Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I’m a McK family who is just reading this.

I have young kids and honestly my priority is not McK staying together at all costs.

Grandfather the older kids and let everyone else end up in the right place so not moving in 2 years.

Same. This is very short-sighted and frustrating that the letter pretends to speak for all of us, when that is clearly not the case. I miss our old PTA presidents who would not take sides.

Then you should write to everyone - staff, Engage, Board, and tell them that the PTA doesn't speak for you!

Agreed. I’m not a McKinley parent, but have heard that it is not at all guaranteed that they revisit these decisions in two years. If you’re not happy with where you are under this plan, I would speak up now.

Anonymous wrote:Are all the people bashing McKinley on here Tuckahoe parents who want to walk to Reed? I'm an Ashlawn parent, but I don't think Tuckahoe should get to (a) whine and complain to prevent their school from being turned into an option school years ago, (b) have an undercrowded school - with no diversity -- for years, and (c) then move to a brand new school while bashing McKinley parents who complain about overcrowding concerns.

You have no memory. For YEARS before Discovery opened in 2015 Tuckahoe was the most overcrowded schools by far with the oldest infrastructure. It had trailers where it is unsafe — but miraculously took APS until after Discovery opened to say so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I’m a McK family who is just reading this.

I have young kids and honestly my priority is not McK staying together at all costs.

Grandfather the older kids and let everyone else end up in the right place so not moving in 2 years.

Same. This is very short-sighted and frustrating that the letter pretends to speak for all of us, when that is clearly not the case. I miss our old PTA presidents who would not take sides.

Then you should write to everyone - staff, Engage, Board, and tell them that the PTA doesn't speak for you!

Anonymous wrote:No I’m a McK family who is just reading this.

I have young kids and honestly my priority is not McK staying together at all costs.

Grandfather the older kids and let everyone else end up in the right place so not moving in 2 years.

Same. This is very short-sighted and frustrating that the letter pretends to speak for all of us, when that is clearly not the case. I miss our old PTA presidents who would not take sides.

No I’m a McK family who is just reading this.

I have young kids and honestly my priority is not McK staying together at all costs.

Grandfather the older kids and let everyone else end up in the right place so not moving in 2 years.

Nope. McK parents are bashing McK PTA.

Are all the people bashing McKinley on here Tuckahoe parents who want to walk to Reed? I'm an Ashlawn parent, but I don't think Tuckahoe should get to (a) whine and complain to prevent their school from being turned into an option school years ago, (b) have an undercrowded school - with no diversity -- for years, and (c) then move to a brand new school while bashing McKinley parents who complain about overcrowding concerns.

WAIT!!! So the crazy crazy map McKinely PTA put together back in the dark ages is the basis for the Option B????

I remember it was deranged and non contiguous boundaries, which kinda fits what we are seeing...

If he's going to not do it correctly, just send all of McKinley to Reed, let them stuff themselves in there and pray everyone doesn't return after the pandemic, and leave the Tuckahoe people alone already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

And the McKinley PTA is driven by the predictable neighborhoods. The McKinley PTA doesn't even represent everyone. This proposal is NOT beneficial for McKinley as a whole if these kids end up in another overcrowded school.

Your perspective on this depends on where you sit. 40% of the current school is being offloaded to other schools in the initial proposal. Hundreds of those kids will move from a vastly overcrowded McKinley to vastly overcrowded Ashlawn and vastly overcrowded Glebe.

Totally agree. As stated, this proposal is not beneficial for 60% of McKinley. Yet the PTA is pushing it.

We're not at McKinley, but my kids are affected by this proposal. Help me understand- who is the McKinley PTA speaking for then? Are other people speaking up separately?

McKinley PTA did a community survey and shared the results with everyone. The majority of people who responded to the survey were from DH and MM planning units (and plenty of people didn't respond at all to the survey). So the DH and MM factions of the community drive the PTA position (and put in the time to do so kudos to them) even though they are not the majority of McKinley. The PTA used the survey results to shape what "the community" wants and sent a letter to APS and did not disclose what planning units made up the responses to their community survey. I know many people who write to the School Board individually but those people don't get an audience with School Board members personally and don't get to write their thoughts up on PTA letterhead.

