APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

Simmer down. Sheesh. I'm not even a Nottingham parent. It's downright weird how quick some of you are to cast stones at Nottingham. I raised the example of how APS filled up Jamestown with programs to use as an example for how they can use Nottingham.

I don't think they should shut down Jamestown or any elementary school. Given the growth and overcrowding in some parts of the county, they should keep all elem schools open, and adjust boundaries and move programs to balance enrollment. It's a ridiculously bad use of resources to close an elem school in North Arlington and build a new one in the South, when we can reallocate existing resources. Maybe this means moving an option school up North, or at least redoing boundaries and moving some of the countywide programs into the North where there's more capacity.

Moving an option school North -- into Nottingham -- isn't much different than what APS is proposing, and seems to be less of a need to APS right now than having a swing space to relocate another school to temporarily while renovations are accomplished. Not sure why you're okay with moving an option school north into Nottingham's space but not with the current APS plan -- which doesn't even close the local Nottingham elementary forever as moving an option school into it would, just stick a pin in the decision for a while while numbers worked themselves out.

By the way, moving an option school north was proposed 5-10 years ago and guess which school APS wanted to convert? Nottingham. But Nottingham said no it just wouldn't work and that's how McKinley got converted into an option school. Something tells me Nottingham parents wouldn't suddenly find your plan acceptable now that it's Round 2, but what do I know?

I'm not trying to appeal to the Nottingham parents. I'm taking a system wide view, pointing out that it doesn't make sense for the system as a whole to close one elem school and build another new one. Far better to move students around and use our existing resources, and find another option, like a community center, for the swing space.

Can you explain why you think it's better to close an elem school AND build a brand new one as opposed to using what we have?

I think this is a false choice since it's not actually what APS is proposing to do here. APS is proposing to close Nottingham TEMPORARILY and use it as a swing space for other kids while their local school gets necessary repairs that they can't accomplish over the summer break. Your plan isn't solving that problem.

I don't have a huge problem with reallocating the school numbers to balance out the schools more, unless it means that kids in the south are going to have significantly longer bus rides on a long term basis just so folks in the north can keep all of their schools. The North sure wouldn't stand for their kids getting bussed to southern schools for super long bus rides, if it came to that, but you seem to be saying that it's okay for southern kids to sit on busses for longer periods every day. That's not really equity. If 60% of the schools are in the north but 60% of the kids are in the south, it's not exactly fair to the kids in the south to make them travel longer just for school access, if you get me. But in a pinch and as a SHORT TERM solution, I'm okay with it and maybe it's the best APS can do on a temporary basis -- similar to my attitude towards using Nottingham as a short term solution for renovations.

No one is going to bus kids from Hoffman Boston all the way up to Nottingham. Shifts would be more incremental. They can also some programs out of the overcrowded schools into the ones with capacity.

You don't think we should maximize our existing resources prior to building another shiny new $$$ school?

HAHAHA That's great - incremental... and when kids who live next to a school are incrementally sent to one further away to make room for kids from other neighborhoods that are more crowded? Good luck with that. EVERYONE will be furious.

[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.

That split elementary came up in the superintendent's master planning project in like the mid-teens. Administratively very expensive and splits families with little kids across still more schools, transportaion duplicated in neighborhoods... lots of problems with that idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

This is the essential dichotomy in my view. On the one hand, you have current under enrollment in North Arlington. On the other hand, you have expected over enrollment in South Arlington.

No one on this board says they are building a school or, for that matter, adding seats in South Arlington.

I cannot understand the logic of reducing ES seats in Arlington in two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So you're A-OK with your kids in trailers?

[Anonymous]

Trailers? Sure. My older kids were in trailers and lived to tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trailers? Sure. My older kids were in trailers and lived to tell.

+1

Trailers are fine. Overcrowded cafeterias w/super early/late lunch can be an issue, but the kids are fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trailers? Sure. My older kids were in trailers and lived to tell.

+1

Trailers are fine. Overcrowded cafeterias w/super early/late lunch can be an issue, but the kids are fine.

Trailers are fine— it’s when you start having pe class in hallways, or band outside in the winter, or lunch at 10 that things start getting bad. There is also the fact that kids get hurt during recess because there are too many of them on the playground equipment.

