APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they really need elementary capacity in the South? It doesn't make sense to me to redo boundaries if basically everyone is fine except there's a bunch of extra capacity centered around 22207. If that's the case then just do this swing space proposal APS wants and then go from there. No need to redo everything just so Nottingham and surrounding underenrollment can be spread out.

Yes they need seats in the south.

Where? If you don’t know, I’ll know you’re just a Nottingham parent trying to use the south for selfish purposes.

Go read the report yourself then. The elem schools in the SE part of the county are going to be over capacity by 122% in the next few years, according to projections. BTW, I don't have kids at NES, I just think it's dumb to close one school when there are other schools in the county that are oversubscribed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APS is smart use this period of lower elementary enrollment to get some swing space and renovate schools badly in need of it. Then they can reopen as a neighborhood elementary when enrollment requires it! Smart not to give up the building.

Great idea in theory, but we all know that it will take 10+ years with a dragged out redistricting process and $50m+ in needed renovations before Nottingham will be a neighborhood elementary again. This district can’t do anything cheap or fast.

That is why I’m baffled that parents think we should explore building an entire temporary school of trailers. People have officially lost their minds.

I think we should take over Fairlington CC, repurpose it for temporary elementary use, and then convert it to a full state of the art ES to serve the south Arlington community when we’re done renovating whatever is so urgent that it requires Nottingham to shut down to accommodate it.

I recognize that it won’t have all the gold plated amenities of a purpose built school, but I think the kids can manage without a bike shower or a full library on site for a year. Give the locals a discount voucher to Long Bridge.

If we launch a concerted effort at the county board, we can wrap this up within a year.

!!??
Kids near fairlington don’t need a library. All so Nottingham kids don’t have to walk to Discovery and Tuckahoe?? Both lovely schools with great amenities?? You Nottingham people never disappoint.

And you anti-Nottingham people apparently don’t take the time to read and are prone to fabulous misquoting when it serves your bias.

I am proposing that Fairlington CC be used as a “swing space”. That the students there TEMPORARILY use something like a bookmobile, limited library, or branch library in lieu of having their own Library of Alexandria FOR ONE YEAR. That the 1 teacher who might bike to the location invest in some body wipes instead of a full bike shower. (That was a “must have” on the amenities list btw).

When the swing space needs are done, which I expect will be soon since they are SO URGENT, the fine students of Fairlington would have whatever 3-story open atrium LEED Gold masterpiece of a library will fit on the site.

Does that help? Or do you have another “gotcha” in your bag?

I like the part of your idea that puts a new ES in south Arlington, where it is desperately needed. However, if I've got this right, you're proposing that the county shutter a south Arlington community center, invest resources to retrofit it as a temporary school, and convert it to a new state-of-the-art school while students are in it.

Your suggestion to put Fairlington kids into a situation like this overlooks the fact that the Abingdon community already did exactly that within the last few years. Kids went to school in Abingdon while it was being renovated, and it took longer and was thoroughly disruptive. This is exactly why a countywide swing space is needed, so these sorts of projects can be completed efficiently.

Nottingham is still a far better choice for the swing space because it's under-enrolled and requires no retrofitting at all. You also don't offer any suggestions about how the Fairlington community could access resources offered at the community center once that site becomes an elementary school.

Still spitballing here. The idea is to generally use Fairlington with a minimum of renovations until the swing space needs are done, which apparently will be quick. Breathe. Then renovate Fairlington back to a neighborhood elementary school.

The fitness fanatics can get discount passes to Long Bridge. That should placate the seniors who were sore they weren’t getting full discounts there.

The art people get preference for studios in other county run facilities, assuming they are residents of the county. If not, tough luck.

The preschool can go wherever is space. There is no expectation that the preschool will remain in the neighborhood and per the county the preschools only serve 30% local residents anyway.

The playgroups are probably on hiatus since COVID but I doubt that constituency will be too upset when their neighborhood playgroup space instead becomes a neighborhood school.

The gardeners can go wherever, maybe a county historic house or Madison. Plants grow everywhere, even deserts. I don’t know they have any full time on location staff that needs to be accommodated.

Yes, it costs money, but apparently we need space down there. Best to rip the bandaid off and start making it happen. We can always convert the CC back to fitness center if it turns out the enrollment drops. Less of a lift than converting back a school.

NP.

