APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

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?

To show that they have/are considering "all options."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly.
We should be looking at this as maximizing the use of all of our facilities, not shutting down a school. It's just re-doing boundaries to better balance the use of existing buildings AND meanwhile RETAIN an empty school for VERY useful SCHOOL purposes.

It is the easiest and cheapest way to advance the much-needed maintenance work people have been griping about at their old buildings for years. If we can get a number of those projects done in a few years and manage to get a decent handle of the overwhelming "to do" list, let's take advantage of a decent opportunity and do it.

This is different than "closing a school." That school continues to be used as a school and different kids can get sent there as needed, including as a school for the local neighborhood again when there's enough kids to justify it again. And it can be flipped on a dime, so to speak. Just one school year with the shifting of boundaries again.

[Anonymous]

Swing space vs ES seats: seems a no brainer to me. We need seats. We will survive without a swing space. I’m

[Anonymous]

People who support the swing space idea need to speak out in favor of it. Per usual, often the only people APS and the Board hear from are the ones opposed to the plan. It creates a very one-sided impression, when in fact, many supposed the plan but are too busy to pass on their views. If this makes sense to you, tell them.

[Anonymous]

That’s many “support” the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who support the swing space idea need to speak out in favor of it. Per usual, often the only people APS and the Board hear from are the ones opposed to the plan. It creates a very one-sided impression, when in fact, many supposed the plan but are too busy to pass on their views. If this makes sense to you, tell them.

And feel free to tell them all the other wonderful amenities you’d like in our school system. I mean if we stuffed twice as many kids in a classroom, we could probably afford middle school pools too?

[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.

But the enrollment isn’t rising anywhere near this school. The complaints about extra traffic and buses and cost kind of fizzle out when you look at what boundaries for this and the other N ES would look like to fill them while alleviating capacity in the SE. It would require many more buses and that ongoing cost to use boundaries alone to even out enrollment across the system.

I think using the school as swing space is the most prudent and cost effective way to address leveling enrollment across the N, while freeing up the ability to carry out current planned renovations in a more timely manner. And then possibly looking longer term at using the school for swing space while additions are built to schools in the S. By the time all that is completed, it’s entirely possible that N will need the capacity again and they can reopen Nottingham as a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of this will depend on the attitude of the first school proposed to be sent to use Nottingham as a swing space. Nottingham won't want it. Will the school getting renovated be willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting bussed farther in order to have a nicely renovated school at the end? If so, maybe. If not, and the school board is getting it from all sides, I'm not sure this will fly (and I say this as a supporter of the idea).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this will depend on the attitude of the first school proposed to be sent to use Nottingham as a swing space. Nottingham won't want it. Will the school getting renovated be willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting bussed farther in order to have a nicely renovated school at the end? If so, maybe. If not, and the school board is getting it from all sides, I'm not sure this will fly (and I say this as a supporter of the idea).

It is very weird to think that student populations and families could just decide they don't want their building renovated. APS needs to meet certain health and safety standards. They don't ask if that's OK with everyone. They do what needs to be done. HOW they do it may be up for debate, but only within certain parameters. APS can't just decide to take over county space, for example, even if that space met code for schools, which it doesn't.

The last time APS was using a school as swing space was in the late 90s, I think. I lived in Rosslyn and voted at what had been Wilson Elementary, and I think the former ATS/now Key building was being renovated. It didn't hurt ATS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this will depend on the attitude of the first school proposed to be sent to use Nottingham as a swing space. Nottingham won't want it. Will the school getting renovated be willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting bussed farther in order to have a nicely renovated school at the end? If so, maybe. If not, and the school board is getting it from all sides, I'm not sure this will fly (and I say this as a supporter of the idea).

It is very weird to think that student populations and families could just decide they don't want their building renovated. APS needs to meet certain health and safety standards. They don't ask if that's OK with everyone. They do what needs to be done. HOW they do it may be up for debate, but only within certain parameters. APS can't just decide to take over county space, for example, even if that space met code for schools, which it doesn't.

The last time APS was using a school as swing space was in the late 90s, I think. I lived in Rosslyn and voted at what had been Wilson Elementary, and I think the former ATS/now Key building was being renovated. It didn't hurt ATS.

Agree. And the SB should wisely see and determine that retaining a student body and conducting optimal instruction is not made feasible with major renovations going on for the entire school year. In those instances, the SB and APS should have - and do have - the authority to make the decisions that are in the best interests for student and teacher safety and instruction.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?


NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/ So who does? Honest question

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. Ooo, nice big word here. Swing space is needed for a series of projects. Location is in Arlington and low cost. It's not like every project gets a new swing space. chooseing an underenrolled area? smart. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria. Bring it on -- how would you evaluate options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this will depend on the attitude of the first school proposed to be sent to use Nottingham as a swing space. Nottingham won't want it. Will the school getting renovated be willing to put up with the inconvenience of getting bussed farther in order to have a nicely renovated school at the end? If so, maybe. If not, and the school board is getting it from all sides, I'm not sure this will fly (and I say this as a supporter of the idea).

I’m also interested to see what the Tuckahoe, Discovery, and Taylor families think. It’s not just Nottingham being affected - lots of other moves are going to happen, and based on the previous transportation survey, the people who are probably going to be affected know who they are. They may have some concerns themselves about the accuracy of APS’s projections and what it means for conditions in their schools.

[Anonymous]

We’re a family in one of those school boundaries and think it makes sense. It may mean things are a little more snug than they have been since the pandemic but better than running four underenrolled schools. From a taxpayer perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?

NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/ So who does? Honest question

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. Ooo, nice big word here. Swing space is needed for a series of projects. Location is in Arlington and low cost. It's not like every project gets a new swing space. chooseing an underenrolled area? smart. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria. Bring it on -- how would you evaluate options?



DP I would argue that they would not be redistricting for the purpose of providing a swing space for a future renovation. The reason for the redistricting is for more efficient use of under-used buildings.

Secondarily, by re-districting, they end up with an empty school. So instead of shuttering it or tearing it down or selling it or giving it away, they would be wisely making good use of it and keeping it operational in the event it is needed in a subsequent redistricting to relieve overcrowding in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m in favor of joint use and can’t understand why we don’t do it more, especially over the summer. But we still have plenty of other fantastic county community facilities nearby even if you repurpose one. Is it really a huge burden to hop in the Prius and drive two miles further for Zumba twice per week?

To the people who want more school facilities in the south - I see what you’re up against. Your own neighbors.