Anonymous wrote:Anyone take into account building size/capacity?

Our school numbers are lower--but we also are in one of the smallest buildings.

This. This report doesn't show capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Campbell is a choice program with capped enrollment. You're not going to see large increases in population year over year there. It has grown, but not in the same way neighborhood schools have been forced to. Can't really use this school's size in comparison. It's not apples to apples.

Anyone take into account building size/capacity?

Our school numbers are lower--but we also are in one of the smallest buildings.

Mostly we blame increased percentages of poor students on the affordable housing lobby who wants to concentrate it all in S. Arlington. White middle class flight has kept the overall enrollment numbers low enough. Randolph, Barcroft. Both previously projected to be bursting at seems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Yet people keep blaming county decisions about affordable housing for causing overcrowding in the schools. The data are right there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

I don't really think that is true. Taylor is 22207- and it is the 5th largest. Jamestown is right in the middle of the pack. Barcroft, Randolph, and Campbell are the smallest.

Anonymous wrote:Talk to me when you have over 800!
- Oakridge parent

You are gonna get your relief, don't you worry. Unfortunately it will come in the form of a totally failing Drew. I hope you remain in bounds for Oakridge. Things in Southie are about to get a whole lot worse.

Talk to me when you have over 800!
- Oakridge parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree.

So, can anything be done about it? I have a feeling that the SB and APS only care about their stupid HS boundary tool right now.

A lot could have been done during boundary planning, when a group of us fought to stay together and not be split among schools (including McK). The decision seemed stupid at the time, seems stupider now.

Nothing could have been done. Plenty of parents from Tuckahoe and some McKinley parents tried working with the SB to recognize that the data was telling them the decision was horrible. They were talking to a brick wall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree.

So, can anything be done about it? I have a feeling that the SB and APS only care about their stupid HS boundary tool right now.

A lot could have been done during boundary planning, when a group of us fought to stay together and not be split among schools (including McK). The decision seemed stupid at the time, seems stupider now.

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree.

So, can anything be done about it? I have a feeling that the SB and APS only care about their stupid HS boundary tool right now.

Anonymous wrote:We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Well said!!

Thank you for posting this-- and yes, the McK situation is really f*ed up-- especially if you pull actual capacity numbers (which you can pull from the APS utilization spreadsheet on the More Seats website). Nottingham and Discovery were both **under-enrolled** to the tune of 40+ students this year. And yet, McK was pushed over capacity because the Nottingham PTA claimed that they had no space to take the Tuckahoe kids. The McK 5th grade class is small because the Glebe and Tuckahoe 5th graders didn't have to move this year. But next year, we're going to have a full-size K class replacing the 5th grade and we will be at 770 students. And if the Westover construction continues to happen and adds new families to the area, we're easily going to top 800. In other words, McK's brand-new school building will be over-capacity by 100+ students with trailers on our only remaining field, while nearby Discovery and Nottingham continue to sit under-capacity with vacant field space. We don't have a North vs. South inequity problem-- we have a 22207 vs. the rest of the County inequity problem.

Totally agree.

http://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sept-30-Membership-2016-17-1.pdf

The size variation is astonishing. I'm really surprised there are some schools with numbers in the 300 + 400s and others above 700. The most ridiculous one is McKinley vs. Nottingham. I see why the Tuckahoe families were so mad. Since the two are next to each other alphabetically, the difference in equity is very apparent: Mckinley 712, Nottingham 469. The size of the 4th grade is double at McKinley and I've been told that Tuckahoe sent a whole class (so, about 25 kids) or 4th graders to McKinley. Since there are only 77 kids in 5th grade and that school doesn't have a grade below 100, it's going to be even worse next year. I would hope that APS would allow families to transfer out since they royal f'd up this whole thing.