The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[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.

+1

Why is this elementary school musical chairs being done piecemeal? It should be incorporated within the larger boundary adjustment process.

[Anonymous]

What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

It allowed them to ignore the diversity consideration. That’s the real reason for not doing both at the same time. It wasn’t considered at all for the option program moves, so going forward with them without acknowledging the resulting boundaries gives them an out.

[Anonymous]

Spineless if they don’t move Key!

https://www.insidenova.com/news/education/is-aps-re-thinking-its-proposal-for-elementary-boundary-adjustments/article_21f40c42-024e-11ea-9110-274169badd23.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spineless if they don’t move Key!

https://www.insidenova.com/news/education/is-aps-re-thinking-its-proposal-for-elementary-boundary-adjustments/article_21f40c42-024e-11ea-9110-274169badd23.html

They are moving Key. That reporter is a hack.

[Anonymous]

Inside Nova isn't a reliable source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

It allowed them to ignore the diversity consideration. That’s the real reason for not doing both at the same time. It wasn’t considered at all for the option program moves, so going forward with them without acknowledging the resulting boundaries gives them an out.

I agree, and I also assume they're doing it this way to reduce the number of parents complaining at this point. Once the programs move, they will claim they have no choice but to adjust certain boundaries...

[Anonymous]

Based on my experience with APS, they are going to go with yet to be revealed option C. I wonder what it will be...

I think Option 1 is pretty good. Option 2 is kind of nonsensical and has too many moving parts.

[Anonymous]

It’s shady that they purport to quantify the percentage of students who will ultimately be impacted if they move options as compared with just adjusting boundaries without any underlying data showing how they arrive at those numbers. Don’t we need a side-by-side comparison of final outcomes / boundaries to measure and compare the impact? I don’t buy it when they throw out these ranges of 30% or 40% or 20%. How are they coming up with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell? It's a first step in the boundary process. Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?

Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes.

They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections. Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.

+1. I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.

+1

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals.

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them.

APS has failed to articulate why the option moves need to be set in stone before adjusting boundaries. What I foresee is the school board agreeing to move the option schools, and when it comes time to draw the boundaries and the resulting school populations exacerbate the already shameful demographic disparity between schools, they’ll say their hands are tied and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re locked into the decision to move McKinley or Key or Campbell. They’re just setting up their excuse for lousy boundaries and making it seem like they lack the flexibility to do better.