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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What the hell?  It's a first step in the boundary process.  Are you supposed to set the boundaries and then move the schools?[/quote]
Do it all at once, duh. They obviously must have an idea of the boundaries to have assessed how many kids will move. Publish the boundaries along with the option school changes. [/quote]
They don’t want to do boundaries this early because they will likely need to move some planning units around again once they have final projections.  Doing the moves first eliminated some uncertainty.  [/quote]

+1.  I can only assume that the people suggesting they draw boundaries now weren’t here/paying attention during the Discovery debacle.[/quote]

It has to be a 2 step process. I mean, can you imagine the *&%# show we would have if you tried to move options and draw boundaries at the same time. There would be 1000 different proposals. [/quote]

I disagree. They could still just put out two proposals. Why would they need more? If they already have the data to know where to put the option schools based on “sensible” boundaries that maximize efficiency and walkability, let’s see them. [/quote]

APS has failed to articulate why the option moves need to be set in stone before adjusting boundaries.   What I foresee is the school board agreeing to move the option schools, and when it comes time to draw the boundaries and the resulting school populations exacerbate the already shameful demographic disparity between schools, they’ll say their hands are tied and there’s nothing they can do about it because they’re locked into the decision to move McKinley or Key or Campbell.  They’re just setting up their excuse for lousy boundaries and making it seem like they lack the flexibility to do better.  [/quote]

This! I am fine with them tentatively moving the options programs now but I can almost promise that when he get into the nitty gritty of the boundaries process later we have going to have a lot of schools with HUGE disparities in FRL numbers and a lot of it could probably be at least alleviated somewhat had they made different choices with the options.

For example the SW area of the county has almost all of the PU that are over 80% FRL. It’s contains all the schools about 50% with the exception of Barrett which is in a different quadrant.

There is absolutely no way to redraw that quadrant and make it more economically diverse without going across 50. But by putting all these option programs in the middle of the county (which sure make sense for accessibility of the schools) you make it so that  NA schools stay North if 50 and SA schools stay south.

I can already see this boundary process where just like last time only one or to PUs can actually be moved to other schools and neighborhoods with blame each other instead of the county for the lack of foresight. [/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