Reply to The demise of McKinley ES (APS)

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "The demise of McKinley ES (APS)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can someone summarize the “Save McKinley” argue as to why that’s better for the broader system, rather than just people in the McKinley walk zone?  I know that numbers put out so far show some enrollment imbalance, but that can be fixed through boundary refinement that would be necessary under any scenario.  Part of what made the Tuckahoe thing so alienating was that their argument was all about what was best for them, regardless of anyone else’s needs.  I think Nottingham’s activism was ultimately self-serving, but at least they made arguments why what was best for them was also better for the broader system.  What’s McKinley‘s argument for why anyone but McKinley people should care about this proposal to move ATS to McKinley?[/quote]

Because this proposal basically leaves Reed at capacity from day one without allowing for growth, and it also leaves Ashlawn and Glebe over while not addressing Tuckahoe/Nottingham.  And the only way to change that is to do the opposite of what they're saying and redraw all the boundaries anyway.  Where, if you make Nottingham/Tuckahoe option and keep Mck and Reed you get more rebalancing.  
[/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