Reply to APS elementary planning initiative called off

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS elementary planning initiative called off"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Please rip off the bandaid and just get these changes done sooner rather than later.  All of this just prolongs hand wringing and worrying and makes all parents sound like whiny toddlers who aren't getting their way.  Pushing this off until later just means needlessly including more parents with more kids in the process who just want their kid to go to school somewhere nearby.  [/quote]

How do you see that working before Reed opens that isn't just pushing the burden onto people who aren't you? That's not to say you are more deserving of the burden, just that if we're going to create all that upheaval, it should be for some net benefit, not just a zero sum.[/quote]

I don't understand all the anger and hostility on this site?  This is worse than whiny toddlers who can at least be convinced to refrain from name calling with guidance.  Unclear why people seem to want to make this personal?  This is basic objective decision making.  Children can attend the nearby schools, those surrounding Reed.  There are 5 neighborhood schools  that will share a boundary with Reed when it opens.  It's not difficult to figure that out and have children attend whichever neighborhood school they are closer to and be with other neighborhood children - when Reed opens the new boundary is implemented and those planning units move.  Don't want to move twice?  No problem, give parents the choice.  Also not hard.  This is certainly not difficult to do when you redrawn boundaries for the entire county and one time instead of looking at each 'onsey-twosy' schools at a time.  [/quote]

PP said absolutely nothing whiny or insulting, so stop trying to derail a legitimate question about the practical implementation of someone's proposal.

More substantively, your suggestion doesn't work. Let's look at the past school year for those five schools:

McKinley - 117% capacity
Ashlawn - 101% capacity 
Tuckhoe - 98% capacity, 12 available seats
Nottingham - 102% capacity
Glebe - 122% capacity

Where among those five schools are you going to put the 500-600 students who would need to put pushed in that direction for the eventual Reed opening? We don't have enough vacant trailers in the system to move there to accommodate all of those students.[/quote]

the pp point is you can make them whatever capacity they need to be when you redraw boundaries.  
redrawing boundaries balances the system to evenly distribute the capacity. yes a school might need to operate at 115% for a year or two (many have operated much worse for much longer) and Reed opens and they all go down to 95%.

To be correct for SY18-19: 
McKinley - 112.9% capacity
Ashlawn - 103% capacity 
Tuckhoe - 95.1% capacity
Nottingham - 102.6% capacity
Glebe - 119.4% capacity

this misses the point - the point he/she made was these numbers are irrelevant when redrawing aside from understanding historic capacity.  an entirely new capacity projection is created when boundaries are redrawn - those are the numbers that matter and those can be drawn to balance the entire system.  sometimes it's hard for folks to accept things for the greater good. i get it.

[/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