Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Enjoy your new school, McKinley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Also polling the people in the room at the PTA meeting is not exactly ensuring you represent everyone’s point of view. Please.

Not a Nottingham parent, but your criticisms seem misplaced. No school that's already at or over capacity would want to take on more PUs. It's not like the Nottingham PTA was actually calling for McKinley to absorb those PUs, right? And polling the room of a PTA meeting is a pretty good way to take the temperature of the parents who are most concerned about pressing issues like boundaries, since they care enough to show up. If even those parents agreed not to throw other schools under the bus, that speaks pretty well of the Nottingham community, doesn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Also polling the people in the room at the PTA meeting is not exactly ensuring you represent everyone’s point of view. Please.

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. I’m a current McK parent who lived through the construction. Honestly the new school is beautiful and our kids have enjoyed it and I personally don’t think the overcrowding has been that big of a deal. And now I likely get to move to another brand new building. Such is life. I just don’t think we’re singled out as having a horrible hardship or anything and therefore deserve anything. Lots of crappy buildings and plenty of overcrowding to go around. And many communities will be affected by the new boundaries (not sure that everyone quite grasps that yet). Change is not the exception in this school system it’s the norm and will be going forward. Anyone who thinks they are going to buy a house and forevermore go to their assigned schools isn’t paying attention. You live in the wrong place for that and this is going on all over the area not just APS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Huh. That must have been a different pta than the one that threw McKinley under the bus by refusing the Tuckahoe PUs, thereby exacerbating the severe overcrowding situation at Mckinley.

Lol at any attempts to create warm and fuzzy memories of Nottingham pta presidents while pointing fingers at other schools. But glad to hear that some ethics kicked in at some point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

The "McKinley PTA position" only benefits those within DH and MM that currently walk to McKinley. They do not care about the families in Westover, Tara-Leeway or HP-OK. They do not care about the families in Bluemont, Lacey Woods or the Key neighborhood. They are selfish and it's extremely disappointing that the PTA president is taking a stance that isn't supported by at least half the school. I can't wait until we move to Reed and get away from this drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

It’s pretty disappointing that the PTA president would do something contrary to the views of most of the PTA members. When Nottingham was on the chopping block a couple of years ago, there was an open meeting to discuss what the PTA should do and the president required a unanimous vote of those in attendance before the PTA would get involved. That vote included people who knew they were moving to Reed, and thus didn’t have a direct interest in Nottingham remaining a neighborhood school, because the PTA is supposed to represent all parents, not just a certain subset.

The vote also came with an explicit condition that Nottingham PTA activity on the issue would not involve throwing any other schools under the bus. Tto the extent any Nottingham people did that, they were acting in their individual capacity, not as part of the PTA.

Seems like the McKinley PTA is taking a very different approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, two main reasons...
1) Madison Manor, Dominion Hills and the other neighborhoods around McK are very tight and like their walkable school. They want to still be able to walk to to school. APS has said that a majority will move to Reed, but the other 49% will get split between multiple schools. They can’t all go to Reed and Ashlawn. They don’t want their community split up to 3+ schools.

2) APS has done a piss poor job of planning regarding McK the past decade. They should have built Reed instead of the McK addition 5 years ago, but instead they built the addition and said it would be enough for the area. It was over budget, way over schedule and in the end McK was still overcrowded. So this school has had 5 (+\-) years with no field space, construction, and no playground for part of it. Once they built the addition, they got the districting totally wrong and when parents pointed out large errors they didn’t correct them. That is why McK and other APS think they can do a better job than staff, because historically they have done better. Now, without warning, APS says their school will become an option school. So the current families lived through the construction, overcrowding etc and now don’t get to enjoy the school. And APS says the reason McK is a good site is because it has an addition, but the addition was originally built to help the overcrowding neighborhood kids. But now the addition will be used to expand ATS. APS says the they can’t fill McK as a neighborhood school once Reed opens without funny boundaries. But they would be able to fill most of it with neighborhood kids and pre-k if they hadn’t built the addition. So it is like APS and the addition are screening them again. Without McK as a neighborhood school, all the surrounding schools will be at or over capacity within a year of Reed opening with continued growth projected.

I’m not a McK parent, but this is what I think.

I really feel for current McKinley parents. They’ve gotten the short end many times, having had to deal with overcrowding, lack of play space, and seemingly endless construction. And now, they’re being told that most of their students will need to move to another school while others go elsewhere.

The thing is, the McKinley community is going to be broken up no matter what. They’ll probably lose all planning units north of I-66 to Reed, and others on the edges of its current boundaries could end up assigned to Tuckahoe, Ashlawn, or Glebe. Even the PTA’s suggested map would move several PUs, including ones with current walkers, to neighboring schools.

I totally get that the families immediately surrounding McKinley want to stay together. But maybe the better choice would be to lobby hard for them all to go to Reed, rather than stand in front of a moving train like they’re doing now.

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, two main reasons...
1) Madison Manor, Dominion Hills and the other neighborhoods around McK are very tight and like their walkable school. They want to still be able to walk to to school. APS has said that a majority will move to Reed, but the other 49% will get split between multiple schools. They can’t all go to Reed and Ashlawn. They don’t want their community split up to 3+ schools.

