The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some Mckinley families fear being sent to Ashlawn and then Kenmore (if rezoned) as those schools are more diverse and have more poverty. They might not call it this but I think that’s part of it.

I don't think it's that at all, as the county has said it won't move kids twice. I think it's about being sent from a school where they can walk to a school where they can't. And that's a valid concern.

They've said they won't move a kid twice per level--so they won't move them twice in elementary, for example. But they've never said they won't move a kid twice across all levels. You can get moved in elementary, then again in middle, and a third time in high school, and you still wouldn't have been moved "twice" as they see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

Hey, they’re just following the path laid down by other APS school communities that didn’t want to be moved. Sometimes it worked.

All of them are intolerable, but this isn’t exactly new behavior.

Exactly. You don't even have to go back further than April 2018 in the case of the NW schools: https://www.arlnow.com/2018/04/24/parents-push-back-on-proposed-attendance-changes-at-nottingham-elementary-school/

It is a hot potato among the NW schools who gets ATS. And there are arguments pro and con for almost every building. Maybe they should just put all the schools in a hat and randomly pick one.

Or put it in the place with least # of walkers.

LOL. That's ATS's current location. Very few walkers.

OK - so that's a great place for an option school. Done.

Where is the next best location? What has the 2nd fewest walkers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some Mckinley families fear being sent to Ashlawn and then Kenmore (if rezoned) as those schools are more diverse and have more poverty. They might not call it this but I think that’s part of it.

I don't think it's that at all, as the county has said it won't move kids twice. I think it's about being sent from a school where they can walk to a school where they can't. And that's a valid concern.

They've said they won't move a kid twice per level--so they won't move them twice in elementary, for example. But they've never said they won't move a kid twice across all levels. You can get moved in elementary, then again in middle, and a third time in high school, and you still wouldn't have been moved "twice" as they see it.

No McKinley families are afraid to go to Ashlawn for that reason. They are worried because Ashlawn looks overcrowded in these proposals. and all these families just spent 5 years in an overcrowded school. Under Proposal #2, Ashlawn will be 60 kids overcapacity on the day Reed opens. You can say that APS will make tweaks in the boundary process to fix that, and that might be true, but you can't blame these families for asking to see a real map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those making a loud stink for Mckinley to stay sound tone deaf. Do they not see that many other schools will have children shifted? Why do they think that their situation is the most important? They are coming across as very entitled. They get a brand new building and the kids that move are moving to other excellent schools. I don’t think they see that they will have very little support from the broader Arlington community and are unlikely to have any sympathy from SB. They would be better off pitting their energies elsewhere.

Hey, they’re just following the path laid down by other APS school communities that didn’t want to be moved. Sometimes it worked.

All of them are intolerable, but this isn’t exactly new behavior.

Exactly. You don't even have to go back further than April 2018 in the case of the NW schools: https://www.arlnow.com/2018/04/24/parents-push-back-on-proposed-attendance-changes-at-nottingham-elementary-school/

It is a hot potato among the NW schools who gets ATS. And there are arguments pro and con for almost every building. Maybe they should just put all the schools in a hat and randomly pick one.

Or put it in the place with least # of walkers.

Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

LOL. That's ATS's current location. Very few walkers.

OK - so that's a great place for an option school. Done.

Where is the next best location? What has the 2nd fewest walkers?

[Anonymous]

Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

[Anonymous]

People in favor of the plan to move ATS to McKinley should be sure to speak out. The Board will only hear complaints. They need to hear from people who are ready to make this happen with minimal impact across the county. On the whole this is a good plan. Make sure the APS and SB hear that. Otherwise, they will cave to Key and McKinley--as they always do,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.

Seems like Tuckahoe would be a better fit for ATS based on the number of walkers. Bet the board went with the path of least resistance since McKinley parents aren't as rich.

[Anonymous]

ATS parent - happy to stay or go anywhere but ideally the program shouldn't move any farther north. McKinley would be fine. But I wonder why they haven't considered ATS to Carlin Springs - I'd be in favor of that(although west it is right in the middle of the county and near 50 so pretty accessible to all - I'm guessing it is bc they wouldn't want it near Cambell?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you advocate for the Henry community last year during the South Arlington boundary redrawing? Did you advocate for Nottingham two years ago when the staff tried to do the same thing to that school that they’re now proposing for McKinley? If not, why should anyone else care what happens to McKinley when you didn’t care what happened to them?

Yes.

We don't believe you.

I was trying to think of a way to explain the things I did without outing myself but couldn't figure it out so just said yes. I k now, not helpful..

So you, as a McKinley parent, publicly advocated for Nottingham to remain a neighborhood school? What was the basis for your position?

[Anonymous]

For every kid that was a walker from McK going somewhere else, We here is a kid who then walks to Reed or Ashlawn. Changing walkers into bus riders isn’t a great argument bc the total bus riders may actually go down.

[Anonymous]

If Mckinley families who want to fight this want any chance of winning, they need to either focus their efforts on moving the option school to Tuckahoe or eliminating an option school altogether. It is idiotic for them to potentially go after Reed because they will be cannibalizing their own supporters. The school is very clearly split and they desperately need neighborhood seats in that area anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in favor of the plan to move ATS to McKinley should be sure to speak out. The Board will only hear complaints. They need to hear from people who are ready to make this happen with minimal impact across the county. On the whole this is a good plan. Make sure the APS and SB hear that. Otherwise, they will cave to Key and McKinley--as they always do,

I agree. If you can remove yourself from the hysteria from some Key and southern McKinley families, you can see that this makes sense as a whole. It's a new approach that looks at the entire system, not just a few planning units. Also, it is the best option to keep a good portion of McKinley together, while minimizing breaking off small groups. Even those leaving McKinley, will be moving as a large group to a school that is closer to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Mckinley families who want to fight this want any chance of winning, they need to either focus their efforts on moving the option school to Tuckahoe or eliminating an option school altogether. It is idiotic for them to potentially go after Reed because they will be cannibalizing their own supporters. The school is very clearly split and they desperately need neighborhood seats in that area anyway.

Wow. Charming. Way to take the high road, McKinley. "Let's all get behind screwing someone else."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Mckinley families who want to fight this want any chance of winning, they need to either focus their efforts on moving the option school to Tuckahoe or eliminating an option school altogether. It is idiotic for them to potentially go after Reed because they will be cannibalizing their own supporters. The school is very clearly split and they desperately need neighborhood seats in that area anyway.

Wow. Charming. Way to take the high road, McKinley. "Let's all get behind screwing someone else."

That's how it goes.......

[Anonymous]

Tuckahoe and Nottingham should show up in favor of the existing plans. They are coming through this unscathed. Don't derail the train!