Transfers in Arl. at elementary level

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:15 - Maybe it's different because your kids are at Nottingham, so we have different perspectives. I have a hard time with the argument that APS should just move forward with something that doesn't make sense right now so they can focus on something else. The numbers don't support a boundary shift in 2016, so just delay it. You mentioned your kid was negatively affected by overcrowding. I'm sorry that happened. You understand the impact and, as a parent, it would make sense that you would rather have balanced enrollement everywhere and not the inequity that will be seen in N. Arl over the next 2 years.

In other words, you want at least another year to keep arguing, in the hopes that eventually you'll win, and you'll get your nice, cushy school at <90% capacity while everyone else is over again.

My kids were impacted by it for far more years than McKinley is expected to be, so I'm not really not feeling like we should take on the burden yet again just so you don't have to experience any.

[Anonymous]

Wow! You are bitter. Even if the Tuckahoe unit didn't move, McKinley would still be at capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:15 - Maybe it's different because your kids are at Nottingham, so we have different perspectives. I have a hard time with the argument that APS should just move forward with something that doesn't make sense right now so they can focus on something else. The numbers don't support a boundary shift in 2016, so just delay it. You mentioned your kid was negatively affected by overcrowding. I'm sorry that happened. You understand the impact and, as a parent, it would make sense that you would rather have balanced enrollement everywhere and not the inequity that will be seen in N. Arl over the next 2 years.

In other words, you want at least another year to keep arguing, in the hopes that eventually you'll win, and you'll get your nice, cushy school at <90% capacity while everyone else is over again.

My kids were impacted by it for far more years than McKinley is expected to be, so I'm not really not feeling like we should take on the burden yet again just so you don't have to experience any.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have found the individual who would go to the school board and tell them that they should make other schools over crowded because equally distributing students wouldn't be fair to them. Congratulations! I'm so happy you got your way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:15 - Maybe it's different because your kids are at Nottingham, so we have different perspectives. I have a hard time with the argument that APS should just move forward with something that doesn't make sense right now so they can focus on something else. The numbers don't support a boundary shift in 2016, so just delay it. You mentioned your kid was negatively affected by overcrowding. I'm sorry that happened. You understand the impact and, as a parent, it would make sense that you would rather have balanced enrollement everywhere and not the inequity that will be seen in N. Arl over the next 2 years.

In other words, you want at least another year to keep arguing, in the hopes that eventually you'll win, and you'll get your nice, cushy school at <90% capacity while everyone else is over again.

My kids were impacted by it for far more years than McKinley is expected to be, so I'm not really not feeling like we should take on the burden yet again just so you don't have to experience any.

How does the Tuckahoe unit staying at Tuckahoe for 2 years have an impact on Nottingham? Get the chip off your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

People need to come over and see McKinley. Seriously. Swing by on your way to Target. They are carving into the hill (the only green space around the school) to build a three story addition. The addition is eating up one baseball field. There was supposed to be one field left after construction, but now the remaining trailers will presumably eat the rest. There is no green space left. Type McKinley Elementary into GoogleEarth and you can see it from your computer. Then compare it to the green space around Tuckahoe, Nottingham, etc. Reed needs to get turned back into an ES. They could relocate those programs to Ballston, to the space where NSF is vacating. Those programs don't need the field space that Reed offers as an ES.

[Anonymous]

You all need to go to the SB and CB meetings. No one is there advocating. Venting on DCUM is not going to get you anywhere. If you feel so strongly, show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to come over and see McKinley. Seriously. Swing by on your way to Target. They are carving into the hill (the only green space around the school) to build a three story addition. The addition is eating up one baseball field. There was supposed to be one field left after construction, but now the remaining trailers will presumably eat the rest. There is no green space left. Type McKinley Elementary into GoogleEarth and you can see it from your computer. Then compare it to the green space around Tuckahoe, Nottingham, etc. Reed needs to get turned back into an ES. They could relocate those programs to Ballston, to the space where NSF is vacating. Those programs don't need the field space that Reed offers as an ES.

Ms. Nottingham here wants it that way do her kid can be in s class of 18.

[Anonymous]

McKinley is a pretty great school, and they will still have a huge playground in the back of the school, plus some field space there I think. And even with trailers, I think there will be some field space preserved in the front. I didn't mean to sound so doomsday a page ago about not having ANY fields. The kids will still have room to run around. And the addition should be really nice.

I think a lot of North Arlington schools are suffering right now from entitled parents who think rules should be bent and broken just to make their lives easier and give them what they want. We have great schools, but as the parent entitlement increases, it's harder and harder for the schools to keep parents happy and manage expectations. So I feel two ways about OP Tuckahoe parent's request here: (1) you're not entitled to go to the fancy new school just because you want it very much and your assigned school is overenrolled, particularly when you were in favor of overenrollment when it benefitted you. Lots of schools here are overenrolled and they all deal with it pretty gracefully. And I think you are very annoying to ask for special treatment. But (2) if this is the way you are, maybe it's better to let Discovery deal with you, because if they are underenrolled they may have more resources for whiny, entitled parents and I strongly suspect this will not be the end of your litany of complaints. So, good luck.

