Reply to APS Construction - Never believe their schedules

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "APS Construction - Never believe their schedules"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]McKinley parents did cause a commotion about the double planning unit trying to come en masse to McKinley, so I'm not sure you're correct that APS figures it can screw McKinley whenever it wants.  Nottingham lived for years with a whole army of trailers, and all of their complaining did nothing until fairly recently.  Haven't they sucked it up for quite a while? [/quote]

Yes, but Nottingham lived with trailers on a school built for 488 students. McKinley is going to continue to live with trailers on a school built for 684 students. Classroom trailers aren't the big deal. It is the 200 extra kids that need to use the same gym, cafeteria, shared school resources, etc. This is why it doesn't make sense to have your two biggest elementary schools in N. Arlington (McK and Ashlawn) take on even more enrollment when your smaller schools are under or at enrollment capacity. They should add the extra kids to the smaller schools. Which is why I don't understand why they didn't send BOTH planning units to Nottingham when that discussion came up. The Nottingham parents killed that option before it was ever raised to McKinley.  I was so glad to see those Glebe and Tuckahoe parents giving the APS guy a hard time at the meeting last week. It was nice to see some fight in them![/quote]

At the meeting actually they told us that they did NOT expect McKinley to continue to live with trailers.  Once the construction was finished they expected ALL of the trailers to be gone, even if the school was at 104% capacity in 2017 as expected, because they could gerrymander the rooms a bit.

I actually agree with you that it is a bigger deal (and a much more negative thing) for a large school like McKinley or Ashlawn to have trailers than a smaller school like Nottingham or Discovery.  Don't make a school into a behemoth and then pack it in even more.  If you are doing a community the disservice of making them a giant elementary with five or six classes of kids per grade, then let the difficulty level stop there and don't make them deal with trailers taking up their available field space, too.  Go build up Nottingham into a 700 kid school next if they are tired of their trailers and they will say the same thing -- don't make us huge and then make us deal with trailers, too.

However, McKinley isn't expected to have trailers after the construction is finished.  If they do, I am ready to be one parent of many who is ready to make a fuss.

I am still frustrated by the Tuckahoe parents who were arguing several months ago that McKinley should be burdened with overcrowding to accept both of their planning units so that their kids could stay together with more of their neighborhood friends -- even though that would have clearly pushed McKinley WAY over capacity -- who are now complaining that McKinley is too big for their kids and they shouldn't have to send them there.  McKinley being overcapacity was EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED 6 MONTHS AGO when it was in your personal best interests even if it hurt every other McKinley student, and now suddenly it offends your sensibilities?  Personally I don't want to hear complaints about overcrowding from anyone at Tuckahoe ever again; they have burned that bridge with me.[/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