Reply to APS Construction - Never believe their schedules

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS Construction - Never believe their schedules"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I have two questions for those of you who were involved with the 2012/13 Discovery boundaries and the Jan. 2015 boundary refinements. (Our kid was a preschooler during these years, so I wasn't aware the discussions were happening.) I went back through the More Seats website and pulled the Jan. 2015 boundary refinement presentation. It looks like the Tuckhoe planning unit in question is 1608 (93 kids) and it was originally slated to move to Nottingham with 1607 (56 kids), but from what I understand the Nottingham parents pushed back and that is why 1608 went to McKinley instead (pushing McK over capacity, even with the addition). First, 1607 and 1608 appear to touch Discovery's boundaries if you look at the map, yet it seems the discussion was between moving to Nottingham or moving to McKinley. Why was there no discussion at the time about moving these units to Discovery? Second, If you look at projected vs. real enrollment for the 2015/16 school year, it appears that Nottingham came in 44 kids UNDER projection this September, while McKinley came in 16 kids OVER projection this September. So since the boundaries haven't actually moved yet, why can't 1608 still move to Nottingham? Or at the very least, split the planning unit in half and send fewer kids to McK. The planning unit boundaries seem a bit arbitrary anyway, yet APS seems to treat them like they are locked in stone. (Also, why didn't APS do any outreach to the civic associations to let those of us with babies and toddlers at the time know these discussions were happening?) [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics