Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lose a little respect for people each time I see a fellow McK parent post the petition. You look manipulative and uneducated. It’s such a selfish viewpoint. You don’t want an option school in your hood. That’s it, clear and simple.

But no option school is wanting to move to McKinley either. I am fairly new to APS, but it makes me wonder why Reed was built, if these studies are determining that the seats are less needed in this area. Part of the no move campaign is pro "delay the move" and do boundaries at the same time to make sure we're making the correct decisions. Yes, I get that new principals need to be selected, but it's not like the number of schools is changing.

Anonymous wrote:I lose a little respect for people each time I see a fellow McK parent post the petition. You look manipulative and uneducated. It’s such a selfish viewpoint. You don’t want an option school in your hood. That’s it, clear and simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Also, when we were at Long Branch we were told the PTA couldn't do anything to improve the playground because that playground is actually county property. The school property ends at the blacktop. So we'd have had to take it up with the county if we wanted something changed there (as was done with the improved baseball diamond).

Talking with a friend who is active with the Long Branch PTA my understanding is that this is a situation fairly unique to your school. Most of the schools' playgrounds are APS property.

At least Hoffman Boston, Tuckahoe and Jamestown have their blacktops or playgrounds on county property and those are just the ones I know of the top of my head. I’m sure there are more.

Are you sure this accurate for Tuckahoe? The playground at Tuckahoe park is not the school playground and the only blacktop is immediately adjacent to the building.

Right. But the school uses the county playground and county owned field all the time for recess and PE.

Interesting. My kids go to Tuckahoe- I guess their experience is not representative, but they have been on the Tuckahoe playground a handful of times in the past few years for recess. They do have gym class on the field.

Anonymous wrote:^ sorry - she has NOT answered that question

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll assume arguendo that Key is going to move to ATS. How will this work in 2021-22 in terms of new boundary? Will Key have a new boundary and name when it reopens as a neighborhood school in 2021?

Boundaries will be defined this fall. Use current ASFS boundary as a starting point.

It needs a name, program/curriculum, principal, etc. Takes time to start a new school.

Is the idea of actually including all of the Key walk zone in its boundary completely off the table? As a tax payer, I'm really disturbed by all of the maps I see where they are busing hundreds of kids from LV/Clarendon/Courthouse who could walk to Key, in order to make space to bus kids from Rosslyn to Key. My kids will have aged out of this by the time this takes place, but what a waste of money! Can they at least do the upper and lower schools between Key and ASFS so you're only busing half of them? Especially the posters on here that are convinced that houses a block from Key won't be zoned there! Key's zone isn't going to go past Bryan Street -- you realize that that means busing kids that are within a third of a mile of the school? Give me a break! What a waste of money!

It's basic math, folks. There are not enough seats at Key neighborhood elementary for all of Rosslyn AND Clarendon/Courthouse. Something has to to give. Let me guess, you want Rosslyn to take their long bus ride to Taylor so you can keep Clarendon and Courthouse at Key neighborhood.

Yeah, let’s bus kids past Key, past ASFS, to Taylor halfway across the county (3.1 miles from River Place a huge bus stop; it’s 5.8 miles to East Falls Church) so PP can walk.

#longestbusride

So I was one of the higher posters who (let me reiterate) is not directly affected by this. My kids will be in middle school and high school by the time this gets implemented. My kids are never walking to a school at Key. I live across the street from key, so yes, I have a vested interest in reducing the traffic there (going down to six buses would be great). I am disturbed by the fact that every map put out by the public or aps at this point has over 200 walkers from key on a bus. I don't think its fair for for Rosslyn to go to Taylor, but its not fiscally responsible to bus other people so they can go to Key. I am bothered by the fact that we are actually talking about busing kids who can walk to another school so we can shorten bus rides for some other bus riders. Each bus is 100k -- you are adding a hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to the APS operating budget, especially if you factor in that once those kids get moved, its locked for five years. I am all for "transportation equity" but just adding buses is not sustainable. Neither is assuming that people who literally live within a third of a mile to the school should be bused somewhere because they can. You're not really encouraging neighborhood support for your cause here.

Everyone should take a breath. If you are not ok with kids currently zoned for asfs going to taylor (which it sounds like you are not), then you should support the idea of a upper and lower school. I think its the only way where you can still give kids at Rosslyn a short bus ride without keeping a ridiculous number of buses at Key and ASFS.

Either way it is way to premature for you to be picking a fight over boundaries. You can put your hashtag away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that are wrong with the Key map:
1. Empties Long Branch to make room for Rosslyn. Moves Long Branch kids to McKinley. Rosslyn to Long Branch actually makes sense -- its actually a shorter bus ride than they have now since you can take Rt 50. The Long Branch walk zone is very small because they never got up in arms about trying to expand it (which is a sign of what a great, healthy community they are). They are moving kids that are within a half mile (people who legitimately walk some portion of the time) of the school to another one over two miles away.
2. Takes planning units north of 50 into Fleet. This will never be ok.
3. Moves parts of Abingdon that fought it last time into Drew.
4. Is Mckinley contiguous? Looks like it barely is.
Honestly, they could have made this look better by trying to keep McKinley contiguous and Ashlawn contiguous. The middle of the county is a mess, but they don't care (the person who did the map lives in Cherrydale).

Abingdon is overcrowded and Drew is under enrolled so someone from Abingdon will have to go to Drew there’s no question about it at this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

+1

The maps and chart seem to support the move.

And from a quick glance the #s seem OK. Looks like they fixed the McKinley walker # snafu?

Ah, the maps and data were posted by a Key parent. I thought she was just interested in increasing diversity, which she talks about frequently. Makes sense now.

Am I reading her table correctly? Her scenario has the most amount of segregation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

+1

The maps and chart seem to support the move.

And from a quick glance the #s seem OK. Looks like they fixed the McKinley walker # snafu?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just posted new maps and data on AEM. Time to dig in.

All of the alternative scenario maps be cray.

I’ve heard enough “this isn’t final!” Yeah, APS’s map isn’t final either, but it’s hella better than the others.

Yeah, those maps have some crazy borders. APS’s map looks nice and neat by comparison.

Also, the proposed maps seem to really break up Long branch —NVD’s hood. I’ll call them DOA for that reason alone .

Key should really stop while they are ahead. Everything they put out just makes APS's plans look that much better.

+1

The maps and chart seem to support the move.

And from a quick glance the #s seem OK. Looks like they fixed the McKinley walker # snafu?

Ah, the maps and data were posted by a Key parent. I thought she was just interested in increasing diversity, which she talks about frequently. Makes sense now.