Anonymous wrote:I'm PP and I'm a McKinley parent fwiw.

I thought the McKinley PtA was targeting Tuckahoe. Is that not correct? Since at least half the school will be going to Reed (40% of McK as walkers), I'd be surprised if they tried to change the plan for Reed. Also, it would be extremely stupid since they need Reed to get them below 800.

I'm PP and I'm a McKinley parent fwiw.

I hope the McKinley PTA doesn't talk the School Board out of making Reed a neighborhood school. It will be a (basically) new building! They will have fields! So much field space! Westover is such a nice area! You can pick your kid up to school and walk to pizza or weird jewelry or chinese takeout!

McKinley works, but this might work better! It's okay!

I agree it makes sense to check the numbers because APS has been wrong on numbers -- specifically McKinley's numbers! -- many times before.

One other thing to consider is that if ATS is located right there at McKinley, it might wind up holding a lot of Dominion Hills kids because more families will be interested in an option school program that they can walk to. So that even if there IS concern about how the numbers will actually work out due to overcrowding, it could be that ATS would in effect be a little bit like another neighborhood school in that area because so many kids would apply from the immediate surroundings that ATS will proportionally accept more kids from that area. And that will effectively help to relieve some of the overcrowding that area has been experiencing. Just a thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the McKinley parents are upset that they spent money on features for their public school and they might be moved out of that school?

Can we put them and the ASFS parents in a leaky boat and send them off somewhere?

Oh my! They invested in their school. Those monsters.

So did lots of other schools, to the extent families were able. This is not something unique to McKinley or ASFS, and therefore is not a valid consideration in this process.

So why is PP even bringing it up in such a nasty way?

McKinley walk zone folks are grasping at straws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this before but allow me to try again: would 'Partner-School Option' have a chance to be successful? Match up one S school with one N school and let families choose or lottery which one to go to and bus both ways. I think two buses would probably do.

really, who at Nottingham or Discovery is going to voluntarily ride a bus to Barcroft or Randolph? Families move to NA because they’ve decided “the schools” are worth the housing premium.

It could help fill seats in under enrolled N school by pairing up one overcrowding S school, say, Discovery & Randolph, without changing multiple boundaries. And if it stays 'one directional' forever so be it. But it reaches the critical mass it can be successful in other aspects too.

I would love to see something like this. If kids who need extended day could get dropped off or picked up at the partner school that would be great too.

Sure why not? It'd make families happy without extra cost. Let families choose what work best for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this before but allow me to try again: would 'Partner-School Option' have a chance to be successful? Match up one S school with one N school and let families choose or lottery which one to go to and bus both ways. I think two buses would probably do.

really, who at Nottingham or Discovery is going to voluntarily ride a bus to Barcroft or Randolph? Families move to NA because they’ve decided “the schools” are worth the housing premium.

It could help fill seats in under enrolled N school by pairing up one overcrowding S school, say, Discovery & Randolph, without changing multiple boundaries. And if it stays 'one directional' forever so be it. But it reaches the critical mass it can be successful in other aspects too.

I would love to see something like this. If kids who need extended day could get dropped off or picked up at the partner school that would be great too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the McKinley parents are upset that they spent money on features for their public school and they might be moved out of that school?

Can we put them and the ASFS parents in a leaky boat and send them off somewhere?

Oh my! They invested in their school. Those monsters.

So did lots of other schools, to the extent families were able. This is not something unique to McKinley or ASFS, and therefore is not a valid consideration in this process.

So why is PP even bringing it up in such a nasty way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the McKinley parents are upset that they spent money on features for their public school and they might be moved out of that school?

Can we put them and the ASFS parents in a leaky boat and send them off somewhere?

Oh my! They invested in their school. Those monsters.

So did lots of other schools, to the extent families were able. This is not something unique to McKinley or ASFS, and therefore is not a valid consideration in this process.

Anonymous wrote:So now the McKinley parents are upset that they spent money on features for their public school and they might be moved out of that school?

