APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Wasn't McK at 128% before the addition was done and when Tukahoe moved some walkable planning units?

It can be done again.

[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.

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.

Which schools ate lunch at 9am?

[Anonymous]

and makes 113 look like child's play

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re feigning ignorance then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Which schools ate lunch at 9am?

When McK was over subscribed (I do think over 125%) my kid's lunch was at 10:20 or 10:40. That's the earliest I have ever heard. But that was before the addtion so many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh the open schoolers who fled to private are very much still involved in APS and on this board. They still want to control the rest of our children while they sit pretty in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where were your kids in trailers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re feigning ignorance then?

No having lived through overcrowded schools and knowing the impact, I don't think APS should have a goal to intentionally and needlessly overcrowd schools. Apparently you are fine with it. Maybe you are naive and haven't ever experienced school overcrowding so you don't think 13% over is a problem. Or maybe this decision doesn't impact YOUR own children so you don't care about the impact on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Which schools ate lunch at 9am?

When McK was over subscribed (I do think over 125%) my kid's lunch was at 10:20 or 10:40. That's the earliest I have ever heard. But that was before the addtion so many years.

Same. I’ve never heard before 10:20. PP is full of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where were your kids in trailers?

Not going to say but I will say in two different schools in APS. Neither was a good situation. At all. And it's not just the trailers. Schools that are overcrowded enough to need trailers have multiple other stressors that impact the entire educational experience, including safety of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re feigning ignorance then?

No having lived through overcrowded schools and knowing the impact, I don't think APS should have a goal to intentionally and needlessly overcrowd schools. Apparently you are fine with it. Maybe you are naive and haven't ever experienced school overcrowding so you don't think 13% over is a problem. Or maybe this decision doesn't impact YOUR own children so you don't care about the impact on others.

My kids were in one of the most overcrowded schools and had a great time in the trailers.

There are certainly various reasonable reasons why APS may want to have enrollment >100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where were your kids in trailers?

Not going to say but I will say in two different schools in APS. Neither was a good situation. At all. And it's not just the trailers. Schools that are overcrowded enough to need trailers have multiple other stressors that impact the entire educational experience, including safety of students.

Why not? Afraid we will call out your BS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Which schools ate lunch at 9am?

When McK was over subscribed (I do think over 125%) my kid's lunch was at 10:20 or 10:40. That's the earliest I have ever heard. But that was before the addtion so many years.

10:45 was the first lunch as I recall. While not great, it was better than the last lunch which I think was nearly 2 pm. Those kids were starving.

But even worse than lunch was they had to cram multiple classes together into the gym creating serious safety issues. Same issue on the playground. Kids did get hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where were your kids in trailers?

Not going to say but I will say in two different schools in APS. Neither was a good situation. At all. And it's not just the trailers. Schools that are overcrowded enough to need trailers have multiple other stressors that impact the entire educational experience, including safety of students.

Why not? Afraid we will call out your BS?

Nice try but some people may not want to put identifying information out on an anon message board. You know because people like you are just oh so friendly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re feigning ignorance then?

No having lived through overcrowded schools and knowing the impact, I don't think APS should have a goal to intentionally and needlessly overcrowd schools. Apparently you are fine with it. Maybe you are naive and haven't ever experienced school overcrowding so you don't think 13% over is a problem. Or maybe this decision doesn't impact YOUR own children so you don't care about the impact on others.

My kids were in one of the most overcrowded schools and had a great time in the trailers.

There are certainly various reasonable reasons why APS may want to have enrollment >100%.

If my kids can do it, so can your’s!

If my kids can walk uphill in the snow both ways to school, be disciplined by paddle, so can your’s!