APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

No one is denying the existence of anything, but APS staff is talking out both sides of their face and yet saying nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I don’t think that’s correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I’ve talked about my kids’ positive experiences with trailers before. Definitely a parent, not staff, who thought they were horrible until my kids spent time in them.

Did your kids have a bad experience in them?

[Anonymous]

I don't really care about this but do love a DCUM N-ARL s-show.

I had a kid at Discovery for camp and it's fantastic as far as physical space goes. Since Discovery parents already complain about the school having no culture, why don't we use it for a swing space. Given the soccer space, I"m sure most S. ARL parents know where it is. Also, the kids won't care about being in a swing space b/c it's so wonderful.

And the Notties can have their little school and their sub-par principal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I’ve talked about my kids’ positive experiences with trailers before. Definitely a parent, not staff, who thought they were horrible until my kids spent time in them.

Did your kids have a bad experience in them?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I don’t think that’s correct.

I don't think you're correct. If you think you are please provide proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are the ones who fled to private in droves, and then complain about the consequences of your own actions which both left your schools underenrolled and threw APS numbers and enrollment predictions off. You guys place blame everywhere (APS, McKinley and other so called “hater” schools, the. county board, etc) except on yourselves of course. *chef’s kiss*

This. Who can forget all the entitled Open Schoolers gloating about how their move to private would hurt APS. Well, smartypants, you only hurt yourselves. Well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I’ve talked about my kids’ positive experiences with trailers before. Definitely a parent, not staff, who thought they were horrible until my kids spent time in them.

Did your kids have a bad experience in them?

Regular classroom > trailer classroom all day, every day.

The problem here is APS has a choice - do you take Tuckahoe to 113 percent capacity, including utilizing trailers, or do you not purposely overcrowd schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not redistribute the boundaries to make the 4 elementary schools more even? And find a swing space that is more centrally located? Driving across the county during rush hour to make it to pick up before 6 disproportionally impacts lower income families, particularly those who do not have cars or who only have one parent.

Because there is no more centrally located swing space option that doesn't require major renovation to be used as swing space and therefore isn't nearly as inexpensive as re-purposing an existing functioning elementary school.

Also because ALL the elementary schools in this are are undersubscribed, and nearby elementaries are not oversubscribed. To fill up all of these 22207 elementaries, it will mean that kids in the south have to be bused to the North as part of their normal neighborhood school experience, for years, rather than go to their southern walkable school. That's what you're suggesting instead of having kids bused for a year while their southern school gets renovated -- so you seem to think busing is some huge problem when it hurts you but not when it benefits you.

Nottingham kids will still go to great nearby schools, this is really not a big deal. Please find some perspective.

Are the southern schools actually getting renovated? You’re assuming facts not (yet) in evidence. We don’t know what they’re planning- Taylor could be first up for all we know. The decision to shut down Nottingham is coming before anything else - including whether it’s feasible to do any of these renovations in place.

APS staffers- you think you’re being clever, but we’re on to you. The whole “it’s not going to suck for you that bad” really doesn’t absolve you from having to show your work about why shutting down an entire neighborhood school is in the best interest of this community.

Why do I get the sense that if the proposal were reversed, north Arlington would think it a fine proposal? If they were "shutting down" an under-enrolled south Arlington elementary and redistricting its students to nearby under-enrolled elementaries and using that school for swing space so their north Arlington schools can get renovated faster, that would be an outstanding idea...until their kids have to be bused across the county to south Arlington....so, really there is no acceptable solution for north Arlington complaint crowd other than spending tens of millions more to outfit a non-school space in order to operate it as a school somewhere not terribly inconvenient for them in case their school gets sent to the swing space. Of course, in that case, the site would need to be somewhere north of 50 and people living by the designated swing space will complain what a terrible idea because the traffic! the busing so far away! the noise of children and buses! all those parents driving their cars to drop off and pick up their kids from extended day! the pedestrian and cyclist danger!

So North Arlington parents wouldn’t like it, and the south Arlington parents would have the same concern? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. The simple fact is that there are so many hours in the day to advocate for stuff that doesn’t affect you, and I seriously doubt any South Arlington parent has spent more than 20 minutes this summer evaluating this proposal.

I assure you, you are wrong.
My point is, no matter what the proposal, north Arlington never finds it acceptable if it in any way directly impacts them.

Does anyone ever find anything acceptable that impacts them in this county? Just curious, I’ve lived here awhile and yet to see it, but will admit I am relatively new to the fiasco that is APS planning.

Only when they get districted for WL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are the ones who fled to private in droves, and then complain about the consequences of your own actions which both left your schools underenrolled and threw APS numbers and enrollment predictions off. You guys place blame everywhere (APS, McKinley and other so called “hater” schools, the. county board, etc) except on yourselves of course. *chef’s kiss*

This. Who can forget all the entitled Open Schoolers gloating about how their move to private would hurt APS. Well, smartypants, you only hurt yourselves. Well done.

Who are you talking to? Not the people who are here, the people who actually send their kids to public schools. If I had realistic alternatives for my family, we’d be gone by now. We may have more in common than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I’ve talked about my kids’ positive experiences with trailers before. Definitely a parent, not staff, who thought they were horrible until my kids spent time in them.

Did your kids have a bad experience in them?

I am a different PP in this thread critical of Nottingham's constant "No not us!" attitude and I also am not a member of APS staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are the ones who fled to private in droves, and then complain about the consequences of your own actions which both left your schools underenrolled and threw APS numbers and enrollment predictions off. You guys place blame everywhere (APS, McKinley and other so called “hater” schools, the. county board, etc) except on yourselves of course. *chef’s kiss*

This. Who can forget all the entitled Open Schoolers gloating about how their move to private would hurt APS. Well, smartypants, you only hurt yourselves. Well done.

Where is the logic here? The people who went to private are not the same as the people who are concerned about this proposal and its impacts on the schools - because their kids are not in the schools. People are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are the ones who fled to private in droves, and then complain about the consequences of your own actions which both left your schools underenrolled and threw APS numbers and enrollment predictions off. You guys place blame everywhere (APS, McKinley and other so called “hater” schools, the. county board, etc) except on yourselves of course. *chef’s kiss*

This. Who can forget all the entitled Open Schoolers gloating about how their move to private would hurt APS. Well, smartypants, you only hurt yourselves. Well done.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The massive underenrollment at Nottingham and nearby schools, and elementary schools needing significant renovations that would last beyond a summer, are all actual problems that exist that APS is trying to deal with, but I totally understand your preference to deny their existence!

Massive underenrollment? No. This proposal would move Nott kids to other schools to be in trailers.

I don't believe for a second that Arlington parents would welcome that. The pro trailer posters on here make me highly suspicious that APS staff found this thread.

I’ve talked about my kids’ positive experiences with trailers before. Definitely a parent, not staff, who thought they were horrible until my kids spent time in them.

Did your kids have a bad experience in them?

Regular classroom > trailer classroom all day, every day.

The problem here is APS has a choice - do you take Tuckahoe to 113 percent capacity, including utilizing trailers, or do you not purposely overcrowd schools?

Did your kid have a bad experience in a trailer?

113% isn't that high. Relatively speaking.