Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:56
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Look out Long Branch! https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf
Doesn't APS have a policy on Bullying? The McKinley PTA is CyberBullying Long Branch, Tuckahoe and Nottingham communities. How can we report this?
STFU -- NA children have no chance at functioning in the world with parents like you. Give me a break!
McKinley Moms are Mean and Nasty. Have you seen McKrazy?
The worst, Truly Insufferable.
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:54
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
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
This does not help their cause. LOL.
It's all about 14030. They are the only ones who matter.
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:50
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Look out Long Branch! https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf
Doesn't APS have a policy on Bullying? The McKinley PTA is CyberBullying Long Branch, Tuckahoe and Nottingham communities. How can we report this?
STFU -- NA children have no chance at functioning in the world with parents like you. Give me a break!
McKinley Moms are Mean and Nasty. Have you seen McKrazy?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:32
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
They want APS to spend the next year doing this? And what about the CIP? Or doing the detail work in the planning unit data? Or having the SB deal with the budget?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:28
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Look out Long Branch! https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf
Doesn't APS have a policy on Bullying? The McKinley PTA is CyberBullying Long Branch, Tuckahoe and Nottingham communities. How can we report this?
STFU -- NA children have no chance at functioning in the world with parents like you. Give me a break!
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:23
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
What the hell is that Taylor boundary? Did one of their kids get bored and decided to draw a boot for the boundary?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:21
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Look out Long Branch! https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf
Doesn't APS have a policy on Bullying? The McKinley PTA is CyberBullying Long Branch, Tuckahoe and Nottingham communities. How can we report this?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:16
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Look out Long Branch! https://mckinleypta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/option1-analysis-for-school-board.pdf
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:08
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.
They butchered Long Branch, ASFS, and Glebe too.
And came up with stunningly-low utilization across the NW.
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:04
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Shame on the McKinley PTA. They are acting like Bullies - this is a new low. Despicable.
Anonymous
12/18/2019 22:03
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
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
Are there numbers to go with this proposal?
Found them: https://mckinleypta.org/parent-education/elementary-school-planning-for-2021/
how in the world are they suggesting this "creates" 161 seats?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 21:56
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
That proposal also screwed over Ashlawn. It moves the Ashlawn tail to McKinley, and then moves half of long branch to Ashlawn. It’s almost as bad as the Key proposal that looked like it only had the walk zone for McKinley at McKinley.
Anonymous
12/18/2019 21:55
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote: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
Shocking - the Virginia PTA or National PTA should revoke the McKinley PTA charter. Why are they directly attacking other PTAs?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 21:54
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Seriously, what's so special about McKinley, that kids lives will be ruined if they have to go to Reed or Ashlawn?
Anonymous
12/18/2019 21:54
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
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
Are there numbers to go with this proposal?
Found them: https://mckinleypta.org/parent-education/elementary-school-planning-for-2021/
It's like they are in denial that Reed is opening up in 2021. A YEAR to work through scenarios?