APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because Cardinal didn't exist 7 years ago but go off.

Stop being dense. You know I'm asking about the location where Cardinal is now. Why could that not have been the location of a choice school?

So you think all 3 of the schools located in that area -- old McKinley, old ATS, and new Cardinal -- should have been option schools? Because that's the only way the numbers really change -- old McKinley was about 700 kids, same as Cardinal, so unless you're making both of them into option schools along with old ATS, it seems unlikely shifting Cardinal to an option school but keeping old McKinley as a local would have that much of an affect on Nottingham's numbers. Note that Ashlawn isn't oversubscribed anymore.

I don't understand why you would think that, but also think that Nottingham -- which is so so close to 3 other local elementary schools -- should be preserved as a local school rather than an option. Why have all the elementary schools anywhere near Westover be option schools but Nottingham needs to be a local?

And if you DON'T think that, but are just complaining that if either McKinley or Cardinal was going to get turned into an option school, you think it should have been the school YOU preferred rather than the one the board chose ... after you complained and complained and complained so that the board would aim it's option school hat in the direction of McKinley/Westover in the first place ... yeah, have no sympathy for you there. You can't escape the hangman's noose by implicating someone else and then get mad when they pick some other poor fool to hang instead. Nice try though.

What are you so worked up about? Seems to me McKinley families got a pretty good deal. The school moved nearly intact to a brand new building, and gave their crumbling old mess to ATS.

McKinley had just gone through 2 years of building an addition and trailers, having recess in the parking lot, and taking extra planning units that Nottingham just couldn't find a way to fit somehow WHILE THEY WERE DEALING WITH RENOVATIONS and trailers hahaha but yeah sure the renovated building was a "crumbling old mess."

I'm not mad about the way things turned out for old McKinley, but I'm worked up at the total hypocrisy of Nottingham trying to squirm out of this by pointing at McKinley and Cardinal again. They made their bed, and their school has fewer than 400 kids. Deal with your neighborhood school problem instead of pointing fingers elsewhere time and time again please.

Goodness. You sound very worked up. Maybe take a deep breath and try to get out of the victim mentality.

Many schools have been in the situation that McKinley was in dealing with renovations and trailers. I always wondered why APS didn't put an addition on Nottingham. But given that someone made the decision not to expand Nottingham, and to expand McKinley, then yes McKinley did have more capacity to absorb more students than Nottingham did.

Goodness. If it makes sense to you that McKinley should have taken on Nottingham's overflow when McKinley was under construction, having a large portion of its classes in trailers while many of its classrooms were closed off, and kids were having recess in the parking lot, then I suggest that you also may want to take some more deep breaths, as it gets more oxygen to the brain.

When did McKinley ever take on Nottingham's overflow? I think that's made up.

McKinley took overflow students from Tuckahoe and so did Nottingham. Nottingham took students from Tuckahoe both before and after Discovery opened.

Did you think McK should have gotten an addition and then not taken on any more students from a nearby overcrowded school? That's not how this works.

Nottingham and Tuckahoe were both overcrowded and lobbied heavily to dump PUs in McKinley which they did which solved their problems and made McKinley one of the largest schools in the entire County at the time. Second only to Oakridge probably. 800+ kids. Well over capacity and it tuned into a mega school. This was scheduled to occur when the school was supposed to be done with the renovation but then of course the renovation dragged on and all the kids showed up anyway.

My kid is going into 8th and this happened when he was in K-1st.

No, we are a longtime Nottingham family who had kids in the school at that time. No Nottingham kids were sent to McKinley. That never happened. McKinley got kids from Tuckahoe and so did Nottingham. Nottingham sent kids to Discovery.

And how exactly is the Nottingham community to blame because the renovation of McKinley took longer than expected?

This is not true I personally know Nottingham families who were moved to McKinley as part of that process. There used to be more PUs south of Langston at Nottingham. Those moved to McKinley. Now there is just the one weird PU at Nottingham that’s out of alignment with the rest for middle school.

This is just not true. Historicall, there were no Nott students south of Langston. Then Nottington got a planning unit south of Langston that came from Tuckahoe. Other kids south of Langston got moved from Tuck to McK. Nott still has kids south of Langston.

[Anonymous]

The above is what I remember too. Those south of Langston units were way into the boundary battles. They fought going to Nottingham tooth and nail. And after they went, they were an instrumental part of the Westover must be a neighborhood school. To the point that they were advocating for Tuckahoe (that is, the school they were no longer at) to be the option school. Some very malicious parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The above is what I remember too. Those south of Langston units were way into the boundary battles. They fought going to Nottingham tooth and nail. And after they went, they were an instrumental part of the Westover must be a neighborhood school. To the point that they were advocating for Tuckahoe (that is, the school they were no longer at) to be the option school. Some very malicious parents.

Please stop calling parents arguing in favor for what they think is best for their child and their families malicious, selfish, APEs, MAGA, etc. I believe that these comments, or at least some of them, are APS staffers.

[Anonymous]

It wasn’t that they simply advocate that makes them malicious or selfish. It’s how they do it. The adjectives apply to these former Nottingham families, including the redistricted ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t that they simply advocate that makes them malicious or selfish. It’s how they do it. The adjectives apply to these former Nottingham families, including the redistricted ones.

