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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]

I'm curious about this, as well.  I really don't get it since so much of McKinley is actually in the Reed walk zone.  Is it No More Option Schools in the N or just We Want to Keep Walking Regardless Of The Greater Consequences?[/quote]

Let me try. That APS zone map that is supposedly driving this decision was misleading. If you look at where the population is today in Arlington (and where it is expected to grow), it is all south of Lee Highway. By clustering McKinley in Zone 1 and Taylor in Zone 2, APS masked the reality of where the population density currently sits and where the empty seats are really located.[b] A better map would have been a heat map at the planning unit level [/b]so you can see where the number of kids are located OUTSIDE the walkable planning units. They also need to look at which planning units send a larger # of kids to private school.

When you go back and look at the planning unit level data that they released during the 2018 walk zone meetings, you can see where this is about to become a complete CF during the boundary drawing process. There are a lot of kids around Glebe, Ashlawn, and McKinley who aren't "walkable" because those roads are busier and therefore classified as off-limits to elementary kids without a crossing guard. And APS assumes in its analysis that there are no new crossing guards added to the system. But if you look at where kids actually live, you can see the need to leave more neighborhood seats in that area. Otherwise, you have to push kids upwards in a domino effect to fill the empty seats at Jamestown and Discovery. And that creates long skinny boundaries and probably at the end some walkers on the bus. The alternative is leaving Ashlawn, Reed, and Glebe overcrowded (and possibly also Tuckahoe in a few years, depending on what happens with those new townhomes and development around EFC) with empty seats at Discovery and Jamestown.

We need to leave breathing room in the areas of the County where we expect growth. That's the concern. [/quote]

page 5 https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Getting-Started-Working-Session-Presentation_FINAL.pdf

Important note - the shades of green are based on total number of students and unrelated to actual size, so a large PU that is dark green has the same number as a tiny PU that is dark green.[/quote]

OP. Thank you for pointing out this map! So to further explain what I was saying above... if you look at the map on Slide 5 of the above presentation, and you draw Lee Highway on this map, you can see that TODAY that the northern part of the County is already the least densely populated. It is also the area where no new development is planned AND that likely has the highest opt out rates for private because those are the families who can afford it. The +133 seats in Zone 1 are located here, not anywhere near McKinley. How do you fill those seats other than by drawing crazy boundaries?

I am sure that when Nattress proposed Nottingham last year, she was trying to split the baby. She wanted to put ATS a little more central and she also knew that it wasn't a crazy bus ride for those kids to move north to Discovery (and Discovery kids to Jamestown). I know that proposal sucked for Nottingham-- and no doubt, Nottingham is a very walkable location, so it would have led to higher overall busing costs. But moving ATS to McKinley now is still not solving that underlying problem.

The middle school boundary process left Williamsburg and Hamm under-enrolled, while leaving Swanson, Jefferson, and Gunston over-capacity. We're about to see something similar happen under this proposal. And that means, we'll be redrawing boundaries again in two years, just like we are about to do at the middle school level.
[/quote]
Nottingham isn’t just highly walkable, it can also take a crazy number of trailers (including the potential for multi-purpose tailed space).  If you can about managing population growth in the future, giving up the flexibility Nottingham provides as a neighborhood school would be stupid.

I also don’t understand why the borders have to be crazy.  Shift some of the current discovery bus riders to Jamestown, move the overlapping Nottingham/Discovery walk zone that’s currently at Nottingham to Discovery, Nottingham gets all of the overlapping Nottingham/Tuckahoe walk zone and picks up another unit or two near Tuckahoe where they already send a bus, and then Tuckahoe boundary can extend across Lee Highway to pick up former McKinley.  Nothing crazy there.[/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