The Fairlington Community Center is a County facility and managed by Parks and Rec. This idea is so laughable and is why I feel bad for the APS staff they have to waste brain cells listening to this kind of naive crap. I work for the County. Your suggestion is not happening. It may come as a surprise but there are MANY people in this County who do not give a shite about APS and use their rec centers for many things (some which you haven't even listed above) and no they're not going to sit quietly while the County gives it to APS for swing space. And no the playgroups are not on hiatus.

Not happening. Ever. Non-starter. Next.

If the idea is so laughable then why is it on the list?

DP. Are you talking about the list of county facilities APS compiled within the past decade for potential use as ES? I think it was just a list of public facilities and not all of them are really on the table. They def aren’t taking away a community center, for reasons mentioned upthread. I view it as kind of a throwaway list.

No I'm talking about the actual list that APS released of 8 sites that could viably be used as the swing space. It's all in their report. Maybe you should read it.

I did skim the report but haven’t done a thorough read yet. That’s why I asked for a clarification. Thanks for the info.

[Anonymous]

Could someone link the report!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they really need elementary capacity in the South? It doesn't make sense to me to redo boundaries if basically everyone is fine except there's a bunch of extra capacity centered around 22207. If that's the case then just do this swing space proposal APS wants and then go from there. No need to redo everything just so Nottingham and surrounding underenrollment can be spread out.

Yes they need seats in the south.

Where? If you don’t know, I’ll know you’re just a Nottingham parent trying to use the south for selfish purposes.

Go read the report yourself then. The elem schools in the SE part of the county are going to be over capacity by 122% in the next few years, according to projections. BTW, I don't have kids at NES, I just think it's dumb to close one school when there are other schools in the county that are oversubscribed.

Preach. I am there for this poster. 100% agree.

Plus, it’s not just needs now. What are the the projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do they really need elementary capacity in the South? It doesn't make sense to me to redo boundaries if basically everyone is fine except there's a bunch of extra capacity centered around 22207. If that's the case then just do this swing space proposal APS wants and then go from there. No need to redo everything just so Nottingham and surrounding underenrollment can be spread out.

Yes they need seats in the south.

Where? If you don’t know, I’ll know you’re just a Nottingham parent trying to use the south for selfish purposes.

Go read the report yourself then. The elem schools in the SE part of the county are going to be over capacity by 122% in the next few years, according to projections. BTW, I don't have kids at NES, I just think it's dumb to close one school when there are other schools in the county that are oversubscribed.

Preach. I am there for this poster. 100% agree.

Plus, it’s not just needs now. What are the the projections.

Well thanks. What's odd is the poster who accused me of self interest and assumed I had to be a NES parent just because I don't see the merit to this half baked plan. No. I'm just an APS veteran who has seen too many expensive, shortsighted decisions over the years and I really hate to see another.

[Anonymous]

I think the real question is, do we need swing space? I think the answer is yes. We have a lot of ES in Arlington that need significant renovations that can't be accomplished in one summer. If we have a swing space, we can have an entire year to fix those schools. And we have several schools like that, in dire need of repair. Right now, at this moment, we have enough capacity to do that for a few years. That's why I think this is a good plan. To PPs mentioning trailers, most schools do not have enough open space around them to move the entire school to trailers. It's not a good option, nor a cheap option. This is actually a pretty cheap option.

[Anonymous]

(It sucks, of course, if Nottingham is your school, but as a County-wide decision, it's a pretty good one.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the real question is, do we need swing space? I think the answer is yes. We have a lot of ES in Arlington that need significant renovations that can't be accomplished in one summer. If we have a swing space, we can have an entire year to fix those schools. And we have several schools like that, in dire need of repair. Right now, at this moment, we have enough capacity to do that for a few years. That's why I think this is a good plan. To PPs mentioning trailers, most schools do not have enough open space around them to move the entire school to trailers. It's not a good option, nor a cheap option. This is actually a pretty cheap option.

Super. I think a swing space sounds great too. And more guidance counselors. And much much lower teacher to student ratios. I am all for these things. I think they are grand ideas.

I just don’t believe that closing an ES IN TWO YEARS with rising enrollment across the County makes logical sense. It’s not either/or. It’s only the closing of an ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real question is, do we need swing space? I think the answer is yes. We have a lot of ES in Arlington that need significant renovations that can't be accomplished in one summer. If we have a swing space, we can have an entire year to fix those schools. And we have several schools like that, in dire need of repair. Right now, at this moment, we have enough capacity to do that for a few years. That's why I think this is a good plan. To PPs mentioning trailers, most schools do not have enough open space around them to move the entire school to trailers. It's not a good option, nor a cheap option. This is actually a pretty cheap option.

