APS Closing Nottingham

[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?

Yes

Trailers at which school? Why was it bad for them?

[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 don’t think that’s correct.

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

DP. Which schools would require trailers?

[Anonymous]

My child got so injured in the McK gym trailer that they required medical attention, but I think you mean classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

Clearly. The priority is spending that sweet bond $$ and sticking your name on buildings. Everything else is secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

It's an efficient way to handle building renovations.

[Anonymous]

I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

Your kids can eat at 9 am. 10 minute recess. Throw down for aftercare.

Why the h*ll would we PLAN for that?! That is what a FAILURE to plan looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

Yeah, overenrollment sometimes can't be avoided or takes time to fix. But the goal should never be to intentionally over enroll a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

+1

The complainers sound like they aren’t even from APS. Or have kids in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

Not true at all. My kids elementary school required trailers even when it was technically not overenrolled. They had a whole grade out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

Yeah, overenrollment sometimes can't be avoided or takes time to fix. But the goal should never be to intentionally over enroll a school.

Never? That’s naive. There are a variety of reasons why they might choose to go over 100% enrollment. Have you never been through a planning process before? Sure sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

+1

The complainers sound like they aren’t even from APS. Or have kids in school.

Which complainers? I don't like trailers and I don't think APS should intentionally overload schools. I am very much an APS parent with way too much experience with overcrowded schools and trailers. This decision won't directly impact my kids but I don't wish what we had to go through on other children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said on here that 113 is not much over enrollment but people don’t believe it. I guess this is cause not many people left in elementary who’ve dealt with anything but empty schools. 113! Is unlikely to even require grade level classrooms in trailer. You can put your music in there. Or your resource teachers. And that will take care of it. It’s just not a big deal.

Not true at all. My kids elementary school required trailers even when it was technically not overenrolled. They had a whole grade out there.

Which school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So now we are going to measure the degree to which a school is overenrolled? Yes, you are right - the school could be more packed in than it is. But why do we need to overenroll it at all - APS isn't even doing it because of some unforeseen population growth. They are just doing it because they can?

Yeah, overenrollment sometimes can't be avoided or takes time to fix. But the goal should never be to intentionally over enroll a school.

Never? That’s naive. There are a variety of reasons why they might choose to go over 100% enrollment. Have you never been through a planning process before? Sure sounds like it.

Oh you're cute. I have been through far too many.