Anonymous
09/11/2021 14:39
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? APS Planning shoved the idiotic school moves (Key to ATS to McKinley to Cardinal) down our throats; protests, opposing data, and higher expenses be darned.Anonymous wrote:They constantly kick the can and listen too much to the small group of current and heavily invested vocal families. They need to limit the role the PTAs play.
That was one of the few sensible moves they made and then they undid the potential benefits by caving to McKinley and putting them all at Cardinal. So now we all have to go through the wretched boundary arguing AGAIN in 2 years.
The “opposing data” was self-serving garbage and kind of embarrassing.
The way parents behaved regarding those school moves is why we can’t have nice things. APS fought through it and did the right thing but how many times are you going to find staff and a super and a School Board lined up and willing to do it. (Apparently not often.) The shrieking and keening and wailing from self-interested parties is out of control.
Anonymous
09/11/2021 14:26
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about? APS Planning shoved the idiotic school moves (Key to ATS to McKinley to Cardinal) down our throats; protests, opposing data, and higher expenses be darned.Anonymous wrote:They constantly kick the can and listen too much to the small group of current and heavily invested vocal families. They need to limit the role the PTAs play.
That was one of the few sensible moves they made and then they undid the potential benefits by caving to McKinley and putting them all at Cardinal. So now we all have to go through the wretched boundary arguing AGAIN in 2 years.
The “opposing data” was self-serving garbage and kind of embarrassing.
Anonymous
09/11/2021 08:21
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
What are you talking about? APS Planning shoved the idiotic school moves (Key to ATS to McKinley to Cardinal) down our throats; protests, opposing data, and higher expenses be darned.Anonymous wrote:They constantly kick the can and listen too much to the small group of current and heavily invested vocal families. They need to limit the role the PTAs play.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 20:47
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the chances are that they’re just going to move programs from Gunston to Jefferson and Wakefield to W-L? Like Montessori and Immersion?
In this CIP, if APS doesn't propose building a HS at Kenmore (which they admitted would be very cheap), I hope they propose building an annex to house MS immersion. APS has to start making better use of the Kenmore campus and we're going to desperately need MS seats in the next five years.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:52
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the chances are that they’re just going to move programs from Gunston to Jefferson and Wakefield to W-L? Like Montessori and Immersion?
The only program they could move from Wakefield is Immersion. They are not going to move immersion to WL, even though they should. It makes more sense with the IB program and it's a lot less messy way to shift 200 kids from Wakefield to WL.
Montessori is only about 60 students at Gunston. TJ doesn't have space for the immersion program.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:45
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:This year was always supposed to be a full middle school boundary process which now sounds off the table.
Last year, they said they would do a full blown elementary boundary process in 2 years (so process next fall for implementation the following school year). They made a point of saying every planning unit could potentially be involved. This is because they kicked the can last year and did bare minimum amount possible to fill Cardinal and set up new Key neighborhood school.
They should be doing a full middle school boundary assessment before doing any high school adjustments. It would be better for feeder school patterns.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:36
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the chances are that they’re just going to move programs from Gunston to Jefferson and Wakefield to W-L? Like Montessori and Immersion?
Zero.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:23
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Article also said moving some kids from Wakefield to W-L. All I hear from parents of kids at W-L is how packed it is there already. Is the former admin building they are converting to classrooms open yet?
W-L is just going to be so huge.
Nope they will drive away a bunch of families to FFX as planned
How big will WL get? Are they moving Wakefield and Yorktown PU into WL? I thought it’s size was from its own boundary?
Isn't W-L (our neighborhood school) going to get more space by taking over the administration building, whatever it's called?
Yes, approximately 500 more seats. But extremely limited new common space - essentially just space that can serve multiple purposes, including eating lunch. But no new gym, music, auditorium or library space and - obviously - no few field space.
None of this is new information. You seriously thought they’d build those seats and then not fill them?
Of course those seats will be filled and I don't really give a crap bc my last kid is graduating from W-L next June. But adding those seats without adding any additional common space is just one reason out of several that is going to make attending W-L difficult for many.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:15
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
So what do we think the chances are that they’re just going to move programs from Gunston to Jefferson and Wakefield to W-L? Like Montessori and Immersion?
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:10
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Article also said moving some kids from Wakefield to W-L. All I hear from parents of kids at W-L is how packed it is there already. Is the former admin building they are converting to classrooms open yet?
W-L is just going to be so huge.
Nope they will drive away a bunch of families to FFX as planned
How big will WL get? Are they moving Wakefield and Yorktown PU into WL? I thought it’s size was from its own boundary?
Isn't W-L (our neighborhood school) going to get more space by taking over the administration building, whatever it's called?
Yes, approximately 500 more seats. But extremely limited new common space - essentially just space that can serve multiple purposes, including eating lunch. But no new gym, music, auditorium or library space and - obviously - no few field space.
None of this is new information. You seriously thought they’d build those seats and then not fill them?
Anonymous
09/10/2021 16:00
Subject: APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
I realize that just an anecdote, but several of my 6th grader’s friends and teammates from various elementary schools are going to private/parochial for middle. In general those who moved to parochial have not committed to bailing from APS permanently (either plan to stay just through middle or assess year to year), and those who moved to other private schools don’t plan to come back. I’d say it’s split 50/50 between those hoping to come back, at least for high school, and those not planning to come back at all, with maybe 25% playing it by ear and thinking there’s a decent chance their kid will return by 7th or 8th grade, assuming APS gets its shizz together.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 15:29
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn't this why they built a 6th middle school? These numbers look nice!
Agreed. I think if enrollment was at normal levels, they would have some pretty serious issues with boundaries being out of whack. But they have enough schools for this age group.
Total MS capacity is 6,068. Total MS enrollment is now 5,888 right now (there are 204 in the VLP), with larger classes coming down the pipe. If the unenrollment also comes back, we're way over capacity.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 15:07
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Isn't this why they built a 6th middle school? These numbers look nice!
Agreed. I think if enrollment was at normal levels, they would have some pretty serious issues with boundaries being out of whack. But they have enough schools for this age group.
Anonymous
09/10/2021 15:01
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Isn't this why they built a 6th middle school? These numbers look nice!
Anonymous
09/10/2021 15:01
Subject: Re:APS 2021-2022 boundary-adjustments
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are the current MS enrollments? Is Hamm, which was low to begin with, even lower? Why is it not involved in the boundary shift? Did more kids materialize there? Is that why only TJ and Gunston are involved? Also, we can see from AEM that people don’t actually want to walk their kids to school, or hub stops. It’s almost like “walkable” is code for something else.
Hamm - 854 (+16.3% since June 2020)
Shriver - 7
Gunston - 1,114 (-0.7% since June 2020)
HB - 243
Jefferson - 852 (-21.1% since June 2020)
Kenmore - 932 (-6.5% since June 2020)
Swanson - 891 (-8.1% since June 2020)
Williamsburg - 791 (-17.9% since June 2020)
Virtual - 204
Overall MS enrollment is -3.4% vs. June 2020.
Isn't this why they built a 6th middle school? These numbers look nice!
It is more helpful to see these numbers in relation to building capacity.
Hamm 854 (Building capacity 1000)
Gunston 1,114 (Building capacity 992)
Jefferson 852 (Building capacity 1,086)
Kenmore 932 (Building capacity 1,045)
Swanson 891 (Building capacity 948)
Williamsburg 791 (Building Capacity 997)
So you can see why they feel pressed to deal with Gunston but just generally don't want to upset the apple cart until they see where things land post covid.
Down the road, they likely need to move kids out of Swanson though. And the parents really fight that.