Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Erica Hewitt, Mac Mirchandani, Carly Kelly, Tamara McFadden, Emily Kahoe Chen, Kim Dam, Amanda Batchelet, Kendra Ervin, Kathleen Clark and Nathan McQueen knew that their names would be released publicly when they tried to throw Tuckahoe and Nottingham under the bus?
Anonymous wrote:In one, my planning unit would be the ONLY planning unit at an ES going to a middle school. All others would go to the same — and different — one.
That’s why parents need to get off their high horse and think they have an obviously better solution. It actually isn’t that easy. There are a number of factors other than balancing enrollment that staff has to consider — where to put VPI so that it is accessible to those who qualify and other silly things like that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The move is happening, Key. Sorry.
Can we look at the swap with ASFS? That seems like the best solution at this point.
Best solution for whom?
For pp.
Anonymous wrote:Posting those emails with the names was totally passive aggressive and I love it.
Anonymous wrote:Should only McKinley hear the analysis?
Anonymous wrote:Alternate scenarios from McKinley are posted. https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/submitted-community-alternative-proposals/
Looks like option schools are proposed for
. Reed
. Nottingham
. Tuckahoe
NVD asked staff to talk with McK parents about data. Hope this is a public meeting, allows others to hear as well since they’re throwing us under the bus.