Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Reply to "The demise of McKinley ES (APS)"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Nottingham parents on here keep saying the 2018 facility study was faulty, but APS has never retracted it. And whatever faults were found have never been made public. [/quote] The faults absolutely were made public. That you weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.[/quote] NP here - I only moved to Arlington recently, and I'm trying to figure out more about what happened in the past to understand the current fights. Can someone please explain the issues in the 2018 report? [/quote] If you weren’t here for the 2018 process, it’s not worth rehashing because it’s irrelevant now.[/quote] Except for the fact that everyone keeps bringing up past mistakes by the county/SB. I am not a McKinley parent, but I keep hearing from various sources that Nottingham mobilized and hurt other schools during the last zoning go round. It would be helpful to know if there's truth to that. [/quote] I'm a McK parent and I thought it was Tuckahoe that kicked out some PUs and ended up underenrolled while McK was both under construction and at 800. That sucked and was just 3 yrs ago. [/quote] Not exactly. Two of the planning units at issue in the 2014 refinement were then-Tuckahoe units, one slated to move to McKinley and one to Nottingham. Those two units were a particular focus of the 2014 refinement process, particularly whether they both should go to Nottingham, both to McKinley, or split (the final decision was that both would go to Nottingham). No one took issue with Tuckahoe not getting them back during the process itself because Tuckahoe was projected to be at 106% capacity even without them under all of the scenarios. The irony, though, is that when the dust settled, Tuckahoe initially was the most under-capacity of all three schools.[/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