Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Capacity is more than trailers. 2nd graders at McK eat lunch at 1:30pm...which is ridiculous.

Yes, and APS is trying to fix it. You're complaining about status quo but complaining about the solution. Can't have it both ways, McKinley.

Just eat in the classroom like my NA student did. Come on ladies.

So long as you are fine have lunches and snacks be nut-free. That where it gets tricky.

Anonymous wrote:I think the very active McKinley PTA/volunteer Moms are most upset by this proposal, creating much of this resistance and upset. They will be losing their cliques and have to start over at a new school. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em and all the hard work and effort they put in on behalf of our school and students but at some point, they will have to give up the fight. The only resolution is either our school closes or another nearby NA school is eliminated... a lose-lose proposition if school parents start battling it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Capacity is more than trailers. 2nd graders at McK eat lunch at 1:30pm...which is ridiculous.

Yes, and APS is trying to fix it. You're complaining about status quo but complaining about the solution. Can't have it both ways, McKinley.

Just eat in the classroom like my NA student did. Come on ladies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Capacity is more than trailers. 2nd graders at McK eat lunch at 1:30pm...which is ridiculous.

Yes, and APS is trying to fix it. You're complaining about status quo but complaining about the solution. Can't have it both ways, McKinley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Capacity is more than trailers. 2nd graders at McK eat lunch at 1:30pm...which is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

I think everyone needs to understand that trailers aren’t going away, and Spanish or Art on a cart? If your school does it now, probably will continue even after all this. They count those spaces that have been repurposed as permanent space now. So, even schools that aren’t at capacity or aren’t projected to be, might “feel” crowded because of trailers and interior renovations/reconfigurations that won’t be undone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Capacity is more than trailers. 2nd graders at McK eat lunch at 1:30pm...which is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

So classes choose to eat in the classroom so these calculations are more art than science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Part of capacity is the size of lunchroom playground etc. that could be what throws your analysis off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?

I think just one, but hopefully someone else can confirm.

FWIW, I don't think APS's capacity utilization percentages are consistent building to building.

They say Nottingham is at 95% but the school has had Spanish on a cart for years and now has the entire 5th grade in trailers.

At the same time, McKinley is "over" capacity but has just one trailer. A few years ago, during the last boundary change, APS was counting a Reed preschool class as part of McKinley's capacity numbers, even though that class wasn't even in the building (and still is not). Obviously this throws things off and makes a school look more crowded than it really is.

They really need to standardize how they calculate building capacity before they dig into boundaries. Don't count classes that are not in the building. Standardize whether you expect FLES to have its own classrooms or not, same with Art on a cart.

Otherwise, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think MCK is going to send a lot more students to Tuckahoe when all is said and done.

If so then APS is completely lying in these proposals. Because they're saying the walkable units will go to Reed-- that's how they get to the "majority" of McK students heading to the new school and it's the crux of their argument for closing McK. It's why they need to release the boundary changes concurrent with this plan.

McKinley will have to bus in Tuckahoe & Nottingham up to the Discovery walkzone once you fill Reed and Ashlawn. Option 3 will be known as The McKinley Hook, Line & Sinker.

Anonymous wrote:How many trailers does McK have now?