Super. I think a swing space sounds great too. And more guidance counselors. And much much lower teacher to student ratios. I am all for these things. I think they are grand ideas.

I just don’t believe that closing an ES IN TWO YEARS with rising enrollment across the County makes logical sense. It’s not either/or. It’s only the closing of an ES.

Agree. We need a swing space but should not close a school to get one. A community center is probably the best choice, then it can swing between swing space for schools and community center use into infinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry meant to clarify that I think the County thinks schools already get enough. That is the “they” above in “they think.”

Yes. And they are correct. Our community centers are heavily used. Time for the County to ante-up with expanding the community centers (so they can be split-use like our high school facilities are) or commit to giving APS the land or other options and assistance it needs.

Our community centers are heavily used, but they are “nice to haves”. The state constitution says the county has the responsibility to provide a free and appropriate public education. It is one of their core responsibilities.

Art centers, playgroup space, fitness facilities - those are all nice to have and some people feel entitled to them, but there is no constitutional responsibility for the county to provide any of that. It is not a core duty. Moreover, we are not short for any of these things in Arlington in the private sector or even in the public sector that we couldn’t let 1 CC go.

Community centers may not be a constitutional right; but I don't believe that means they should be "taken over" for the purpose of schools. This is the ONE time I will cite the argument that 80% of residents do not have kids in APS. When you're done with your kids in APS, if you continue to age here in Arlington, you just might appreciate and want and "need" those community centers. Not everyone can afford private clubs and I can't think of any "public sector" alternatives that aren't County-run? Isn't "public-run" by nature "government"? Or are you suggesting non-profits?

APS should never have "given" those facilities to the County in the first place. In hindsight, they should have retained ownership and leased them back to the County. But they did and the County isn't going to just give them back. The more I think about it, the more I think APS and the County should work together to consider ways for the COUNTY to expand some of the larger centers to include (via an addition) school use. They wouldn't have to provide a full K-5 school. We could start expanding the County-run preschool programs and put all the preK classes in there; and/or implement preK-2nd grade schools in the additions. That would leave plenty of room for 3rd-5th grades in the current elementary buildings. They could start this in the south with Fairlington because it's needed in the south and Fairlington is probably the best-suited for expansion and/or returning to a school. Perhaps the "addition" part of these centers could become the community centers and the existing part return to preK/preK-K/preK-K-1 use.

Also, that work could be going on without disrupting/displacing the current school communities.
I don't think this replaces the Nottingham decision because that's immediate and the County would need time to start planning and implementing, and preparing a community center for school use. But perhaps it is something that should be explored as we move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry meant to clarify that I think the County thinks schools already get enough. That is the “they” above in “they think.”

Yes. And they are correct. Our community centers are heavily used. Time for the County to ante-up with expanding the community centers (so they can be split-use like our high school facilities are) or commit to giving APS the land or other options and assistance it needs.

Our community centers are heavily used, but they are “nice to haves”. The state constitution says the county has the responsibility to provide a free and appropriate public education. It is one of their core responsibilities.

Art centers, playgroup space, fitness facilities - those are all nice to have and some people feel entitled to them, but there is no constitutional responsibility for the county to provide any of that. It is not a core duty. Moreover, we are not short for any of these things in Arlington in the private sector or even in the public sector that we couldn’t let 1 CC go.

Community centers may not be a constitutional right; but I don't believe that means they should be "taken over" for the purpose of schools. This is the ONE time I will cite the argument that 80% of residents do not have kids in APS. When you're done with your kids in APS, if you continue to age here in Arlington, you just might appreciate and want and "need" those community centers. Not everyone can afford private clubs and I can't think of any "public sector" alternatives that aren't County-run? Isn't "public-run" by nature "government"? Or are you suggesting non-profits?

