The other problem with those 2 Tuckahoe planning units you refer to is the middle school issue. The one planning unit was moved to Nottingham. I think it was something like 25 kids that moved, over all grade levels. That planning unit is zoned for Swanson. All of Nottingham goes to Williamsburg. So, now you have a 4th grader that left her elementary school to go to a new elementary school where she makes friends with no one that she will attend middle school with. The kids will be fine, but it just shows how dumb the planning is. There were probably 854 better solutions to this overcrowding over the years and the school board tends to come up with the worst ones every time.

I have at least 10 friends who live within walking distance of an elementary school, yet are bussed to another one - which is overcrowded. How does that make any sense?

Anonymous wrote:When you ask the APS staff, they just give you a lame excuse that everyone is going to be full again by 2021, so there is no point to shifting. However, that is almost the entirety of elementary school for a significant number of students.

http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/11/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf

This is one of the most infuriating things to hear as a parent of a child currently in ES. They are telling parents of current students that their child's experience is much less important than that of projected students down the road. If boundary shifts are better for everyone in 5 years, shift them IN 5 YEARS!!

Also, I had heard rumors of the Nottingham petition. It's sad to hear that is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other point:
Pick up from extended day takes me, on average, 15 minutes.
Park, walk, wait for them to find child, wait for child to find bookbag, walk back. Remember, most of the time you are walking THROUGH an active playground on your way to the school so it's not a fast walk. It's like dodge-kid.

WTF? Who cares?

The point, as brought up earlier in the thread, is the the neighbors who don't have kids at McK care about how long this process takes. The "overflow" McK parking means parking in front of someone's house in Madison Manor or Dominion Hills. So neighbors come home from work at 5:30 and have to wait 15-30 minutes to be able to park in front of their own house because the spots are all taken by Extended Day pickup or parents picking up kids from other McK activities. And that is a pain, if you are hauling groceries in from your car, etc.

At the meeting, APS said that they only expected to need 1-2 trailers when the construction was finished (as opposed to the current six-plex units). There is a chart floating around that shows the number of projected trailers post-construction-- I will post a link if I can find it in an old email. The issue with McKinley is that there will be so little field space after that addition is finished-- so even 1-2 trailers will take that green space away. I think McKinley is unique compared to some of the other elementary schools, in that it is completely boxed in on all sides by residential housing. This is also why I don't understand the decision to build out McKinley in the first place, as opposed to some of the other schools, but that ship has obviously sailed.

Regarding the Tuckahoe planning units, we are friends with a family in that unit, and the issue is that the two units wanted to move together-- not that they wanted to move to McK specifically. They would have been fine both moving to Nottingham too, but the Nottingham parents circulated a petition opposing taking the additional students and got nasty with APS over it. So by the time the alternative came to McK for discussion, the choice was to take one planning unit or take them both. Also, my impression from the meeting is that some of the parents complaining were the units moving over from Glebe-- these parents have been jerked around a bit by APS, because they have been getting conflicting messages over the past two years about whether they really need to move to create space at Glebe.

In any event, if you look at the chart at the link below, Discovery (our newest, most beautiful elementary school) is projected to be undercapacity until the 2020-2021 school year. So why can't APS allow transfers, or consider reshifting the boundaries elsewhere to give some relief to McK and Ashlawn? I think they are just lazy and don't want to reopen the boundary process again. We should be complaining to the SB about this as McK and Ashlawn parents. When you ask the APS staff, they just give you a lame excuse that everyone is going to be full again by 2021, so there is no point to shifting. However, that is almost the entirety of elementary school for a significant number of students.

http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/VA01000586/Centricity/Domain/11/Capacity_Utilization_FallProjections16-25_Final_Revised_11172015.pdf

Anonymous wrote:One other point:
Pick up from extended day takes me, on average, 15 minutes.
Park, walk, wait for them to find child, wait for child to find bookbag, walk back. Remember, most of the time you are walking THROUGH an active playground on your way to the school so it's not a fast walk. It's like dodge-kid.

WTF? Who cares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a weird school system. Their website looks like it's from 1999.

I know! Every time they talk about the importance of technology, I think of the ugly, nonfunctional website, complete with "Updated [some date seven years ago]" and think, "Important for whom?"

It's like English is the site's second language.

Wow. Complaining about the construction delays and the website?! What a bunch of whiners. Why don't you chip in the $ for website designers and construction fairies who can finish a job on time.

One other point:
Pick up from extended day takes me, on average, 15 minutes.
Park, walk, wait for them to find child, wait for child to find bookbag, walk back. Remember, most of the time you are walking THROUGH an active playground on your way to the school so it's not a fast walk. It's like dodge-kid.

APS planners are incompetent. Fortunately, McKinley has fantastic teachers, a caring & respectful community and an awesome Principal (of the Year!!!).