[Anonymous]

My kids have been at N Arlington schools (elementary and middle) at peak overcrowding. Trailers for sure. But none of the other things you mention were an issue. Anyway, if it gets that bad they can put Nottingham back in action as a neighbor hood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have been at N Arlington schools (elementary and middle) at peak overcrowding. Trailers for sure. But none of the other things you mention were an issue. Anyway, if it gets that bad they can put Nottingham back in action as a neighbor hood school.

You are wrong about this. Kids have to eat lunch at like ten now at our North Arlington elementary (and middle) schools. Cafeteria cannot accommodate.
And school is not overcrowded because everyone pulled their kid for private.

I don’t hate that trailers although I think it’s hilarious that we have kids in overcrowded schools and trailers rather efficiently use under-enrolled actual school buildings.

And the fact that trailers are a long term solution in Arlington. Our school has had them for probably more than 20 years; definitely more than a decade. That cracks me up as well. Idiots at APS. Cannot plan.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

That split elementary came up in the superintendent's master planning project in like the mid-teens. Administratively very expensive and splits families with little kids across still more schools, transportaion duplicated in neighborhoods... lots of problems with that idea

Yes, I remember it coming up during the South Arlington Working Group days. But there are problems with every solution. We aren't going to get an ideal here. And the lower and upper elementaries would be near each other, not in opposite diagonal corners of the County. Parents have kids in different schools all the time beginning with preschool. Eventually the older one goes to middle school and the younger are still in elementary --- yes yes yes, I know, it's different when the kids are really young and so much harder at that age yadda yadda yadda. Many even put kids in different schools by choice with an option school for one but not the other. Yes, yes yes....but they choose to do that and you can't force people to have their kids at 2 different schools. Nonsense.

BTW, transportation wouldn't necessarily have to be "duplicated" if one school was merely a stop on the route. Because again, the schools wouldn't/shouldn't be all that far away from each other.
YES, more administration is required and costs more money. So does building multiple new schools.
BESIDES, there can be academic advantages and we're supposed to be in the business of education and providing the best education we can. That costs money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids have been at N Arlington schools (elementary and middle) at peak overcrowding. Trailers for sure. But none of the other things you mention were an issue. Anyway, if it gets that bad they can put Nottingham back in action as a neighbor hood school.

You are wrong about this. Kids have to eat lunch at like ten now at our North Arlington elementary (and middle) schools. Cafeteria cannot accommodate.
And school is not overcrowded because everyone pulled their kid for private.

I don’t hate that trailers although I think it’s hilarious that we have kids in overcrowded schools and trailers rather efficiently use under-enrolled actual school buildings.

And the fact that trailers are a long term solution in Arlington. Our school has had them for probably more than 20 years; definitely more than a decade. That cracks me up as well. Idiots at APS. Cannot plan.

Even when my kids were at Williamsburg with 500 per grade lunch didn’t start til 10:45. And their day started at 7:40 and ended at 2:15. So even the early 10:45 lunch was pretty reasonable. You seem like you are exaggerating significantly. But maybe Swanson has some lunch issues I’m not aware of? Hamm certainly doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids have been at N Arlington schools (elementary and middle) at peak overcrowding. Trailers for sure. But none of the other things you mention were an issue. Anyway, if it gets that bad they can put Nottingham back in action as a neighbor hood school.

You are wrong about this. Kids have to eat lunch at like ten now at our North Arlington elementary (and middle) schools. Cafeteria cannot accommodate.
And school is not overcrowded because everyone pulled their kid for private.

I don’t hate that trailers although I think it’s hilarious that we have kids in overcrowded schools and trailers rather efficiently use under-enrolled actual school buildings.

And the fact that trailers are a long term solution in Arlington. Our school has had them for probably more than 20 years; definitely more than a decade. That cracks me up as well. Idiots at APS. Cannot plan.

Because we have limited land and budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have been at N Arlington schools (elementary and middle) at peak overcrowding. Trailers for sure. But none of the other things you mention were an issue. Anyway, if it gets that bad they can put Nottingham back in action as a neighbor hood school.

I don’t think you appreciate how long it would take to get a school back up and running after an extended closure.

[Anonymous]

Not long. It would just be staff hiring and boundaries!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not long. It would just be staff hiring and boundaries!

Haha, yes let’s just snap our fingers and it all magically appears!