APS should never have "given" those facilities to the County in the first place. In hindsight, they should have retained ownership and leased them back to the County. But they did and the County isn't going to just give them back. The more I think about it, the more I think APS and the County should work together to consider ways for the COUNTY to expand some of the larger centers to include (via an addition) school use. They wouldn't have to provide a full K-5 school. We could start expanding the County-run preschool programs and put all the preK classes in there; and/or implement preK-2nd grade schools in the additions. That would leave plenty of room for 3rd-5th grades in the current elementary buildings. They could start this in the south with Fairlington because it's needed in the south and Fairlington is probably the best-suited for expansion and/or returning to a school. Perhaps the "addition" part of these centers could become the community centers and the existing part return to preK/preK-K/preK-K-1 use.

Also, that work could be going on without disrupting/displacing the current school communities.
I don't think this replaces the Nottingham decision because that's immediate and the County would need time to start planning and implementing, and preparing a community center for school use. But perhaps it is something that should be explored as we move forward.

I agree with you completely. I’m the first to point out the capacity issues and the subpar planning at every turn (including caving to parent factions when it’s not in the best interest of the district as a whole). However- and I say this as someone who doesn’t even plan to be an empty-nester here- NO NO NO should we “take over” the community centers. They are important places for exercise and socialization and learning. And there actually are plenty of kids and family classes there that people can sign up for at a very reasonable price. I think Arlington makes a lot of questionable decisions with our tax dollars but the community centers are not one of those decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^. Sorry meant to clarify that I think the County thinks schools already get enough. That is the “they” above in “they think.”

Yes. And they are correct. Our community centers are heavily used. Time for the County to ante-up with expanding the community centers (so they can be split-use like our high school facilities are) or commit to giving APS the land or other options and assistance it needs.

Our community centers are heavily used, but they are “nice to haves”. The state constitution says the county has the responsibility to provide a free and appropriate public education. It is one of their core responsibilities.

Art centers, playgroup space, fitness facilities - those are all nice to have and some people feel entitled to them, but there is no constitutional responsibility for the county to provide any of that. It is not a core duty. Moreover, we are not short for any of these things in Arlington in the private sector or even in the public sector that we couldn’t let 1 CC go.

This is really mind blowing to me. Yes, it's shocking how many people feel entitled to amenities when they pay taxes. What a bunch of entitled jerks. Don't they know they should just do without so that more schools can be built to be under enrolled???

You sound like you're made for politics. Please run on this platform. It will be a real winner.

Read.The.State.Constitution. It’s very clear what the priorities for county governments are.

The state constitution does not require the County to turn over community centers to APS. I'm sorry you are so confused.

The state constitution actually says nothing about community centers, because they are not a core function of county government. Sorry. Planet Fitness is only $10/month last I checked.

and the county fitness centers are less than that if you're 55+. You may be in your prime-income days and there are a lot of wealthy seniors in 'arlington; but not everyone is.
Of course the County is mandated to provide an appropriate free public education. But unmandated or not, people expect other services in return for their taxes.
I admit that I was never in favor of the idea of returning the community centers to APS; however I am now beginning to believe there is a good way to share the land at these facilities. Still expensive - there is no cheap solution - but we already have joint-use facilities. Why not add on to the community centers instead of this either county/or schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys understand that swing space APS is proposing to use Nottingham for is swing space specifically dedicated to school use, right? I don't understand why folks are worried about losing Nottingham during the swing space use since it will be specifically for renovation of other schools.

I understand the longer term worry of losing the school after it's needed as a swing space. but enrollment in 22207 will probably go up by the time that happens and catch back up to 2017 levels -- we're talking 5 to 10 years out, I really think it will be needed by then. All this hubub over something that's probably going to be a very transitory change. But I'd expect nothing less of Nottingham parents tbh.

+1 (minus the last comment because I'm tired of that whole thing)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libby Garvey is never giving up Fairlington. Not til she’s made a decision not to run again.

Don’t even get me started on Libby Garvey. Not too long ago she suggested that APS could use the Crystal City underground for new schools.

Libby Garvey isn't giving up ANYthing for APS. She fully supports online education as a "solution" to overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

The county won’t allow you to take a community center and make it into swing space, and it’s cost prohibitive. That space isn’t designed to be a modern school for elementary kids and making it so would cost so, so much more than just using an already functioning but not needed elementary school into one. And if the numbers show that the school is needed for local seats again in five years — he’ll in three years after it gets used for one year, it can still be used as such. There are not a lot of sunk costs involved here besides buses and some planning, no? What am I missing? You don’t need to retrofit the whole school. It’s like moving into a rental for 5 months while your house gets renovated.