Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.

Yeah, I'm with pp. You're being disingenuous or are too incapable of understanding to waste time discussing it with.

Feel free to go start a new thread if you just want to insult people. If you want to discuss these "excessive" transportation costs then feel free to stick around.

Then go ahead and discuss them. Go educate yourself and then come back with an informed opinion. Don't sit around in ignorance and then expect everyone to take your opinion seriously.

WTF are you so combative? Personality disorder? Low EQ? Anyway, I’ve been watching this whole saga and after we’ve gone down so many different paths I’m stepping back now and asking is it really all worth it? What exactly was so wrong that needed to be fixed?

And the question is a little premature because we don’t have some data yet.
Boundary impacts: waiting on latest enrollment numbers
Transportation: saving how many buses? 2-3?
Moving costs: $40-500k?

What sources did you use to derive those numbers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who the f cares?? It’s a building, you whining, bored women.

Tell us more. Where does that impotent rage come from?

The county has to do something that benefits the greatest number of people. An option school is ... an option school. The world will not end if an immersion program has to have 100 fewer students in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the numbers for projected K students, how many K classes that would have translated into, the actual number of K classes and the actual number of 1st grade classes for the NA neighborhood elementaries. For some schools I needed to make guesses on actual classes because they don't list the classes on the web page and I had to try to figure it from the general staff directory; if anyone sees errors there, let me know.

From what I can tell, there are two schools that have fewer K class this year than last spring's projections would have predicted - Nottingham (4 projected; appears to be 3) and Glebe (5 projected, appears to be 4). Both of those schools also appear to have one fewer K class than 1st grade class this year. Glebe is interesting, I wouldn't have expected it to be on that list, but maybe it has 4 really big classes and just missed the cut-off for a fifth. But if enrollment numbers there are dropping, that could have interesting implications for capacity around ASFS/Key given its proximity to ASFS.

Other schools that appear to have fewer kindergarten classes than first grade classes this year (but class numbers in line with projections): Ashlawn (5 K/6 1st), Discovery (4 K /5 1st), Tuckahoe (4 K/5 1st).

Other than the Glebe outlier, it tends to suggest that moving an option program somewhere that would use up excess capacity when Reed opens makes sense. I'm not convinced that Nottingham is the answer (taking away trailer most of the trailer capacity in the NW seems like a risky proposition), it could go to Tuckahoe or Jamestown as well, or to Carlin Springs and have the Ashlawn boundary cross 50.

Jamestown ended up with one extra - 4 classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who the f cares?? It’s a building, you whining, bored women.

Tell us more. Where does that impotent rage come from?

Anonymous wrote:Who the f cares?? It’s a building, you whining, bored women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.

Yeah, I'm with pp. You're being disingenuous or are too incapable of understanding to waste time discussing it with.

Feel free to go start a new thread if you just want to insult people. If you want to discuss these "excessive" transportation costs then feel free to stick around.

Then go ahead and discuss them. Go educate yourself and then come back with an informed opinion. Don't sit around in ignorance and then expect everyone to take your opinion seriously.

WTF are you so combative? Personality disorder? Low EQ? Anyway, I’ve been watching this whole saga and after we’ve gone down so many different paths I’m stepping back now and asking is it really all worth it? What exactly was so wrong that needed to be fixed?

And the question is a little premature because we don’t have some data yet.
Boundary impacts: waiting on latest enrollment numbers
Transportation: saving how many buses? 2-3?
Moving costs: $40-500k?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.

Yeah, I'm with pp. You're being disingenuous or are too incapable of understanding to waste time discussing it with.

Feel free to go start a new thread if you just want to insult people. If you want to discuss these "excessive" transportation costs then feel free to stick around.

Then go ahead and discuss them. Go educate yourself and then come back with an informed opinion. Don't sit around in ignorance and then expect everyone to take your opinion seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all see the memo from the school board to Murphy about the upcoming budget process? It was very clear that there can be nothing discretionary in the budget. It specifically says, "No new, major initiatives should be presented." That's basically the end of revisiting the option location review because that initiative was closed. Key and ASFS can be swapped because the resulting transportation cost savings will quickly outweigh the cost of relocating the programs, but you'll be hard pressed to make the same case for moving an option program to Nottingham or something, especially when you include all of the costs that would go into even evaluating it, such as traffic studies.

So Nottingham deserves a traffic study but ASFS and Key do not?

Anonymous wrote:Did you all see the memo from the school board to Murphy about the upcoming budget process? It was very clear that there can be nothing discretionary in the budget. It specifically says, "No new, major initiatives should be presented." That's basically the end of revisiting the option location review because that initiative was closed. Key and ASFS can be swapped because the resulting transportation cost savings will quickly outweigh the cost of relocating the programs, but you'll be hard pressed to make the same case for moving an option program to Nottingham or something, especially when you include all of the costs that would go into even evaluating it, such as traffic studies.

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the numbers for projected K students, how many K classes that would have translated into, the actual number of K classes and the actual number of 1st grade classes for the NA neighborhood elementaries. For some schools I needed to make guesses on actual classes because they don't list the classes on the web page and I had to try to figure it from the general staff directory; if anyone sees errors there, let me know.

From what I can tell, there are two schools that have fewer K class this year than last spring's projections would have predicted - Nottingham (4 projected; appears to be 3) and Glebe (5 projected, appears to be 4). Both of those schools also appear to have one fewer K class than 1st grade class this year. Glebe is interesting, I wouldn't have expected it to be on that list, but maybe it has 4 really big classes and just missed the cut-off for a fifth. But if enrollment numbers there are dropping, that could have interesting implications for capacity around ASFS/Key given its proximity to ASFS.

Other schools that appear to have fewer kindergarten classes than first grade classes this year (but class numbers in line with projections): Ashlawn (5 K/6 1st), Discovery (4 K /5 1st), Tuckahoe (4 K/5 1st).

Other than the Glebe outlier, it tends to suggest that moving an option program somewhere that would use up excess capacity when Reed opens makes sense. I'm not convinced that Nottingham is the answer (taking away trailer most of the trailer capacity in the NW seems like a risky proposition), it could go to Tuckahoe or Jamestown as well, or to Carlin Springs and have the Ashlawn boundary cross 50.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.

Yeah, I'm with pp. You're being disingenuous or are too incapable of understanding to waste time discussing it with.

Feel free to go start a new thread if you just want to insult people. If you want to discuss these "excessive" transportation costs then feel free to stick around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.

Yeah, I'm with pp. You're being disingenuous or are too incapable of understanding to waste time discussing it with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

It has been discussed extensively in this thread and in the staff's memo. If you are still incapable of understanding it after all of that, perhaps your ignorance is beyond something we can help you with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s just not worth moving either of them. What exactly is wrong with the current setup?

Boundaries and excessive transportation costs.

NP. Yes boundaries are odd. What is the actual problem with a school outside it’s zone? FCC has a school outside it’s CITY LIMITS for years and it’s okay.

There are more buses going to ASFS that many schools (maybe all?) so exactly how expensive is that.