Anonymous
11/09/2019 14:13
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But Reed can't have trailers so the only way to fill it to 100%, aka fully utilize every inch of a new building, is make it an option school which APS controls enrollment numbers.
With the new design, Reed can accommodate trailers if needed. Give it up, Dominion Hills.
Why didn't you speak up and correct other posts that say Reed can't have trailers?
-- Not Dominion Hill
Anonymous
11/09/2019 12:58
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.
It helps not to be too rigid in thinking about the zones because planning units can move between zones. For instance, Ashlawn is in zone 2, but is closer to zone 1 schools than to most of the other zone 2 schools. Rezone the Ashlawn tail to schools in the east, and that will both use up a lot of the excess capacity in the east under these plans and will free up seats to take more students from the west.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 12:47
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote: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?
I know those two planning units are in the walk zone for Reed. I’m asking where you obtained the information that they both will be moved from Tuckahie to Reed.
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
11/09/2019 12:28
Subject: Re:The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
I have a question about the zone map. APS is saying they are doing this change because "Zone 1" will have +133 extra seats in 2023, and "Zone 2" will be -399 seats. So they are taking away 684 seats in Zone 1 (McKinley) and giving 683 seats (Key) to Zone 2. Doesn't that just leave Zone 1 551 seats short in 2023, while creating a surplus of 284 seats in Zone 2? I get that APS is expecting longer-term growth in Zones 2-4 in the 5-10 year horizon, but it also looks like the CIP deck proposes building additions or a new elementary school in those zones. How are they going to go back and address the shortage of seats in Zone 1, without eventually undoing the decision to make McKinley and option school five years from now? This seems like just moving deck chairs around on a sinking ship, and probably spending a lot of taxpayer money to move schools in the process. I won't have an ES kid by then, so am not personally impacted here, but it seems like all of this just takes time and money away from figuring out what to do about the looming high school seat shortage which is something that impacts everyone-- and the one place where the School Board and APS really haven't come up with any viable solution. Even cramming 800 more kids into the Career Center site still leaves APS short on high school seats.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 10:46
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
McK used to have preschool classes, they moved them over to Reed when they ran out of space and then the preschool was moved elsewhere. Reed is being built with preschool classes, as well. The same thing can happen.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 10:43
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:But Reed can't have trailers so the only way to fill it to 100%, aka fully utilize every inch of a new building, is make it an option school which APS controls enrollment numbers.
With the new design, Reed can accommodate trailers if needed. Give it up, Dominion Hills.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 10:35
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
But Reed can't have trailers so the only way to fill it to 100%, aka fully utilize every inch of a new building, is make it an option school which APS controls enrollment numbers.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 09:06
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fine. Leave McKinley and make Reed option. Let Westover fight it out in a death match.
This makes the most sense.
Option expands, deflates the glebe/mck/ashlawn balloons and provides more opportunities to the of families on the wait list.
APS has already explained why they chose MCK over Reed. If they want to add more families off the waitlist, the MCK trailers also provide that option. It costs more annually for the busing to MCK vs. Reed b/c the majority of students live above 66 and the accessibility is much better at MCK. A portion of MCK around the school is up in arms, but there really isn't a lot of pushback. APS isn't going to change direction for a small group of protesters. Even the principal of MCK doesn't stand behind that group. It's sad for a few families, but their kids will be in a better school with less crowding when the dust settles. They need to stop pulling a chicken little.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:53
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fine. Leave McKinley and make Reed option. Let Westover fight it out in a death match.
This makes the most sense.
Option expands, deflates the glebe/mck/ashlawn balloons and provides more opportunities to the of families on the wait list.
Not happening. This worsens the overcrowding problem at the 3 listed sites and the SB isn't giving a new school to an option program again. Besides, most of McK is in favor of plan 1. Don't let a small group trick you.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:44
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Fine. Leave McKinley and make Reed option. Let Westover fight it out in a death match.
This makes the most sense.
Option expands, deflates the glebe/mck/ashlawn balloons and provides more opportunities to the of families on the wait list.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:42
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote: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.
Fair point. However, McK was supposed to have more land, more play space and real ball courts not the .5 or 2/3 or whatever they are now. And they are all dangerously close to each other.
McK was also supposed to get two outdoor classrooms...didn't happen.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:29
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wasn't the original draft plan for all this for Key to move to Nottingham because a good percentage of students from there can walk to Discovery and Tuckaho, The rest would of gone to Reed with some from Mckinley.
Nottingham parents found out about this and made noise, so then went on to explore other options...
It was actually a relatively small portion of the walkers that could have walked to Tuckahoe or Discovery. Even if they took away the overlapping walk zones, Nottingham was still one of the most walkable schools in the county, which was one of the many flaws with APS’s analysis at the time.
I don’t really object to this part of the plan. I don’t like option 2. The need for neighborhood seats in the SW part of the county isn’t going to be addressed by moving a neighborhood school into a smaller school that will have to have a smaller boundary, and pushing off at least some of those students to adjacent schools that also don’t have permanent space. The time for this conversation is when they have the money to build a new school or build additions, and not before then. Why move neighborhood kids into trailers right now when they don’t have to?
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:21
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Wasn't the original draft plan for all this for Key to move to Nottingham because a good percentage of students from there can walk to Discovery and Tuckaho, The rest would of gone to Reed with some from Mckinley.
Nottingham parents found out about this and made noise, so then went on to explore other options...
It was actually a relatively small portion of the walkers that could have walked to Tuckahoe or Discovery. Even if they took away the overlapping walk zones, Nottingham was still one of the most walkable schools in the county, which was one of the many flaws with APS’s analysis at the time.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 08:18
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote: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
Reed can't take trailers? On that big field? Why not?
Most likely a permitting issue with the county. APS and the county having sharing agreements for all of the field space at the schools, and the county is entitled to a certain portion of non-school hour access to the fields, which they then rent to sports leagues andnother groups to raise revenue. If APS puts trailers there, the county won’t have access to the space. Therefore, the county won’t grant them a permit that would allow them to put trailers there.
Anonymous
11/09/2019 07:51
Subject: The demise of McKinley ES (APS)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wasn't the original draft plan for all this for Key to move to Nottingham because a good percentage of students from there can walk to Discovery and Tuckaho, The rest would of gone to Reed with some from Mckinley.
Nottingham parents found out about this and made noise, so then went on to explore other options...
No.
and no.
Yes. We t was part of The Natrass Plan. Yes, Nottingham found out and flipped out. APS tabled all of it, re-evaluated and came back with these 2 options.