+1

Plenty of people advocate for their families. But only some resort to attacking others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t that they simply advocate that makes them malicious or selfish. It’s how they do it. The adjectives apply to these former Nottingham families, including the redistricted ones.

What former Nott families? We have covered this. Nott did not send kids to McK. Tuck sent kids to McK. Nott never did. Nott took kids from Tuck that live south of Langston and those kids are still at Nott.

Your bitterness at Nott isn’t even based on reality.

[Anonymous]

You guys are on the same side! 😭

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are on the same side! 😭

No. Someone from McKinley made the false claim that Nottingham kids were moved to McKinley due to advocacy by Nottingham. That just did not happen.

It's part of an odd and longstanding effort by McKrazies to demonize Nottingham families. They have been doing it for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above is what I remember too. Those south of Langston units were way into the boundary battles. They fought going to Nottingham tooth and nail. And after they went, they were an instrumental part of the Westover must be a neighborhood school. To the point that they were advocating for Tuckahoe (that is, the school they were no longer at) to be the option school. Some very malicious parents.

Please stop calling parents arguing in favor for what they think is best for their child and their families malicious, selfish, APEs, MAGA, etc. I believe that these comments, or at least some of them, are APS staffers.

Agreed on APS staff participation here. Who dies on a hill to close (or move) schools except those who made these Rube Goldberg plans to begin with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above is what I remember too. Those south of Langston units were way into the boundary battles. They fought going to Nottingham tooth and nail. And after they went, they were an instrumental part of the Westover must be a neighborhood school. To the point that they were advocating for Tuckahoe (that is, the school they were no longer at) to be the option school. Some very malicious parents.

Please stop calling parents arguing in favor for what they think is best for their child and their families malicious, selfish, APEs, MAGA, etc. I believe that these comments, or at least some of them, are APS staffers.

Agreed on APS staff participation here. Who dies on a hill to close (or move) schools except those who made these Rube Goldberg plans to begin with?

I don't think so. Parents become very invested in their children's schools and everyone acts like that's surprising or a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are on the same side! 😭

No. Someone from McKinley made the false claim that Nottingham kids were moved to McKinley due to advocacy by Nottingham. That just did not happen.

It's part of an odd and longstanding effort by McKrazies to demonize Nottingham families. They have been doing it for years.

You're both arguing that other parents hate Nottingham a lot as a result of long ago boundary changes. The other poster also thinks certain parents hated Tuckahoe a lot also. You disagree on whether any Nottingham families were sent to McKinley, but you are on the same basic side that there is a team of parents out there who unreasonably have it out for Nottingham, just because their hearts are filled with malevolence I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above is what I remember too. Those south of Langston units were way into the boundary battles. They fought going to Nottingham tooth and nail. And after they went, they were an instrumental part of the Westover must be a neighborhood school. To the point that they were advocating for Tuckahoe (that is, the school they were no longer at) to be the option school. Some very malicious parents.

Please stop calling parents arguing in favor for what they think is best for their child and their families malicious, selfish, APEs, MAGA, etc. I believe that these comments, or at least some of them, are APS staffers.

Agreed on APS staff participation here. Who dies on a hill to close (or move) schools except those who made these Rube Goldberg plans to begin with?

I don't think so. Parents become very invested in their children's schools and everyone acts like that's surprising or a bad thing.

It's only bad when you start bullying/attacking others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question— Nottingham is about the same size as Randolph, Long Branch, Drew, MPSA, and Campbell. I know that list includes option schools, but why does this board talk about Nottingham like it’s some kind of wild outlier?

Are you talking about capacity or enrollment?

PP must be talking about overall enrollment, not realizing that the other schools are in smaller sized buildings, the enrollment is spread out between grade levels more evenly, that they’re in areas with new high density (CAF) housing that always brings ES kids in the pipeline, and that they’re surrounded by more crowded schools and will likely be “filled” during the ES boundary process. So, not the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question— Nottingham is about the same size as Randolph, Long Branch, Drew, MPSA, and Campbell. I know that list includes option schools, but why does this board talk about Nottingham like it’s some kind of wild outlier?

Are you talking about capacity or enrollment?

PP must be talking about overall enrollment, not realizing that the other schools are in smaller sized buildings, the enrollment is spread out between grade levels more evenly, that they’re in areas with new high density (CAF) housing that always brings ES kids in the pipeline, and that they’re surrounded by more crowded schools and will likely be “filled” during the ES boundary process. So, not the same at all.

How many other APS elementary buildings are smaller than Nottingham? It's capacity is quite small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are on the same side! 😭

No. Someone from McKinley made the false claim that Nottingham kids were moved to McKinley due to advocacy by Nottingham. That just did not happen.

It's part of an odd and longstanding effort by McKrazies to demonize Nottingham families. They have been doing it for years.

You're both arguing that other parents hate Nottingham a lot as a result of long ago boundary changes. The other poster also thinks certain parents hated Tuckahoe a lot also. You disagree on whether any Nottingham families were sent to McKinley, but you are on the same basic side that there is a team of parents out there who unreasonably have it out for Nottingham, just because their hearts are filled with malevolence I guess.

There are a lot of people posting which makes it confusing. There was one poster who falsely claimed that Nottingham advocated to send its overflow to McKinley and the poster demonized Nottingham for doing that. But that never even happened.