Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

That may be and is also a flixable problem. The problem with McK is nearly 800 children have about 1/4 of the playspace that ATS children have. McK needs another playspace. Sounds like Fleet does too. Due to sports, I've seen some S. Arl playgrounds that are great and some that are not so great but they are big and there is room for growth (of the playground).

I think our kids don't really need an IPad each but I do think they need to runaround outside.

ATS is complaining about play space? Maybe they should make do with their current building then.
If they want to grow their program, they need a bigger building. Tough cookies, McK is the building we have to give. The entitlement is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure I saw a fb post that Montessori is doing a fundraiser for playground equipment. Is that allowed? They don’t like the Old Henry playground

Looks like they got special permission from APS to fundraise.

Anonymous wrote:did you all notice that the Key map- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GB-Boundaries-map.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15jHLhIUR9iTQNwupmlbhFiUBv4cJoCvMOLUj5qZK_s0iPWGzDxipOqyU

appears to have planning unit 24110 going to McKinley as a neighborhood school???? A planning unit that is currently in bounds for ASFS- would have to be bused past ASFS, past Glebe, past Barrett, past Ashlawn, past Reed- to get to McKinley as its neighborhood school??
HOW can they say this is better???? this is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:did you all notice that the Key map- https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GB-Boundaries-map.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15jHLhIUR9iTQNwupmlbhFiUBv4cJoCvMOLUj5qZK_s0iPWGzDxipOqyU

appears to have planning unit 24110 going to McKinley as a neighborhood school???? A planning unit that is currently in bounds for ASFS- would have to be bused past ASFS, past Glebe, past Barrett, past Ashlawn, past Reed- to get to McKinley as its neighborhood school??
HOW can they say this is better???? this is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

That may be and is also a flixable problem. The problem with McK is nearly 800 children have about 1/4 of the playspace that ATS children have. McK needs another playspace. Sounds like Fleet does too. Due to sports, I've seen some S. Arl playgrounds that are great and some that are not so great but they are big and there is room for growth (of the playground).

I think our kids don't really need an IPad each but I do think they need to runaround outside.

ATS is complaining about play space? Maybe they should make do with their current building then.
If they want to grow their program, they need a bigger building. Tough cookies, McK is the building we have to give. The entitlement is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty sure I saw a fb post that Montessori is doing a fundraiser for playground equipment. Is that allowed? They don’t like the Old Henry playground


Looks like they got special permission from APS to fundraise.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure I saw a fb post that Montessori is doing a fundraiser for playground equipment. Is that allowed? They don’t like the Old Henry playground

Anonymous wrote:Key will need to be renamed after a person of color, preferably a Latina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

That may be and is also a flixable problem. The problem with McK is nearly 800 children have about 1/4 of the playspace that ATS children have. McK needs another playspace. Sounds like Fleet does too. Due to sports, I've seen some S. Arl playgrounds that are great and some that are not so great but they are big and there is room for growth (of the playground).

I think our kids don't really need an IPad each but I do think they need to runaround outside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a McK family outside of Reed walk zone but we are not filling out the "no move" petition. It stinks to lose our walkable neighborhood school but we don't see other good options to rebalance and gain enough seats.

But, McK is such a new school, it concerns us to hear ATS folks requesting renovations to retrofit the school... huh? Besides freshening up with a coat of paint, APS should just shut down any attempts to waste our taxpayer dollars needlessly. It's a larger school (playground is small, tough luck) so just deal with it!

Agreed. What does ATS need structurally customized to its program? Does it even need a fresh coat of paint? Give 'em a new sign and call it a day.

Not fair at all to all APS ES's but the reality is that McK has one half-a$$ed playground and ATS has 5 play spaces. That's messed up! I understand that Fleet does not have adequate playspace and many S. ARL playgrounds suck. Not cool.

I'm a McK parent and don't think the playspace is safe. No matter what school or program is there, it needs to be bigger/ there needs to be another space.

Also APS needs to ensure that all Es's have adaquate play spaces.

Maybe SA schools' playgrounds suck in comparison because NA PTAs buy playground equipment.

Do S. Arlington playgrounds suck? I have been to Claremont, Abingdon, Drew, and Barcroft and think they are good playgrounds.

I'm the PP with the NA PTA comment. I haven't seen all the playgrounds in SA; but the ones I've seen are fine. Though I can't say Fleet's playground looks very enticing, it is at least shiny and new - and apparently non-inclusive. I was just responding to the comment that many SA playgrounds suck, apparently as a NA parent sees it. So by comparison, I guess SA playgrounds don't meet expectations of those at schools with PTAs who can buy fixes for APS' deficiencies.