Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't argue that Westover can't get special treatment in one sentence and then say that just making option is less disruptive b/c that is the same special treatment for other neighborhoods. I'm not going to be impacted either way, unless they bring another school into the mix, so maybe I see it without bias. McKinley, Tuckahoe or Nottingham make sense IF there has to be an option school.

My family also would not be impacted. Back when the school board presented the results of its walkability study it nixed the idea of tuckahoe as an option school because of its location at the edge of the county. The walk zone for Nottingham showed a lot of overlap with walk zones for tuckahoe, discovery and reed. Which is probably how Nottingham showed up in the accidentally released spreadsheet note as the IB option school. The school board is all about decreasing busing, and option at Nottingham feeds right into that objective.

Even if you took away all of the overlapping walk zones, Nottingham is still one of the more walkable schools in the county. Absolutely the only justification for making Nottingham an option school is ease of boundary drawing, because every single other factor weighs against it.

Anonymous wrote:I, for one, am so hopeful that the deal Westover got from the SB 5 years ago gets blown up over this. It should. Conditions have changed drastically and that “promise” needs to be revisited. I agree that the second best option is to “Fleet” McKinley. Essentially give Reed to McKinley (still 100% walkable school) with a crossing guard at Washington Blvd) and make McKinley immersion. Reed draws from the East and south and fills with almost all walkers.

There is a high risk of not being able to fill 725 immersion seats at McKinley. Now, If APS was willing to change its foreign language approach it could be done. You do not need a 50/50 split for a language school. Have lots of friends whose kids are in French immersion without any other kids who are native French speakers.

I, for one, am so hopeful that the deal Westover got from the SB 5 years ago gets blown up over this. It should. Conditions have changed drastically and that “promise” needs to be revisited. I agree that the second best option is to “Fleet” McKinley. Essentially give Reed to McKinley (still 100% walkable school) with a crossing guard at Washington Blvd) and make McKinley immersion. Reed draws from the East and south and fills with almost all walkers.

Anonymous wrote:You can't argue that Westover can't get special treatment in one sentence and then say that just making option is less disruptive b/c that is the same special treatment for other neighborhoods. I'm not going to be impacted either way, unless they bring another school into the mix, so maybe I see it without bias. McKinley, Tuckahoe or Nottingham make sense IF there has to be an option school.

I'm not impacted at all, so yes I do see it without bias. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm biased and you're not. I dislike giving special treatment to one neighborhood by making them a promise that they get a neighborhood school, no matter if that's the best solution overall. Every school should be looked at equally.

And yes, of course it less disruptive to make the new school and option school because then hundreds of kids, including those who live in Westover, get stability by being able to stay at their current school. Stability is one of the factors that are supposed to be considered in these boundary decisions.

Anonymous wrote:You can’t prioritize walkers and address either (1) the space problem or (2) the segregation problem in this county. So talk about walkers and bus costs all you want. The truth is kids are having to ride buses more and more any way you arrange it. But, glad to see Westover returning to the “we have so many walker argument.” The “We need the new school and we won’t give it to option a hook kids” argument was really over the top.

So Westover is zoned to Reed and Swanson, and its high school becomes Wakefield. Kids get a walkable school for K-8, Wakefield gets a more balanced demographic.

Lots of “everybody”s being thrown around in this thread. If these “everybody” claims were true we’d all be on the same page and there would be no debates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just ‘Fleet’ McKinley? Move majority of McKinely to Reed, keeping same admins and teachers etc like PH to Fleet, and keeping majority of students. The make McKinely an option school for ATS, and then ATS becomes Key Immersion destination?

One reason being that ATS doesn’t appear in IPP materials. Every indication is that it is being cut.

Consistently ranked a top elementary school in the state
About to earn it's third DOE Blue Ribbon Award
Waitlists had to be reformatted due to demand
Extremely diverse student body
Outperforms almost every ES in the county

"Hey everyone... I think ATS has to go..."

I agree. The capacity could double and the spots would still fill. I personally think APS should end ALL option programs but if we aren't going to do that, we should not eliminate the one everybody wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just ‘Fleet’ McKinley? Move majority of McKinely to Reed, keeping same admins and teachers etc like PH to Fleet, and keeping majority of students. The make McKinely an option school for ATS, and then ATS becomes Key Immersion destination?

One reason being that ATS doesn’t appear in IPP materials. Every indication is that it is being cut.

Consistently ranked a top elementary school in the state
About to earn it's third DOE Blue Ribbon Award
Waitlists had to be reformatted due to demand
Extremely diverse student body
Outperforms almost every ES in the county

"Hey everyone... I think ATS has to go..."

You can’t prioritize walkers and address either (1) the space problem or (2) the segregation problem in this county. So talk about walkers and bus costs all you want. The truth is kids are having to ride buses more and more any way you arrange it. But, glad to see Westover returning to the “we have so many walker argument.” The “We need the new school and we won’t give it to option a hook kids” argument was really over the top.

Anonymous wrote:If “we need to keep new schools for the neighborhood” is the new justification that Westover is using to ensure their convenience and privilege over every other school community, I think they need a Plan B. It’s not a good argument. Everyone knows it should be a centrally located option. Everyone. Including a few (2) SB members. Let’s see if we can get 3.

One current outcome of the severe budget crunch is that the SB is cutting bus routes and wants very much to cut even more. Reed has a huge number of potential walkers if it’s a neighborhood school.

Your “everyone knows” comment is just stupid, and I have no skin in this game.

Anonymous wrote:If “we need to keep new schools for the neighborhood” is the new justification that Westover is using to ensure their convenience and privilege over every other school community, I think they need a Plan B. It’s not a good argument. Everyone knows it should be a centrally located option. Everyone. Including a few (2) SB members. Let’s see if we can get 3.

McKinely and Reed are pretty similar locations so I would just move McKinely and make current McKinely option.

Option students get enough perks already.

If “we need to keep new schools for the neighborhood” is the new justification that Westover is using to ensure their convenience and privilege over every other school community, I think they need a Plan B. It’s not a good argument. Everyone knows it should be a centrally located option. Everyone. Including a few (2) SB members. Let’s see if we can get 3.

Object = perfect

They just need to make a decision and stick to it. Nothing is going to be object. Some people are going to be upset.

I have a rising K-er next year and just want the uncertainty to be over.

Anonymous wrote:You can't argue that Westover can't get special treatment in one sentence and then say that just making option is less disruptive b/c that is the same special treatment for other neighborhoods. I'm not going to be impacted either way, unless they bring another school into the mix, so maybe I see it without bias. McKinley, Tuckahoe or Nottingham make sense IF there has to be an option school.

My family also would not be impacted. Back when the school board presented the results of its walkability study it nixed the idea of tuckahoe as an option school because of its location at the edge of the county. The walk zone for Nottingham showed a lot of overlap with walk zones for tuckahoe, discovery and reed. Which is probably how Nottingham showed up in the accidentally released spreadsheet note as the IB option school. The school board is all about decreasing busing, and option at Nottingham feeds right into that objective.