[Anonymous]

09:09 - I like you. McKinley will have a playground where it used to be. It's not huge, but it's better than what they are dealing with now. Luckily, McKinley has wonderful teachers, a fantastic principal who is juggling A LOT this year and very low-key parents. It's a wonderful, welcoming community. It is unfortunate that APS decisions are putting such a burden on the school for 3 years (this year's FEMA park and 2 years of extreme crowding). However, I have faith that the school will handle it with grace.

[Anonymous]

I also think it's highly ironic that the planning unit that was once asking the school district to overenroll McKinley so it could be kept together with its neighborhood friends has members that now want to wrest their kids away from ALL of their neighborhood friends altogether to send them to an out of bounds school. Guess that going to school with the kids who live six blocks away -- or even next door -- isn't really all that important to you when the chips are down, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Please let us what you (an adult) think a young kid will feel.

I'll bite. For starters, both of my elementary school kids like running around in fields. They prefer outdoor recess to indoor recess. So, and I know this is CRAZY since I'm just an adult and not a 9 year old, but I'm going to guess that the average kid would prefer to be at a school that actually had a field to run around in over one that had its fields covered with trailers, all else being equal.

THIS. And whether kids care or not, I don't want them having to wait ten minutes in a line for a restroom because there aren't enough bathrooms for everyone. And I don't want them eating at 10 a.m. or 2 p.m. because the school is overcrowded.

And even if we lose a few minutes moving to the art room, or the Spanish room, or whatever, kids need to get up and go to a different place. It's not ideal for them to be in the same room all day. Also, the homeroom teacher needs some time to work in her/his own room without the kids there. How much planning do you think they can get done at a table in the library while Spanish is going on in their room? It's not ideal. And I hate our "art on a cart."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's highly ironic that the planning unit that was once asking the school district to overenroll McKinley so it could be kept together with its neighborhood friends has members that now want to wrest their kids away from ALL of their neighborhood friends altogether to send them to an out of bounds school. Guess that going to school with the kids who live six blocks away -- or even next door -- isn't really all that important to you when the chips are down, eh?

I don't understand why they can't still send both of these planning units to Nottingham. If you look at the last chart in the report that OP linked to in the first post, it shows that Nottingham ended up 40 kids under the projection for 2015/16, while McKinley was 16 kids over the 2015/16 projection. If that trend continues, McKinley is going to be really overcrowded. More kids on top of already projected overcrowding is going to turn McKinley into a very bad situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's highly ironic that the planning unit that was once asking the school district to overenroll McKinley so it could be kept together with its neighborhood friends has members that now want to wrest their kids away from ALL of their neighborhood friends altogether to send them to an out of bounds school. Guess that going to school with the kids who live six blocks away -- or even next door -- isn't really all that important to you when the chips are down, eh?

I don't understand why they can't still send both of these planning units to Nottingham. If you look at the last chart in the report that OP linked to in the first post, it shows that Nottingham ended up 40 kids under the projection for 2015/16, while McKinley was 16 kids over the 2015/16 projection. If that trend continues, McKinley is going to be really overcrowded. More kids on top of already projected overcrowding is going to turn McKinley into a very bad situation.

I think it's b/c a lot of people fought very hard against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's highly ironic that the planning unit that was once asking the school district to overenroll McKinley so it could be kept together with its neighborhood friends has members that now want to wrest their kids away from ALL of their neighborhood friends altogether to send them to an out of bounds school. Guess that going to school with the kids who live six blocks away -- or even next door -- isn't really all that important to you when the chips are down, eh?

I don't understand why they can't still send both of these planning units to Nottingham. If you look at the last chart in the report that OP linked to in the first post, it shows that Nottingham ended up 40 kids under the projection for 2015/16, while McKinley was 16 kids over the 2015/16 projection. If that trend continues, McKinley is going to be really overcrowded. More kids on top of already projected overcrowding is going to turn McKinley into a very bad situation.

Please write to APS planning & the SB about this. If no one is speaking up, nothing will ever change.

[Anonymous]

I would really hate the result here if the squeaky wheel would get special privileges to attend the underpopulated school. I hope it doesn't work out that way.

I also feel like there is some classism going on here, where the family to the north doesn't want to go to school with the Westover southies (even though they are really north too, just not AS north), and would much prefer the Norther, Whiter Discovery or Nottingham. I'm not saying that's true of everyone but that's how some of these planning units protests have read to me. It's just gross.