Anonymous wrote:What problems are you having with parking? I always manage to find a space on the street, though sometimes that means a five minute walk instead of one minute, so I have to build that extra time into my schedule. But I have NEVER not been able to find a space.

I pick up every day at after care and here are the problems with parking that i have faced:

1. if you cannot park near, street parking could be a block or two away. The search plus parking and walking can take 15 minutes mid--day or after school.
2. If I get my younger child first, I prefer to park near the building and can about half the time. If not, I get to do that walk with a 2-yr-old
3. Crossing McKinley road can be hazardous. Most people stop for the cross walk but many don't. I'm positive that the school community and the neighbors respect the cross right but it's a thorough street so not everybody does.
4. About every couple of weeks, there's a clog on McKinley. Maybe a truck is moving, maybe a bus is unloading or loading.

Upthread a current mcK parent spoke to how this is not negatively impacting her child and there might been some benefit. I tend to agree. I have not seen any down-side from an educational position. In fact, my child's teacher has used it in lessons. They got to watch concrete pour once for example.

104% capacity and no trailers means that specials lose their classrooms. FLES is on a cart instead of having a dedicated room where the children can immerse themselves in the subject. Art goes back on a cart and that limits what the teachers can do. McK is blessed with great teachers, but forcing them onto carts is avoidable if the numbers were kept more reasonable.

According to my neighbor on the school building committee, the school was designed for 4 classes per grade and 1 flex room for every 2 grades. Flex rooms are usually internal and have no windows. Why was that the solution? That was enough when the process started and McK was NOT taking on more planning units. The addition was enough to handle the capacity within the boundaries, not to take on more. "More" should have been handled by the cascading effect from Discovery. Instead, those schools that sent students to Discovery didn't help with the rest of the burden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKinley parents did cause a commotion about the double planning unit trying to come en masse to McKinley, so I'm not sure you're correct that APS figures it can screw McKinley whenever it wants. Nottingham lived for years with a whole army of trailers, and all of their complaining did nothing until fairly recently. Haven't they sucked it up for quite a while?

Yes, but Nottingham lived with trailers on a school built for 488 students. McKinley is going to continue to live with trailers on a school built for 684 students. Classroom trailers aren't the big deal. It is the 200 extra kids that need to use the same gym, cafeteria, shared school resources, etc. This is why it doesn't make sense to have your two biggest elementary schools in N. Arlington (McK and Ashlawn) take on even more enrollment when your smaller schools are under or at enrollment capacity. They should add the extra kids to the smaller schools. Which is why I don't understand why they didn't send BOTH planning units to Nottingham when that discussion came up. The Nottingham parents killed that option before it was ever raised to McKinley. I was so glad to see those Glebe and Tuckahoe parents giving the APS guy a hard time at the meeting last week. It was nice to see some fight in them!

At the meeting actually they told us that they did NOT expect McKinley to continue to live with trailers. Once the construction was finished they expected ALL of the trailers to be gone, even if the school was at 104% capacity in 2017 as expected, because they could gerrymander the rooms a bit.

I actually agree with you that it is a bigger deal (and a much more negative thing) for a large school like McKinley or Ashlawn to have trailers than a smaller school like Nottingham or Discovery. Don't make a school into a behemoth and then pack it in even more. If you are doing a community the disservice of making them a giant elementary with five or six classes of kids per grade, then let the difficulty level stop there and don't make them deal with trailers taking up their available field space, too. Go build up Nottingham into a 700 kid school next if they are tired of their trailers and they will say the same thing -- don't make us huge and then make us deal with trailers, too.

However, McKinley isn't expected to have trailers after the construction is finished. If they do, I am ready to be one parent of many who is ready to make a fuss.

I am still frustrated by the Tuckahoe parents who were arguing several months ago that McKinley should be burdened with overcrowding to accept both of their planning units so that their kids could stay together with more of their neighborhood friends -- even though that would have clearly pushed McKinley WAY over capacity -- who are now complaining that McKinley is too big for their kids and they shouldn't have to send them there. McKinley being overcapacity was EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED 6 MONTHS AGO when it was in your personal best interests even if it hurt every other McKinley student, and now suddenly it offends your sensibilities? Personally I don't want to hear complaints about overcrowding from anyone at Tuckahoe ever again; they have burned that bridge with me.

Anonymous wrote:McKinley parents did cause a commotion about the double planning unit trying to come en masse to McKinley, so I'm not sure you're correct that APS figures it can screw McKinley whenever it wants. Nottingham lived for years with a whole army of trailers, and all of their complaining did nothing until fairly recently. Haven't they sucked it up for quite a while?

