APS School Capacity Info

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

Thanks for being a voice of reason. Too often these arguments boil down to "my child's interests' first, the thousands of other kids be damned!" I'm proud to live in a County with a program like HB Woodlawn, I just don't know if it's sustainable in its current form - given the stress on other schools in the system. Still smh over the Board's ignorance in addressing the need for a 4th high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

So the next time around, if there is a disagreement about the projections, you'll decide to follow the ones that show your school planning units with lower enrollment and then volunteer to take extra planning units from someone else, even if it means that, if the other numbers turn out to be right, you'll be wildly overcrowded within a year or two?

P.S. Nottingham is already over capacity again, and nearly 30 kids over the projections from just this spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on the Reed school, and whether it will be a choice program vs neighborhood school?

I thought I read that the recommendation was for neighborhood school, which was a pleasant surprise.

Yes, the staff recommendation was clearly for it to be a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on the Reed school, and whether it will be a choice program vs neighborhood school?

I thought I read that the recommendation was for neighborhood school, which was a pleasant surprise.

Yes, the staff recommendation was clearly for it to be a neighborhood school.

That would be fantastic. I have no problem with choice programs (even HB), but I don't think we should be adding new choice programs until the current overcrowding is resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

So the next time around, if there is a disagreement about the projections, you'll decide to follow the ones that show your school planning units with lower enrollment and then volunteer to take extra planning units from someone else, even if it means that, if the other numbers turn out to be right, you'll be wildly overcrowded within a year or two?

P.S. Nottingham is already over capacity again, and nearly 30 kids over the projections from just this spring.

*yawn* Nottingham parents are insufferable. I'm clutching my pearls over here about the "capacity" issue at Nottingham. They just can't take one more student. Think of their property values!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

So the next time around, if there is a disagreement about the projections, you'll decide to follow the ones that show your school planning units with lower enrollment and then volunteer to take extra planning units from someone else, even if it means that, if the other numbers turn out to be right, you'll be wildly overcrowded within a year or two?

P.S. Nottingham is already over capacity again, and nearly 30 kids over the projections from just this spring.

*yawn* Nottingham parents are insufferable. I'm clutching my pearls over here about the "capacity" issue at Nottingham. They just can't take one more student. Think of their property values!!!

If Nottingham parents are so insufferable, I'm sure you wouldn't want your children to go school with their children. Best keep you kids elsewhere, I guess. After all, if you send them to Nottingham, they may get stuck in a trailer with a bunch of insufferable kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on the Reed school, and whether it will be a choice program vs neighborhood school?

I thought I read that the recommendation was for neighborhood school, which was a pleasant surprise.

Yes, the staff recommendation was clearly for it to be a neighborhood school.

That would be fantastic. I have no problem with choice programs (even HB), but I don't think we should be adding new choice programs until the current overcrowding is resolved.

Reed is supposed to open as a neighborhood school for the 2021-2022 school year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you take the same approach to all APS schools, not just McKinley.

I do, which is why unlike the crappy Nottingham parents who openly admitted that they didn't care if they screwed over hundreds of children by shoving way too many towards McKinley, I'm working hard to get APS to make good decisions. Am I more vested in our own family and neighborhood in that I know all the details, of course. But pushing for redistributing kids to balance capacity isn't just about McKinley, it's about Oakridge and Claremont and ASFS and others as well. Pushing for a 4th comprehensive high school, and giving up the artificial limits on HB Woodlawn's precious program are for all students.

There are a lot of people in this community pushing hard across all fronts to make APS better for everyone. Real kids' educations are at stake here. It doesn't have to be us against them in the shameful way that some parents always make it out to be.

So the next time around, if there is a disagreement about the projections, you'll decide to follow the ones that show your school planning units with lower enrollment and then volunteer to take extra planning units from someone else, even if it means that, if the other numbers turn out to be right, you'll be wildly overcrowded within a year or two?

P.S. Nottingham is already over capacity again, and nearly 30 kids over the projections from just this spring.

*yawn* Nottingham parents are insufferable. I'm clutching my pearls over here about the "capacity" issue at Nottingham. They just can't take one more student. Think of their property values!!!

Come on, not all Nottingham parents are like like this. Not even most of them.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone go to the open house yesterday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on the Reed school, and whether it will be a choice program vs neighborhood school?

I thought I read that the recommendation was for neighborhood school, which was a pleasant surprise.

Yes, the staff recommendation was clearly for it to be a neighborhood school.

That would be fantastic. I have no problem with choice programs (even HB), but I don't think we should be adding new choice programs until the current overcrowding is resolved.

Reed is supposed to open as a neighborhood school for the 2021-2022 school year!

Can you point me to an APS doc that says that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on the Reed school, and whether it will be a choice program vs neighborhood school?

I thought I read that the recommendation was for neighborhood school, which was a pleasant surprise.

Yes, the staff recommendation was clearly for it to be a neighborhood school.

That would be fantastic. I have no problem with choice programs (even HB), but I don't think we should be adding new choice programs until the current overcrowding is resolved.

Reed is supposed to open as a neighborhood school for the 2021-2022 school year!

Can you point me to an APS doc that says that?

Not PP, but this was an agenda item at Thursday's School Board meeting. Watch the video that is posted on-line.