Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 20:07     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Please stop. If we are so concerned about Reed overcrowding, then make Reed the option and put McKinley with trailers instead. Oh wait. That’s what you’ve been complaining about for past 3 years. One of these schools has to go. Or Ashlawn. But one of them. That’s just too many seats to fill without busing neighborhood kids from all over. Bus in option kids if you want. But not neighborhood kids who can walk to a school already.



I don’t understand what these folks want to save McKinley from? No dog in this fight but I’ve read enough DCUM to know McKinley has an overcrowding problem. So unless you want to continue to be overcrowded, you’re basically saying save part of the community but offload some of the kids to other schools?
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 20:03     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
McK. Stop with your fake concern.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 19:43     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
So, I know it’s not convenient, but if the issue is putting option schools where there’s no growth predicted, why isn’t Jamestown on the table? Without some sort of massive busing N, it’s going to be empty.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 18:51     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Please stop. If we are so concerned about Reed overcrowding, then make Reed the option and put McKinley with trailers instead. Oh wait. That’s what you’ve been complaining about for past 3 years. One of these schools has to go. Or Ashlawn. But one of them. That’s just too many seats to fill without busing neighborhood kids from all over. Bus in option kids if you want. But not neighborhood kids who can walk to a school already.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 18:16     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Sorry, I meant Reed not McKinley above!
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 18:15     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
But seriously, what happens when McKinley goes over enrollment? Or even AT 100% enrollment, if the classes aren't each balanced at the max number of kids so that one grade doesn't need additional classrooms? How CAN Reed operate if it's not under 100% if it can't shoot kids off to trailers??????
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 16:53     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:and one playground, again for 750 kids.
Seriously people; scroll through the plan


Luckily, that's not true. They salvaged the lower playground equipment and are relocating it to the back upper play space. The new playground will be large and, unlike McKinley, they will still have 1.5 bball courts and fields. It won't be head-bump-McK all over again.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 16:42     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
and one playground, again for 750 kids.
Seriously people; scroll through the plan
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 16:40     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Reed probably can't take trailers because the second building will take all of the land that you see there now. It's not going to be there.

This big huge building will be where you see land now.
https://www.apsva.us/design-and-construction/new-elementary-school-at-reed-building/
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 15:59     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Happening to have excess seats in your neighborhood a la Jamestown or Discovery is not hoarding. No one in those neighborhoods or Tuckahoe is saying they shouldn’t fill to capacity. Arguing against using empty seats (saying that you shouldn’t fill Reed) because you might need them later is hoarding. And that’s on Westover or whoever is pushing that argument from McKinley. Fill. All. The. Seats. Including Drew and Jamestown and everywhere in between.

I don’t think you understand how school capacity works in practice. Capacity numbers assume that every classroom is filled exactly to capacity, which is not how it works in real life. In real life, if you’re over about 94% capacity, there’s a good chance you’ll need trailers. That’s fine if your school can take trailers, but not if you’re at a school like Reed or Fleet that APS has determined cannot take trailers. The more sensible choice is to leave schools like Reed that can’t take trailers at no more than 93-94% capacity because they are effectively full at that point, and then push more students to schools like Tuckahoe and Nottingham that can take trailers.

-Nottingham parent who can deal with reality


Wait, APS has determined that Reed can't take trailers? Wut? So what happens if/when Reed goes overcapacity? How does that even work?
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 15:18     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Just in looking at the rough representative boundaries map, it looks to me that the boundary for Reed would end at 22nd St., no? I don't think it would include 16060. I think only 16061 would move from Tuckahoe to Reed.

Also, just curious- how did you get the number for how many elementary kids are included in these planning units?


You don't have to just eyeball the maps. APS released a list of all the planning unit numbers and whether or not they are in the walk zone to a particular school. I just looked at that list and bumped it up against the planning unit data that is also on the website. No magic here. Its all available to the public on Engage.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 15:14     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Just in looking at the rough representative boundaries map, it looks to me that the boundary for Reed would end at 22nd St., no? I don't think it would include 16060. I think only 16061 would move from Tuckahoe to Reed.

Also, just curious- how did you get the number for how many elementary kids are included in these planning units?
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 14:23     Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I really wish I had bought North of 66. Everyone below is going to get hosed.


I seem to remember people below Columbia Pike saying something similar. Drew has some openings, maybe you can look into a transfer?

Drew is below 66...
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 14:10     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Clearly, the priorities are causing problems with making boundaries that balance enrollment and maximixe use of each of our buildings. The priorities need to change. [/quote


I think that is a legitimate perspective. I think the staff is reactive to what it thinks the community wants in terms of priorities.

The fighting cry of the Middle School boundary process was 'walkability.' That leads to the location review with its focus on walkability.
The fighting cry of the South Arlington boundary process was 'don't break up our community, keep henry together,' etc. That is why leading into this process the primary goal is keeping communities together.

I think there is something to be said for a 'start from a clean slate' perspective- but it is rough on the people impacted. OTOH, it doesn't make sense to make decisions for the next 10 years so that this friend group doesn't get broken up. OTOH, kids (and parents) friendships and relationships do matter- my kids will be impacted and I will be sad when they are no longer in school with some close friends.
Anonymous
Post 11/08/2019 14:08     Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:APS has absolutely explained what has changed between the 2018 location review, and now. The criteria have changed. SOme of the criteria are the same- e.g. walking- but the rest are basically different.
These are the current criteria-
Q: How did staff create these proposals?

A: After sharing the challenges facing the 2020 Boundary Change Process with instructional leaders and central office departments, staff created proposals that focused on:

Keeping as many students together in each school community as possible
Walking to neighborhood schools as much as possible
Addressing the need for neighborhood seats in Rosslyn-Ballston corridor
Using schools to maximum capacity and find efficiencies and keep resources in the classroom
Increasing access to options by utilizing a larger building or moving to a more central site
https://www.apsva.us/engage/planning-for-2020-elementary-school-boundary-process/faqs-elementary-school-planning-for-2021-boundary/



the first one- keeping students together- appears to me to be the reason why staff moved from optioning Nottingham to optioning McKinley.

i took this from the FAQ's- but it has basically been in every single lead off to every presentation about this topic so its not like its been buried.


Clearly, the priorities are causing problems with making boundaries that balance enrollment and maximixe use of each of our buildings. The priorities need to change.

Which priorities do you disagree with?