How kind of the McKinley PTA to pretend like they aren't trying to sacrifice Tuckahoe, Nottingham & Long Branch.

"Because APS has declined to move forward any alternative proposals, now schools and PTAs find themselves in the awkward position of having to. Better alternatives are out there (and may yet be developed)—what follow are simply illustrative examples that we’ve seen—not developed or put forward by McKinley PTA."

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

That’s just as stupid as APS’s no-move scenario, and only shows that even with the best framing possible for McKinley, it doesn’t make sense for it to stay as a neighborhood school.

Yeah, where are the VPI classes going to go? This scenario filled all the NE schools to capacity (without taking new buildings into consideration) and left lots of space in the west... just like staff said would happen! Crazy!!

right- I was just trying to count this out- it seems like both Tuckahoe and Nottingham have extra space in the McKinley proposal. And there would be no VPI classrooms at either Long Branch or ASFS, despite the fact that all of Woodbury park is being rezoned to Long Branch. It seems like ASFS and Long Branch would also be way over capacity in this proposal.

The county should have made Amazon cough up land for a new school in exchange for no taxes. It would have saved us money and this whole debate would be moot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

That’s just as stupid as APS’s no-move scenario, and only shows that even with the best framing possible for McKinley, it doesn’t make sense for it to stay as a neighborhood school.

Yeah, where are the VPI classes going to go? This scenario filled all the NE schools to capacity (without taking new buildings into consideration) and left lots of space in the west... just like staff said would happen! Crazy!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

This does not help their cause. LOL.

Wow, I'm pretty sure the proposed boundary screws Barrett, by taking out most of Arlington Forest and adding in more Buckingham apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

That’s just as stupid as APS’s no-move scenario, and only shows that even with the best framing possible for McKinley, it doesn’t make sense for it to stay as a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

Are there numbers to go with this proposal?

Found them: https://mckinleypta.org/parent-education/elementary-school-planning-for-2021/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

Are there numbers to go with this proposal?

The best part of these maps is it is based on a third party (who has no checks on their reliability) uploading aps data McKinley parents think isn’t sound. Also doesn’t account for vpi or special Ed Preschool’s appropriately or deal with busing. We have NO MORE ROOM TO PARK NEW BUSES!! We also can’t retain bus drivers because they don’t make enough to work here and would likely rather not deal with our demanding parents! Further the whole point isn’t just enrollment to meet capacity in fall 2021 it’s that they know over the next 5-10 years more families are going to move into high rises as they are now and an affordable housing complex in the Ballston area will open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Boundary-Only-Scenario-with-PU-Labels.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

They must not be sound if they aren't distributing them widely (like their letter).

Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

Ooo where can I see these?

Anyone see the maps McKinley created that purport to show boundaries should APS keep Key on Key?

Some are ridiculous yet they think they help support their cause.

I don’t care about the 24 kids in a class. My problem is with option schools saying they can’t have trailers to create more classrooms. If Ashlawn or Oakridge can, so can ATS. I’m happy they are taking more kids. The demand is there and they shouldn’t get to “stay small” so they can have special assemblies or whatever bologna they used to peddle.

Now, let’s get HB to do its share. Double the classes to 150 in 6th grade.