Can we put them and the ASFS parents in a leaky boat and send them off somewhere?

Oh my! They invested in their school. Those monsters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this before but allow me to try again: would 'Partner-School Option' have a chance to be successful? Match up one S school with one N school and let families choose or lottery which one to go to and bus both ways. I think two buses would probably do.

really, who at Nottingham or Discovery is going to voluntarily ride a bus to Barcroft or Randolph? Families move to NA because they’ve decided “the schools” are worth the housing premium.

It could help fill seats in under enrolled N school by pairing up one overcrowding S school, say, Discovery & Randolph, without changing multiple boundaries. And if it stays 'one directional' forever so be it. But it reaches the critical mass it can be successful in other aspects too.

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.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/School-Capacity-and-Inventory-of-Relocatable-Classrooms-in-the-2019-AFSAP.pdf
From the engage website.

McKinley has 6 trailers. ATS, Barcroft and Oakridge each have 8. So this is countywide problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the McKinley letter, it’s pretty clear they didn’t do their math. They suggest the data would show that after Reed opens the bulk of the excess seats in Zone 1 would be located over Jamestown, Discovery, Nottingham and Tuckahoe, but if you run the numbers based on APS’s published projections, it’s clear the bulk of the excess will be over McKinley, Reed and Glebe.

Can McK bus in students from Columbia Pike? That might work.

Hah Ha Ha Ha! If you think 14030 is going crazy because they might gasp! get sent to Ashlawn, I would love to see what knots they twist themselves into if you suggested Reed walkers go to Reed and the deficit is filled with FARMS / ELL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe should definitely take some of the orphan McKinley units that don’t go to Reed. Tuckahoe already has units from Madison Manor area. Tuckahoe will lose some Overlee units to Reed but maybe not all depending on how boundaries shake out.

Agreed, the McKinley kids who can't walk to Reed or Ashlawn should be bussed to Tuckahoe so Tuckahoe units that can walk to Reed can do so.

APS released the list of planning units that are in the walk zone to a building. It is posted on the Engage website. The only two Tuckahoe units that are included in the Reed walk zone are 16060 and 16061. The Tuckahoe units west of Ohio Street will get a bus regardless of whether they stay at Tuckahoe or go to Reed. It looks like APS intends to keep Tuckahoe together, except for the 90 kids peeling out to go to Reed in those two planning units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole thing is being done to give back a mess of neighborhood seats to Courthouse. So I’d say the plan does quite nicely by central Arlington. No one wants to hear about Reed hoarding seats for “future growth.” There a neighborhoods that need those seats today. Get real.

How can you say the proposed plans do quite nicely for central Arlington? Does anyone disagree that Ashlawn is getting hurt by the proposed plans???

Emphatically.

Then clearly you don't understand the impact of the proposed changes on the school and community. It will significantly change the student body and minimize diversity. At a school whose motto is "global citizenship" and being accepting of all differences. Turning Ashlawn into another NW school does hurt it.

DP. I understand your point, I’m just thoroughly over the “my school is more precious than any other” argument we’ve been hearing from so many school communities for years. Everyone thinks their own school community is special, but that’s not a compelling argument for anyone outside of it.

Ashlawn parent here, DP than above, but I think the post above that explains how it's not that we're special or deserve to be spared from.change, just that we too are affected and that should be acknowledged. Honestly, I think our community is impacted more than the McKinley community, and for that reason I'm pretty disgusted by their hysterics over all of this. It will suck for my kids if our school changes, but sometimes change happens and it sucks...Unlike what appears to be the perspective of the McKinley families, I just don't think I'm entitled to be spared from the change simply because it will be sad for me and our school.

Thank you PP. I’m another Ashlawn DH parent rolling my eyes at our neighbors and sad to see Ashlawn likely lose its Eastern tail.

By and large, the McKinley community is a great group. Those who don’t end up at Reed will be very welcome at the surrounding schools. It’s a down to earth, not super privileged bunch for the most part. They’d be a welcome addition to an Ashlawn, Tuckahoe or Nottingham.