out and flipped out. APS tabled all of it, re-evaluated and came back with these 2 options.

No. Nattrass plan suggested an option program at Nottingham or that it would have room for an option program. It did not conclude or recommend that Key immersion program move there.

[Anonymous]

Agree that if they can put trailers at Swanson they can definitely put them at Reed, IF they are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Reed has a parking lot or a field it can have trailers, lol. Look at Swanson. That's just a fiction dreamed up by future Reed people trying to get their school at 80% capacity.

You don’t understand county regulations.

[Anonymous]

They can do lots of things if space gets tight. Trailers, move a grade off site while pending a boundary change. I would t worry too much about it. This is an issue for the boundary adjustment next year. Plus, it doesn’t look good for Westover to argue it needs to stay empty in case there are too many kids. Most places already have too many kids. You can’t keep seats empty if kids need them now just because you’d like too. Your community is just not that special.

[Anonymous]

100% agree. The only seats I can see intentionally leaving empty are places where there are actual developments opening or known to be opening in the next 3 years. Otherwise, we need to spread the existing seats as well as we can. But I think they need to include trailers as seats at some schools. Not a crazy number. But the places where realistically we are likely to keep trailers for the immediate future. Let's just acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

No one is talking about leaving whole classrooms empty. But how exactly do some of you think APS is going to fill each classroom exactly to capacity? Are they going to cherry pick students out of neighboring school zones to fill four 5th grade seats and seven 1st grade seats while sending three 4th graders to a neighboring school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.

It helps not to be too rigid in thinking about the zones because planning units can move between zones. For instance, Ashlawn is in zone 2, but is closer to zone 1 schools than to most of the other zone 2 schools. Rezone the Ashlawn tail to schools in the east, and that will both use up a lot of the excess capacity in the east under these plans and will free up seats to take more students from the west.

I guess I am just not getting that map. Wouldn't Taylor lose a bunch of kids to ASFS too and have space? How do they know they won't have a scenario in 5 years where they decide to build an addition onto Barrett (in the CIP) or a new ES at Buck (also in the CIP) and that creates a surplus in Zone 2. And then the only way to address the lack of seats in Zone 1 is to go back to making McKinley a neighborhood school. I don't know how they can make these decisions separately from the CIP process or without looking at projected enrollment at the school level (or the planning unit level).

Zone 2 is not going to have anything built in it— there isn’t any land, and they said that moving key eliminates the need to build anything there. They said moving key allows them to focus the cup on south Arlington, where they are looking to build three additions. The only reason the buck/Barrett stuff is in the cip is if they don’t move key, they need to build something there soon.
Asfs, key, taylor, and long branch will all be full once a lot of the affordable housing in Rosslyn and va square is finished. There are three large developments that are either about to begin or about to end development. Those will likely generate hundreds of kids. They are real too, unlike the townhouses in efc that have been proposed for literally decades and never come to fruition.

[Anonymous]

This whole two-step of moving schools prior to boundary changes seems so disconnected. How can anyone understand the necessity or wisdom of massive school relocations until the related boundaries are proposed? There are so many schools that could be displaced - not just McKinley -that could free up space. Why are we being shown these very limited options as if they’re the only way to go? It’s impossible to understand what it all means if they don’t show us the boundary changes that each proposal would result in and how capacity at each school would benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole two-step of moving schools prior to boundary changes seems so disconnected. How can anyone understand the necessity or wisdom of massive school relocations until the related boundaries are proposed? There are so many schools that could be displaced - not just McKinley -that could free up space. Why are we being shown these very limited options as if they’re the only way to go? It’s impossible to understand what it all means if they don’t show us the boundary changes that each proposal would result in and how capacity at each school would benefit.

Do you remember two years ago when they decided to include us in the decision making? It was chaos— the queen bees at every school were lobbying against other schools and the school board shit it down. It is necessary to consider moving some schools, but not so necessary to get the public super involved in the entire decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.

It helps not to be too rigid in thinking about the zones because planning units can move between zones. For instance, Ashlawn is in zone 2, but is closer to zone 1 schools than to most of the other zone 2 schools. Rezone the Ashlawn tail to schools in the east, and that will both use up a lot of the excess capacity in the east under these plans and will free up seats to take more students from the west.

I guess I am just not getting that map. Wouldn't Taylor lose a bunch of kids to ASFS too and have space? How do they know they won't have a scenario in 5 years where they decide to build an addition onto Barrett (in the CIP) or a new ES at Buck (also in the CIP) and that creates a surplus in Zone 2. And then the only way to address the lack of seats in Zone 1 is to go back to making McKinley a neighborhood school. I don't know how they can make these decisions separately from the CIP process or without looking at projected enrollment at the school level (or the planning unit level).

Zone 2 is not going to have anything built in it— there isn’t any land, and they said that moving key eliminates the need to build anything there. They said moving key allows them to focus the cup on south Arlington, where they are looking to build three additions. The only reason the buck/Barrett stuff is in the cip is if they don’t move key, they need to build something there soon.
Asfs, key, taylor, and long branch will all be full once a lot of the affordable housing in Rosslyn and va square is finished. There are three large developments that are either about to begin or about to end development. Those will likely generate hundreds of kids. They are real too, unlike the townhouses in efc that have been proposed for literally decades and never come to fruition.

The CIP deck seems to present things differently than this explanation? https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/BHNT237530F4/$file/CIP%20Planning%20Work%20Session%20(received%20110519).pdf

I'm more concerned about the high school seat situation, but there seems to be an awful lot of wasted time and money going into moving elementary seats now when it looks like we're still going to be projecting a shortage county-wide within 5 years. Also, isn't it premature to put these proposals out now rather than waiting another month for the new enrollment projections to be completed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't the original draft plan for all this for Key to move to Nottingham because a good percentage of students from there can walk to Discovery and Tuckaho, The rest would of gone to Reed with some from Mckinley.

Nottingham parents found out about this and made noise, so then went on to explore other options...

Ok so you’re just saving the Mckinley building but fine with splitting up the population right?

Yes. The “save McKinley” people are a small group that doesn’t really care that most of the school is going to Reed. They are in the neighborhood just east of the school building and want to keep their close walk. I think it’s futile and I hope they take it gracefully when they lose. I don’t want their sour grapes attitude when they come to Ashlawn.

[Anonymous]

If only we could get all these sexually frustrated mom's interested in cleaning up the corruption on the County Board as opposed to this silliness.