The truth is lots of families will end up in Reed either way and aren't paying attention to any of this. Someone said it earlier in this thread. These families will show up to an overcrowded school (or the school will get there in year 2 or 3) and be looking around for the idiots who caused this to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if they fill Reed with all of McK, there will be nowhere to to place the Tuckahoe kids when it's turned option. Reed can't be at 100%.

Untrue. That's when you move units south and east if you need to. By lifting McK and moving it in total to Reed it doesn't count as shifting a planning unit to a new school, thereby leaving you free to mix them up in two years. If you move any others now, you lock them in and give you less flexibility when you do the whole-county move and close Tuckahoe. It's why they don't want to push MM to Tuckahoe, as it ties up the ability to close Tuckahoe.

Yes, but it sounds like Duran is leaning towards Option A, that doesn't move all of McK to Reed anyway

It moves all but it looks like 3 McKinley units which will be in Ashlawn no matter what in 2 years. So he can move any of the other McK planning units wherever he wants in 2 years. It's kind of an evil plan really. Lull them into silence and then decimate them.

yep, hence the "not negotiating in good faith" post earlier...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if they fill Reed with all of McK, there will be nowhere to to place the Tuckahoe kids when it's turned option. Reed can't be at 100%.

Untrue. That's when you move units south and east if you need to. By lifting McK and moving it in total to Reed it doesn't count as shifting a planning unit to a new school, thereby leaving you free to mix them up in two years. If you move any others now, you lock them in and give you less flexibility when you do the whole-county move and close Tuckahoe. It's why they don't want to push MM to Tuckahoe, as it ties up the ability to close Tuckahoe.

Yes, but it sounds like Duran is leaning towards Option A, that doesn't move all of McK to Reed anyway

It moves all but it looks like 3 McKinley units which will be in Ashlawn no matter what in 2 years. So he can move any of the other McK planning units wherever he wants in 2 years. It's kind of an evil plan really. Lull them into silence and then decimate them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if they fill Reed with all of McK, there will be nowhere to to place the Tuckahoe kids when it's turned option. Reed can't be at 100%.

Untrue. That's when you move units south and east if you need to. By lifting McK and moving it in total to Reed it doesn't count as shifting a planning unit to a new school, thereby leaving you free to mix them up in two years. If you move any others now, you lock them in and give you less flexibility when you do the whole-county move and close Tuckahoe. It's why they don't want to push MM to Tuckahoe, as it ties up the ability to close Tuckahoe.

It's not untrue exactly. The Tuckahoe kids will go somewhere and it will be Reed or Nottingham. It would be a huge displacement of kids from those schools and a domino affect everywhere else. Nothing is saving McKinley or Reed at McKinley or McKinley at Reed when that day comes. That's why I think these McKinley people are short sighted. If you have a younger student and you have any common sense, you just want this to be more settled now where it's going to land in 2 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if they fill Reed with all of McK, there will be nowhere to to place the Tuckahoe kids when it's turned option. Reed can't be at 100%.

Untrue. That's when you move units south and east if you need to. By lifting McK and moving it in total to Reed it doesn't count as shifting a planning unit to a new school, thereby leaving you free to mix them up in two years. If you move any others now, you lock them in and give you less flexibility when you do the whole-county move and close Tuckahoe. It's why they don't want to push MM to Tuckahoe, as it ties up the ability to close Tuckahoe.

Yes, but it sounds like Duran is leaning towards Option A, that doesn't move all of McK to Reed anyway

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am furious that they would even entertain the McK PTA map.

This. And then they slap themselves on the back for "listening to the community." No, you just listened to one small, vocal faction.

And the McKinley PTA is driven by the predictable neighborhoods. The McKinley PTA doesn't even represent everyone. This proposal is NOT beneficial for McKinley as a whole if these kids end up in another overcrowded school.

Your perspective on this depends on where you sit. 40% of the current school is being offloaded to other schools in the initial proposal. Hundreds of those kids will move from a vastly overcrowded McKinley to vastly overcrowded Ashlawn and vastly overcrowded Glebe.

Totally agree. As stated, this proposal is not beneficial for 60% of McKinley. Yet the PTA is pushing it.

We're not at McKinley, but my kids are affected by this proposal. Help me understand- who is the McKinley PTA speaking for then? Are other people speaking up separately?