Anonymous wrote:Is it listed anywhere to find out how many students will go to Reed from Tuckahoe and McK and Nottingham? Is this a moot point?

The whole point of this boundary process is to decide how students will be allocated between the different schools. Nothing has been decided yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Tuckahoe parent, I am actually south arlington parent who believes our school system has a fiscal shortfall and is not spending its money wisely.

Does the Reed school solve McKinley's need? If so, then why does Reed create too many seats?

Reed is going to take A LOT of McK kids. It’s also going to take a lot of Tuckahoe and save a lot of bus money.

THIS

Where will Tuckahoe pick up enough students to fill those seats without creating new bus routes? Will the school(s) it pulls from be able to fill their vacancies without creating new bus routes?

By using alternative facts....just like the mystery walkers.

Is it listed anywhere to find out how many students will go to Reed from Tuckahoe and McK and Nottingham? Is this a moot point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Tuckahoe parent, I am actually south arlington parent who believes our school system has a fiscal shortfall and is not spending its money wisely.

Does the Reed school solve McKinley's need? If so, then why does Reed create too many seats?

Reed is going to take A LOT of McK kids. It’s also going to take a lot of Tuckahoe and save a lot of bus money.

THIS

Where will Tuckahoe pick up enough students to fill those seats without creating new bus routes? Will the school(s) it pulls from be able to fill their vacancies without creating new bus routes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Tuckahoe parent, I am actually south arlington parent who believes our school system has a fiscal shortfall and is not spending its money wisely.

Does the Reed school solve McKinley's need? If so, then why does Reed create too many seats?

Reed is going to take A LOT of McK kids. It’s also going to take a lot of Tuckahoe and save a lot of bus money.

THIS

Exactly!! All of this back and forth is so unnecessary. DCUM is making a bigger deal than needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would surely be sweet, sweet justice if Nottingham were targeted to become a choice school due to its current enrollment numbers after achieving those low enrollment numbers on the backs of its neighbor schools.

A person can dream, right?

Bitter Mckinley parents is baaaack....

I think the best thing we could all do for these boundary discussions is put Bitter McKinley Troll on permaignore.

+1,000.. It's like trying to prove a point to a two year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Tuckahoe parent, I am actually south arlington parent who believes our school system has a fiscal shortfall and is not spending its money wisely.

Does the Reed school solve McKinley's need? If so, then why does Reed create too many seats?

Reed is going to take A LOT of McK kids. It’s also going to take a lot of Tuckahoe and save a lot of bus money.

THIS

I'm looking forward to Nottingham or Tuckahoe becoming an option school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would surely be sweet, sweet justice if Nottingham were targeted to become a choice school due to its current enrollment numbers after achieving those low enrollment numbers on the backs of its neighbor schools.

A person can dream, right?

Bitter Mckinley parents is baaaack....

I think the best thing we could all do for these boundary discussions is put Bitter McKinley Troll on permaignore.

Wtf? This happened 2 years ago and all of the planning units in question continue to be at McKinley despite the fact that we now have over 800 kids. This is because of the demands made by the entitled Nottingham PTA.

I love McKinley and these families that came over are great. But just because you want to forget that your PTA acted deplorably doesn’t mean we don’t STILL feel the effects of your actions. If you don’t want me to feel that way and to bring up the ways that your PTA has selfishly wielded it’s influence over the school board in the past, then stop behaving like whiny children with the school board. Do better, Nottingham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nottingham is overenrolled! Oh, lady, take the temperature of the room before you go on about your problems, mkay?

Seriously. People need to remember it’s all about Tuckahoe. The rest of you are secondary concerns.

Actually, I am a bitter McKinley parent who is still angry over Nottingham’s selfish, privileged attitude two years ago that we are still paying for now at McKinley. Oh sorry Nottingham do you have the same Art on Carts that we lived with FOR YEARS without complaining, but actually have serviceable outdoor fields for your kids to run around on, and have HALF of our school population? And you STILL think we needed to take both those planning units off of you, because ... you are so special? Cry me a river, Nottingham. You suck.

Seriously - Nottingham was ridiculously overcrowded for YEARS.. if you don't like your school then move. go to private. But the defamation of the Nottingham community here on DCUM is pathetic and childish. Most of the families at Nottingham have absolutely no clue what you are even referring to. Your talking about something that happened in the 2014/2015 school year. Most of those families probably aren't even at Nottingham anymore.

Stop attacking the school and community.

Anonymous wrote:It would surely be sweet, sweet justice if Nottingham were targeted to become a choice school due to its current enrollment numbers after achieving those low enrollment numbers on the backs of its neighbor schools.

A person can dream, right?

Bitter Mckinley parents is baaaack....