APS: Think the "no move" campaign is going to work?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
In this case it's a good thing they did fight it. At least their arguments then were correct -- it wouldn't have helped fix the capacity issue. Now they can make a big dent in the problem by moving Key farther. So, thanks Key! |
Anonymous
It'd be tight. The land is jam-packed with soccer fields, baseball fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, basketball court, playground, etc. What is the smallest footprint that is feasible? Underground parking, multi-level. Could work but it'd be $$$. |
Anonymous
So make one of them an option school. |
Anonymous
True although I guess if you make one an option school it could work? But it’s also years down the line before something like that could be built anyways |
Anonymous
That’s why I said the whole area would have to be reworked (redesign some of the fields and such space to accommodate as may have field space and school space as possible) it’s not ideal but that is a large chuck of county owned land that could be used if we continue to face a shortage of space. |
Anonymous
It's so close to the metro they should be able to get away with dramatically reduced parking. |
Anonymous
| I would be thrilled if the county coughed up land anywhere for a school. The SB has said that the next school to be built needs to be roughly along Columbia Pike, though. I doubt they would take that money and build a new school in the north first, just so the Key population doesn’t have to move. |
Anonymous
Yes, nothing will be built in time for Reed opening in 2021. And it does look like they will be building along the Columbia Pike next. The Quincy land could be used down the line though - an interesting option. |
Anonymous
I find it hard to advocate for anything without really understanding the plan. It feels like this plan is going to require one or two planning units here and there to move to each of the different schools. How is that different from the boundary option? I simply don't understand why this can't all be done at once (with planning units). The numbers change, I get it. But the numbers will change again every year and at some point you make decisions, so why not now? It really does feel like they're trying to get McK parents on board by saying "Hey, most of the school will move to Reed" and I wonder if "most" is semantics. (Hey, 51 percent is most.) APS has done this kind of thing before... |
Anonymous
I don't know the answer on the footprint question, but IIRC, they don't have as much flexiblity to go multi-level for an elementary school as for a secondary school. I believe state regulations are stricter for elementary schools about number of floors and distance to egress points due to fire safety. After all, how long would it take to get a bunch of 6 yos down two flights of stairs in an emergency when they're scared and starting to cry? I believe that's part of why Reed is designed the way it is, with all of the common space, specials and K/1 classrooms on the first two floors (pre-K and K on the first floor) so that those students will never have more than one flight of stairs to an egress point, and then the 2-5 classes are on the third and fourth floors in the tower. Honestly, it's going to be a headache for those 4th and 5th graders to have to go up and down three flights of stairs to go to gym or library, and I imagine the administration will have to build lunch and specials schedules around minimizing travel time for upper grades. Also, as you noted, it will be $$$. Underground parking is expensive to build, and I believe once you get past two stories above ground, there are a whole bunch of additional structural requirements for fire safety (e.g., fireproofing around contained stairwells). |
Anonymous
| Also, the Quincy site is right next to the ASFS walk zone -- the only reason it's not in the walk zone is because it's on the other side of Washington Blvd. It would be very difficult to draw sensible boundaries for both ASFS and a neighborhood school at Quincy. |
Anonymous
Because realistically, it's just too much to do it all at once. For this phase, the staff looked at three scenarios -- proposal 1, proposal 2, and no moves. In a boundary process, we typically see at least 2-3 publicly-released proposals, and have been upwards of six for more extensive redrawings (as would happen here) -- and this doesn't include any scenarios the staff prepares and then rejects after analysis that the public never sees. If the staff does the whole thing together, we're talking about them having to analyze three times as many boundary scenarios at the same time. Any change they want to explore in handling one part of the county would require three times as much work, and would have to be analyzed not just through adjusting boundaries but also consideration of whether they should consider different locations with their own set of boundaries. Doing it this way would be chaotic, input would be flying in so many different directions, the odds of errors would go up dramatically, and we could very well end up with a worse result because the staff wouldn't be able to invest as much time and resources into each aspect of the project. |
Anonymous
|
What is this list of Key demands someone mentioned on AEM? Why should Key get to demand anything?
People have lost their minds. |
Anonymous
If it wasn't so cumbersome to do I would cross reference the people lamenting the great tragedy of moving immersion 2.5 miles with the people who are on the record complaining that such a "tiny" county has so much segregation and saying that we should implement wide-spread busing. I would expect to see a lot of overlap. |
Anonymous
Maybe it would be better used for MS/HS (in case there aren't enough HS seats right there - ha!) or a combo space (k-8 immersion?). |