Anonymous
12/19/2019 19:43
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
I’m disappointed Reid Goldstein didn’t thank Nottingham in his announcements for the nap he got to take during last night’s fifth grade choir concert.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 19:21
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
And now it’s a video created by students from the Career Center. It’s awesome that they’re getting this recognition, but also hilarious.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 19:16
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching the school board meeting and thinking the SB might be trolling just a teensy bit the people who came out to rant with this choir performance?
I don't think Santa Claus is coming tonight for McKinley (or maybe with a lump of coal)
Anonymous
12/19/2019 19:09
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anyone watching the school board meeting and thinking the SB might be trolling just a teensy bit the people who came out to rant with this choir performance?
Anonymous
12/19/2019 19:08
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the McKinley letter from the PTA president doesn’t mention the Power point presentation they gave at their McKinley-only meeting with Barbara Kanninen where the served up full McKinley-generated proposals to move Long Branch. Or Nottingham. Or Tuckahoe instead. But McKinkey is ONLY concerned with the greater good. Yeah. Too little, too late. Everyone knows that you are asking for delay so you can serve up other schools.
She included attachments with the letter sent by email.
Yes, but not the PPt. Two pages of talking points.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 18:01
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the McKinley letter from the PTA president doesn’t mention the Power point presentation they gave at their McKinley-only meeting with Barbara Kanninen where the served up full McKinley-generated proposals to move Long Branch. Or Nottingham. Or Tuckahoe instead. But McKinkey is ONLY concerned with the greater good. Yeah. Too little, too late. Everyone knows that you are asking for delay so you can serve up other schools.
She included attachments with the letter sent by email.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 17:44
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
If you are at McK and support this plan, I REALLY hope you have made that opinion known to APS.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 17:22
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:McKinleys is “for the children.”
McKinley is "for my property value."
Can we not lump all of McKinley together? We're a McKinley family and we're not at all involved in this. This was actually the first I've heard of most of this.
I will say this: I think McK families are especially sensitive to APS data because it was wrong during the last boundary change and it's why the school is almost 100 kids over capacity...after families lived through years of construction. That doesn't mean it's fair to do whatever it takes to save the school: personally I think having most everyone go to Reed is great. But it does explain why there's such a push for APS to share what info they're using to make their decision.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 17:01
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:McKinleys is “for the children.”
McKinley is "for my property value."
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:58
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
McKinleys is “for the children.”
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:57
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Interesting that the McKinley letter from the PTA president doesn’t mention the Power point presentation they gave at their McKinley-only meeting with Barbara Kanninen where the served up full McKinley-generated proposals to move Long Branch. Or Nottingham. Or Tuckahoe instead. But McKinkey is ONLY concerned with the greater good. Yeah. Too little, too late. Everyone knows that you are asking for delay so you can serve up other schools.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:47
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:McKinley doesn't want to "negatively impact other schools" but is happy to throw the new school under the bus by pushing to delay this decision.
Screw you, McKinley. It's not ALL about you.
Smells like desperation. We need to get through the bargaining stage to depression and acceptance asap.
Maybe they can bring the Henry (now Drew?) map guy to talk tonight. I miss him.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:45
Subject: APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:McKinley doesn't want to "negatively impact other schools" but is happy to throw the new school under the bus by pushing to delay this decision.
Screw you, McKinley. It's not ALL about you.
I wasn't going to answer the questionnaire. Now, I will. Thanks, McKinley, for giving me the push I needed.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:34
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: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.
Yup. They do that to Ashlawn, and also snatch the dominion hills part of ashlawn (13040 and 13041) and move them to McK- interestingly while moving 14100, which is north of Wilson and further from Ashlawn FROM McK TO Ashlawn instead - guess that planning unit didn't pay their PTA dues this year!
Agree it also totally screws over Barrett by moving the Arlington Forest planning units to Ashlawn. And there is a ton of other weird stuff going in with the way they've done other boundaries- looking at Taylor and Discovery. Not to mention they are totally slicing off small planning units and shuffling them from one school to another across the county in an effort to make their numbers "work," which is one of the things they are whining about APS doing to some of their planning units.
Get off my lawn, indeed! Save McKinley at the expense of everyone else!
I didn't even look at the presentation. I'm MdK in 14100 (youngest kid will be gone by time the changes happen). Haven't been a part of the PTA since they screwed us over in previous boundary processes. The sentiment is strong in our PU. I'm just watching for entertainment factor.
You should have moved to Ashlawn a long time ago.
How did they screw you in the previously boundary process? Not doubting they did, I just don't know the history there.
Anonymous
12/19/2019 16:19
Subject: Re:APS Elementary Planning Mtg at Swanson - Option 1 in, Option 2 out, McKinley Moms out of contro
Anonymous wrote:
It also makes a bunch of micro moves to make the math work, which was something they specifically criticized about proposal 1 in their slideshow. For instance, they move a single Nottingham unit to Discovery, and two Discovery units to Nottingham. Two (very small) Nottingham units to Tuckahoe. One Glebe unit to Reed. One Barcroft unit to Ashlawn. Two small Fleet units to Barcroft. McKinley's boundary-only scenario is basically everything they's attacked as inappropriate and unacceptable, except it all happens to other peoples' kids while their own are unaffected. It is the one of the most cravenly self-interested things I've seen a community put out in this kind of process.
Hmmm. Would these be the same two small units that were split from the Alcova Heights neighborhood and sent to Fleet -- ironically, in consideration of demographics? If so, moving them back to Barcroft just makes Fleet even wealthier and Barcroft even poorer. Thought they were concerned that demographics weren't being considered.
Sure looks like it.
Its actually 3 PUs they moved from Fleet. The 2 across Glebe from the school and they moved the Gilliam Place CAF PU. They basically made Fleet 200 kids underenrolled.
Yep, they put Fleet at 63% capacity while would be at 103%, ASFS would be at 101%, and Long Branch would be at 102%.
They also managed to lose 14 students in the process.