Yes, but Nottingham lived with trailers on a school built for 488 students. McKinley is going to continue to live with trailers on a school built for 684 students. Classroom trailers aren't the big deal. It is the 200 extra kids that need to use the same gym, cafeteria, shared school resources, etc. This is why it doesn't make sense to have your two biggest elementary schools in N. Arlington (McK and Ashlawn) take on even more enrollment when your smaller schools are under or at enrollment capacity. They should add the extra kids to the smaller schools. Which is why I don't understand why they didn't send BOTH planning units to Nottingham when that discussion came up. The Nottingham parents killed that option before it was ever raised to McKinley. I was so glad to see those Glebe and Tuckahoe parents giving the APS guy a hard time at the meeting last week. It was nice to see some fight in them!

McKinley parents did cause a commotion about the double planning unit trying to come en masse to McKinley, so I'm not sure you're correct that APS figures it can screw McKinley whenever it wants. Nottingham lived for years with a whole army of trailers, and all of their complaining did nothing until fairly recently. Haven't they sucked it up for quite a while?

I mean, I sort of agree with the perception that the Discovery/Jamestown/Nottingham area is underenrolled right now, but I also read on DCUM all the damn time that 22207 is the best place for schools in Arlington and it's the most coveted realty. It does seem to me like those 40s houses are getting knocked down and rebuilt into 5 bedroom/bathroom houses faster in 22207 than anywhere else, so maybe APS is right that 22207 is projected to grow in enrollment faster than 22205? Because it would make no sense to move planning units North to them and just have to move the same people South again in 3 years.

I'm the McKinley parent who posted before that we're all in this together. I will make a fuss when it's warranted (and I complained to the school board about the two planning units from Tuckahoe) but I don't think 3 months behind schedule is that crazy for such a large construction project, and I don't think I need to be a chump to think this way.

I have a little sympathy for the neighborhood parking issues, particularly for elderly residents, but picking up a kid from aftercare takes 5 or 10 minutes. Is this really a travesty of justice to deal with for an extra 3 months? It seems like a great deal of fuss, and if you buy property right next to a school in my mind you are kind of on notice that this sort of thing might happen. McKinley isn't the first school to be renovated in a big way and it won't be the last. If someone wants to propose some relief for these people, I'd listen. I'm not totally against delaying the move of the planning units, I just think it's probably an overreaction. Although if the McKinley staff, after taking a look, came out in favor of delaying, that would make a big difference to me.

Anonymous wrote:There is a weird conflict-avoidance vibe at McK sometimes that makes it a super-friendly community but also means that we (as McK parents) don't always advocate as hard as we should for the well-being of the student body and the staff. I hate the fact that Arlington Public School enrollment has become a zero sum game that pits neighborhood against neighborhood, but that's just the reality now and McK and Ashlawn are getting screwed in the North Arlington process. If South Arlington is about to embark on the same mess, then be warned about how it all goes down... squeaky wheel gets the grease. Everybody needs to get involved and make your opinions known to the School Board. The high school shortages coming down the pipeline are only going to be worse.

x100 APS knows McK doesn't cause a commotion and the staff is exploiting that. That is why they waited until April to make this announcement and chose the capacity numbers they presented VERY carefully. So shady!

Anonymous wrote:PP pointing out that more than 700 kids will be sharing one gym, cafeteria etc. that is the standard they are building the new S Arlington school too. They should have made the additions bigger. I do agree that it's very unfair that some of the other schools will be under capacity.

I am the PP you are responding to-- and yes, it sucks. My son doesn't want to buy lunch anymore at McK because he says it takes too long to get through the line and he doesn't have enough time to eat. Somebody at PTA asked the other night whether they were redesigning the cafeteria kitchen to increase capacity with the added kids and the answer was no. They are adding more seats to the cafeteria but not making any changes to the kitchen. So there is an example of why you just can't add classrooms to a school without taking into account the other shared resources. Having more kids per grade also makes it harder to build meaningful friendships- it means that your kid could make a best friend in 2nd grade and then never be in the same classroom with that kid ever again. Do I expect my kid to identify that as a problem and complain about it-- maybe not. But as a parent, I can still see it as a problem. This is what drives me insane every time I hear a McK parent say, "Well, the parents are more upset about it than the kids!" There is a weird conflict-avoidance vibe at McK sometimes that makes it a super-friendly community but also means that we (as McK parents) don't always advocate as hard as we should for the well-being of the student body and the staff. I hate the fact that Arlington Public School enrollment has become a zero sum game that pits neighborhood against neighborhood, but that's just the reality now and McK and Ashlawn are getting screwed in the North Arlington process. If South Arlington is about to embark on the same mess, then be warned about how it all goes down... squeaky wheel gets the grease. Everybody needs to get involved and make your opinions known to the School Board. The high school shortages coming down the pipeline are only going to be worse.