Anonymous wrote:Here's the info on contacting the school board... Maybe all the McK/Glebe/Tuckahoe parents impacted need to storm the open office hours...

To contact the School Board, e-mail school.board@apsva.us; fax (703) 228-7640; write Arlington Education Center, 1426 N. Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22207; or phone (703) 228-6015. Open office hours for citizens to visit with School Board members are generally held on Mondays from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. (walk-in/no appointment needed) during the school year. If there is a Monday holiday, open office hours will be held on the following Tuesday morning from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. in the School Board Office. To view the schedule for Open Office Hours, click here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I'm a McKinley parent[/b], and I think we are too nice sometimes. We made the mistake of trying to be cordial through the boundary change process, and as a result got railroaded by the freaking Nottingham parents who resorted to circulating nasty petitions to avoid taking on new planning units. Now they get to roll into the 2016/17 school year at 95% capacity, Discovery is at 90% capacity, and McKinley is going to be at 131% capacity. (And even when the addition opens, McKinley will still be at 104% capacity.) I thought it was kind of shady that APS did not include the Discovery and Nottingham numbers in their little capacity chart at the presentation to the McKinley PTA the other night-- they only included the Glebe, McK, and Tuckahoe numbers. Here's the link to the presentation they gave to McKinley PTA: http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/105/040516%20McKinley%20Construction%20Update%20V7.pdf

There were a number of Glebe and Tuckahoe parents in attendance, who seemed to be lobbying to delay the boundary move-- and I don't blame them. How you can have 684 kids in a school with no gym, no field, and about 20 parking spaces for half of a school year is beyond me. And that assumes there are not other delays that push the date past December.

McKinley parent, what is the end game? I have no dog in this fight (other than as an APS parent not at any of these schools, yet still frustrated about the lack of community spirit when it comes to these decisions). Would you be happy if they allowed transfers (and provided transportation) to the schools that are under 100% capacity? What if the SB allowed transfers for those who would want them? What if they determined the number of seats available at each grade level at the under capacity schools and held a lottery for those available seats? Surely there would be some parents who would elect to send their kids to a school farther away rather than enroll at a school that is wildly over capacity if that option were made available?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS is one huge clusterfuck.

It's how they like to weed out the wimps.

One way to make more open seats!

Np - this wimp is leaving, so you can have our seats. Our oldest will be entering K. I honestly think APS is at the tipping point. The projections for continued growth are ridiculous. The county and SB aren't doing enough (anything) to manage the problem of over crowding. At some point the education will start to suffer.

Anonymous wrote:APS is Field of Dreams in reverse. "If they come, we won't build it."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS is one huge clusterfuck.

It's how they like to weed out the wimps.

One way to make more open seats!

Anonymous[b wrote:]I'm a McKinley parent[/b], and I think we are too nice sometimes. We made the mistake of trying to be cordial through the boundary change process, and as a result got railroaded by the freaking Nottingham parents who resorted to circulating nasty petitions to avoid taking on new planning units. Now they get to roll into the 2016/17 school year at 95% capacity, Discovery is at 90% capacity, and McKinley is going to be at 131% capacity. (And even when the addition opens, McKinley will still be at 104% capacity.) I thought it was kind of shady that APS did not include the Discovery and Nottingham numbers in their little capacity chart at the presentation to the McKinley PTA the other night-- they only included the Glebe, McK, and Tuckahoe numbers. Here's the link to the presentation they gave to McKinley PTA: http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/105/040516%20McKinley%20Construction%20Update%20V7.pdf

There were a number of Glebe and Tuckahoe parents in attendance, who seemed to be lobbying to delay the boundary move-- and I don't blame them. How you can have 684 kids in a school with no gym, no field, and about 20 parking spaces for half of a school year is beyond me. And that assumes there are not other delays that push the date past December.

Anonymous wrote:Such a weird school system. Their website looks like it's from 1999.

Anonymous wrote:Wish these stupid places could have been built vertically. So little foresight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone ever be surprised when construction doesn't run on schedule?

Typ SAHM or lib arts people

What a brilliant observation. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a McKinley parent, and I think we are too nice sometimes. We made the mistake of trying to be cordial through the boundary change process, and as a result got railroaded by the freaking Nottingham parents who resorted to circulating nasty petitions to avoid taking on new planning units. Now they get to roll into the 2016/17 school year at 95% capacity, Discovery is at 90% capacity, and McKinley is going to be at 131% capacity. (And even when the addition opens, McKinley will still be at 104% capacity.) I thought it was kind of shady that APS did not include the Discovery and Nottingham numbers in their little capacity chart at the presentation to the McKinley PTA the other night-- they only included the Glebe, McK, and Tuckahoe numbers. Here's the link to the presentation they gave to McKinley PTA: http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/105/040516%20McKinley%20Construction%20Update%20V7.pdf

There were a number of Glebe and Tuckahoe parents in attendance, who seemed to be lobbying to delay the boundary move-- and I don't blame them. How you can have 684 kids in a school with no gym, no field, and about 20 parking spaces for half of a school year is beyond me. And that assumes there are not other delays that push the date past December.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a McKinley parent, and I think we are too nice sometimes. We made the mistake of trying to be cordial through the boundary change process, and as a result got railroaded by the freaking Nottingham parents who resorted to circulating nasty petitions to avoid taking on new planning units. Now they get to roll into the 2016/17 school year at 95% capacity, Discovery is at 90% capacity, and McKinley is going to be at 131% capacity. (And even when the addition opens, McKinley will still be at 104% capacity.) I thought it was kind of shady that APS did not include the Discovery and Nottingham numbers in their little capacity chart at the presentation to the McKinley PTA the other night-- they only included the Glebe, McK, and Tuckahoe numbers. Here's the link to the presentation they gave to McKinley PTA: http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/105/040516%20McKinley%20Construction%20Update%20V7.pdf

There were a number of Glebe and Tuckahoe parents in attendance, who seemed to be lobbying to delay the boundary move-- and I don't blame them. How you can have 684 kids in a school with no gym, no field, and about 20 parking spaces for half of a school year is beyond me. And that assumes there are not other delays that push the date past December.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone ever be surprised when construction doesn't run on schedule?

Typ SAHM or lib arts people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, just inept planning. Spent too much time and money on Discovery, but let other problems fester with no solutions in sight or transparency with parents. Everyone suffers.

At best, it is incompetence. I agree with you on Discovery. They spent a long time making a decision and building a school that was too small to fit the increasing need for seats and then caved to the pressure from (loud, influential) parents to create boundaries that only benefited the few. Next year, Discovery, Jamestown and Nottingham will all have capacity to absorb more students, but APS planning will not use those resources. Instead, they will push through with plans they claim will help in 5 years without regard to what it does to schools in the present. I'm not sure why they pretend that their numbers 5 years out are written in stone b/c they can't even get the projections right from year to year. I would like to think it is just incompetence and that the SB would step in and do something, but the fact that nothing has changed makes me think it is all political.

http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/11/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf
That's the projections, but now McKinley will have a capacity of 443 for at least the first sememster (but quite likely much longer), but a student population of 712.