2) APS has done a piss poor job of planning regarding McK the past decade. They should have built Reed instead of the McK addition 5 years ago, but instead they built the addition and said it would be enough for the area. It was over budget, way over schedule and in the end McK was still overcrowded. So this school has had 5 (+\-) years with no field space, construction, and no playground for part of it. Once they built the addition, they got the districting totally wrong and when parents pointed out large errors they didn’t correct them. That is why McK and other APS think they can do a better job than staff, because historically they have done better. Now, without warning, APS says their school will become an option school. So the current families lived through the construction, overcrowding etc and now don’t get to enjoy the school. And APS says the reason McK is a good site is because it has an addition,

I’m not a McK parent, but this is what I think.

I really feel for current McKinley parents. They’ve gotten the short end many times, having had to deal with overcrowding, lack of play space, and seemingly endless construction. And now, they’re being told that most of their students will need to move to another school while others go elsewhere.

The thing is, the McKinley community is going to be broken up no matter what. They’ll probably lose all planning units north of I-66 to Reed, and others on the edges of its current boundaries could end up assigned to Tuckahoe, Ashlawn, or Glebe. Even the PTA’s suggested map would move several PUs, including ones with current walkers, to neighboring schools.

I totally get that the families immediately surrounding McKinley want to stay together. But maybe the better choice would be to lobby hard for them all to go to Reed, rather than stand in front of a moving train like they’re doing now.

Anonymous wrote:As a current McK family, I don’t love that our PTA president keeps emailing assuming we all support not moving. I understand she might have a personal preference and that’s fine to state openly. But the group think approach is pretty alienating. As in you agree with us or you’re not part of us.

Lots of McKinley families do not agree with the PTA’s position.

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, two main reasons...
1) Madison Manor, Dominion Hills and the other neighborhoods around McK are very tight and like their walkable school. They want to still be able to walk to to school. APS has said that a majority will move to Reed, but the other 49% will get split between multiple schools. They can’t all go to Reed and Ashlawn. They don’t want their community split up to 3+ schools.

2) APS has done a piss poor job of planning regarding McK the past decade. They should have built Reed instead of the McK addition 5 years ago, but instead they built the addition and said it would be enough for the area. It was over budget, way over schedule and in the end McK was still overcrowded. So this school has had 5 (+\-) years with no field space, construction, and no playground for part of it. Once they built the addition, they got the districting totally wrong and when parents pointed out large errors they didn’t correct them. That is why McK and other APS think they can do a better job than staff, because historically they have done better. Now, without warning, APS says their school will become an option school. So the current families lived through the construction, overcrowding etc and now don’t get to enjoy the school. And APS says the reason McK is a good site is because it has an addition, but the addition was originally built to help the overcrowding neighborhood kids. But now the addition will be used to expand ATS. APS says the they can’t fill McK as a neighborhood school once Reed opens without funny boundaries. But they would be able to fill most of it with neighborhood kids and pre-k if they hadn’t built the addition. So it is like APS and the addition are screening them again. Without McK as a neighborhood school, all the surrounding schools will be at or over capacity within a year of Reed opening with continued growth projected.

I’m not a McK parent, but this is what I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know what prompted the locking of the thread, but I do hope the link to the website is deleted. That sends people to the bs website without any discourse on it. It inadvertently promotes the crazy people. I think it’s clear most of those responding here are not opposed to the move.

That thread was calling more attention to the website and petition. I suspect some of the posts on that thread and/or this one discussing the website may be concern trolls who are actually trying to get more it attention (and more signatures).

Why report the thread about *supporting* the APS proposal?

Sounds like McKinley/Key parents trying to silence others.

You can discuss it here. I am pro-move, but there is an excessive level of hysteria going on here about that website.

Did you report those threads?

The second (deleted) thread wasn’t about the website.

He second thread was discussing moderating decisions, which belongs in Website Feedback, not VA Public Schools.

Seriously, you are giving more attention to the Key/McKinley nonsense with all of this. What’s your angle in continuing to try to get people to discuss the no moves campaign?

No. The deleted thread was a push for people to contact the school board in SUPPORT of the moves.

Did you report them? Are you a McKinley/Key mom?

That thread still exists, it’s just locked. The deleted thread was started to discussing the locking of the thread about supporting the move

Yes, I did report them (but remember, you’re talking to more than one poster here so don’t go batshit on everyone who responds to you here). No, I am not a McKinley/Key parent (nice bit of gender bias there). I support the proposed moves. My decision to report the threads was about the rules of DCUM, not about this particular issue. I’d be a hypocrite if I only reported rules violations that also went against my personal views, as opposed to reporting them regardless of how the posts aligned with my views.

1. Stop trying to silence parents who SUPPORT the move. It’s not your job to police DCUM.

2. There are multiple people posting - I didn’t say anything about tin foil/angle/hysteria.

Jeff actually does ask that posters report rules violations to help him moderate DCUM because he doesn’t have time to read all of the threads.