Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 20:45     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:There is a crossing guard at the dominion hills pool along Wilson and ashlawn students are certainly walkers and crossing there.


Yes. APS puts crossing guards where needed if it's to help those nearby get to school. I'm pretty sure kids even cross Glebe.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 20:42     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
There is a crossing guard at the dominion hills pool along Wilson and ashlawn students are certainly walkers and crossing there.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 19:33     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)


No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.


They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.


People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.



It will have to be implemented if all of those McKinley kids are going to walk to school across Washington Boulevard.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 19:30     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.


McKinley's current walkers are in the planning units south of 66 that will probably be moved to Ashlawn. The 40% walkability in the Options are those walkable in planning units north of 66.


It will have to be implemented if all of those McKinley kids across Washington Boulevard are going to walk to school.

Some of them will also be walkers to Ashlawn, so they won't even become bus riders.


No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.


They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.


People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 18:19     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet


Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.


If IB will be separate from ATS, it will need to go somewhere.


You must have missed the last boundary redraw. Its racist to suggest to move an option program into Drew (despite that being the only solution that gets people to voluntarily go to Drew). We have to right a bad move from 1963 even if it hurts the entire school district in 2019. Unless you mean moving IB to the Northwest Corner?


Yes, putting IB in NW if there is still an excess of seats after the dust settles.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 18:18     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Would there be seat surplus/under-enrollment if both Reed and McK were neighborhood schools? I'm late to the discussion but remember at one time ATS was said to be moved to Nottingham. Wonder what happened to that idea? (I'm not a McK parent trying to move other people's kids)
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 18:14     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet


Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.


If IB will be separate from ATS, it will need to go somewhere.


You must have missed the last boundary redraw. Its racist to suggest to move an option program into Drew (despite that being the only solution that gets people to voluntarily go to Drew). We have to right a bad move from 1963 even if it hurts the entire school district in 2019. Unless you mean moving IB to the Northwest Corner?
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 18:09     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet


Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.


If IB will be separate from ATS, it will need to go somewhere.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 18:09     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think some Mckinley families fear being sent to Ashlawn and then Kenmore (if rezoned) as those schools are more diverse and have more poverty. They might not call it this but I think that’s part of it.


I don't think it's that at all, as the county has said it won't move kids twice. I think it's about being sent from a school where they can walk to a school where they can't. And that's a valid concern.


If you look on the engage site, though, they show how many kids are in each walk zone. Reed has 180 more potential walkers than McKinley. So, while some kids won't be walkers anymore, a lot more will actually be walking. It's frustrating if you are the one changing to bus (maybe), but a lot more families will be in the new walk zone.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:57     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet


Fleet won't be hard to fill as its centrally located. But if the County is serious about filling Jamestown then there is going to have to be busing in the North. And who is going to be bussed there? As for Drew I don't know how they ever fill that school short of going all in on segregation? They can either draw a 1000 student boundary since only 50% of students actually go there? Or just give up and zone the FRl PUs there. Bottom line is there are no easy answers to get to your suggestion of no school underenrolled.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:57     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet.


I wish they had put the capacity numbers up with the spreadsheet. When you have a 200 kid swing between schools, it's hard to tell if that is b/c of capacity or overcrowding.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:45     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Top 5 School Buildings With Fewest Walkers:
ATS- 43
Carlin Springs- 67
Jamestown- 95
ASFS- 118
Tuckahoe- 135

McKinley still has 243 walkers, even with all the kids going to Reed. This decision isn't being made based on walkability.


McKinley's current walkers are in the planning units south of 66 that will probably be moved to Ashlawn. The 40% walkability in the Options are those walkable in planning units north of 66.


Some of them will also be walkers to Ashlawn, so they won't even become bus riders.


No, Wilson is classified as a street that only middle and high school students can cross.


They can change that with a crossing guard. I spoke with transportation about it at a previous meeting.


People bring up crossing guard idea all the time in every proposal but I can't remember the last time it actually was implemented.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:43     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
absolutely. the boundary adjustment phase is where we make sure each school community is doing it's share. No school should end up underenrolled. Not Jamestown or Drew or Tuckahoe or Fleet.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:42     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:We also need to make sure no school is disproportionately under enrolled either. We need a fair allocation of the K-5 population among buildings, then add the preschool kids.


You must be new around here...that isn't how APS works.
Anonymous
Post 11/04/2019 17:38     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
We also need to make sure no school is disproportionately under enrolled either. We need a fair allocation of the K-5 population among buildings, then add the preschool kids.