Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:39
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
The whole proposed elementary school swap is like a 180 on everything parents have been saying for years. The school board proposes a plan that:
--moves option schools to the edges of the county
--makes option programs grow
--makes walkable neighborhood schools
--balances enrollment so there aren't overcapacity and undercapacity schools near each other
--does it all in one fell swoop instead of a bunch of incremental painful changes year after year with no strategy
and everyone loses their shit
I mean, they are trying to give parents everything they want, and all of a sudden no one wants it
Pretty much.
Moral: People just like to complain. Ignore them.
+1000 Just get it done
maybe we need shirts with this on it at school board meetings.
The "get'er done coalition"
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:31
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
They already have signs, have been complaining to the press and have a hashtag. I'm sure the shirts will show up next and they will be the laughingstock of Arlington. It's sad, too, because they don't realize that not all of McKinley is going to have their backs. Lots of families want to move to Reed. They don't want to continue to be bussed to the school with the largest population, but without the space to accommodate them.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:21
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).
And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.
I think the thought is to put more VPI in the NW to increase diversity.
Also, people shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the schools seem a little imbalanced by the spreadsheet they sent out. The spread sheet is very back of the envelope, and that part isn't being voted on until next spring. Other than things that are clearly written on the wall (the ashlawn bounary won't follow the orange line so much, most of current asfs will move to key neighborhood, etc.), its not worth getting bent out of shape.
Would you rather they have the no moves map?
No, I think they need moves, and I think they need to balance capacity. But if you are going to be busing kids up to NW (to the tune of 350-370 kids) to create diversity, should those be preschool kids, or should they be K-5 kids? Preschool kids do not interact with the K-5 population, so its kind of smoke and mirrors to put a bunch of 4 years olds on a bus from South Arlington to Jamestown so that you can make the schools look more diverse. Personally, I think they should model what it would look like to level out K-5 enrollment numbers consistently across all school buildings (so that we don't have some schools with 700+ K-5 kids, and others with <500 K-5 kids) and then you can move the preschoolers to fill out the larger buildings. They should also look at option school locations from that perspective.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:19
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:When are the matching t-shirts going to come out?
Need a clever CHIRP for the back of the shirt
Children
Have
Interests;
Reconsider the
Plan
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:17
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:McKinely can relax. This process will show the stress in the system and option programs will be eliminated once boundary process gets going.
After all that work on the IPP? Doubtful.
As a taxpayer closer to 6 schools than the school we are zoned for: I so completely agree.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:17
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:According to a spreadsheet on another thread most kids who don’t end up at Reed will go to Ashlawn. This is probably what will happen to us.
I thought ashlawn was also overcrowded. How does that help? It's got the craziest boundaries of all IMO.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:15
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
When are the matching t-shirts going to come out?
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:11
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:McKinely can relax. This process will show the stress in the system and option programs will be eliminated once boundary process gets going.
After all that work on the IPP? Doubtful.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:10
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
The people at McKinley who are complaining that the school is being broken up have no grasp on reality. It has to split up because it’s ridiculously overcrowded. Why don’t they get it? No school will ever be big enough for current boundaries.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:08
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).
And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.
I think the thought is to put more VPI in the NW to increase diversity.
Also, people shouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the schools seem a little imbalanced by the spreadsheet they sent out. The spread sheet is very back of the envelope, and that part isn't being voted on until next spring. Other than things that are clearly written on the wall (the ashlawn bounary won't follow the orange line so much, most of current asfs will move to key neighborhood, etc.), its not worth getting bent out of shape.
Would you rather they have the no moves map?
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:07
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:McKinely can relax. This process will show the stress in the system and option programs will be eliminated once boundary process gets going.
Option programs are not going anywhere.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:03
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
McKinely can relax. This process will show the stress in the system and option programs will be eliminated once boundary process gets going.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 12:02
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
No, most people aren't complaining, at least not about the move to Reed. What people are upset about is that APS is representing that the McKinley building got picked as a choice school because "McKinley can move as a whole to Reed" when the data doesn't support that fact. You can't open Reed, Glebe, and Ashlawn at full capacity with no room to grow and leave 350-369 empty seats spread among Tuckahoe, Jamestown, Nottingham, and Discovery. When the boundaries are drawn, every school but Jamestown is going to need to shift planning units north under this plan if the school buildings are really going to be fully utilized. Just do the math based on what APS put out and you can see what NW schools have empty space to take more kids under both proposals (hint: Jamestown and Discovery).
And if you are a diversity advocate, you should be upset about this proposal too, because it effectively seals up the N/S divide in elementary schools. Without McKinley as a neighborhood school, there is no way that you can ever draw a N/S ES school boundary, because every seat in Ashlawn is going to be needed to address the population needs of the central-west section of the county that are being lost by using both ATS and McKinley as option sites.
Anonymous
11/04/2019 11:56
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
The whole proposed elementary school swap is like a 180 on everything parents have been saying for years. The school board proposes a plan that:
--moves option schools to the edges of the county
--makes option programs grow
--makes walkable neighborhood schools
--balances enrollment so there aren't overcapacity and undercapacity schools near each other
--does it all in one fell swoop instead of a bunch of incremental painful changes year after year with no strategy
and everyone loses their shit
I mean, they are trying to give parents everything they want, and all of a sudden no one wants it
Pretty much.
Moral: People just like to complain. Ignore them.
+1000 Just get it done
Anonymous
11/04/2019 11:53
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is McKinley really complaining? Really?
After complaining for years about the overcrowding, now they are complaining that there's a solution?! Priceless.
The whole proposed elementary school swap is like a 180 on everything parents have been saying for years. The school board proposes a plan that:
--moves option schools to the edges of the county
--makes option programs grow
--makes walkable neighborhood schools
--balances enrollment so there aren't overcapacity and undercapacity schools near each other
--does it all in one fell swoop instead of a bunch of incremental painful changes year after year with no strategy
and everyone loses their shit
I mean, they are trying to give parents everything they want, and all of a sudden no one wants it
Pretty much.
Moral: People just like to complain. Ignore them.