APS Closing Nottingham

[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.

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.

Not PP but I guess you’ve never heard of sarcasm?

[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:

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!

Any kid can do it. It’s not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. Because you’re the only person on DCUM who had kids at those schools at some point in the past.

That’s ok. We know you’re full of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can be as involved as they want to be. They are entitled to come back and to lobby for the conditions that would make them want to come back. They are taxpayers and their kids are entitled to a free and appropriate education, too.

It’d be different if they were trying to defund the schools because they don’t use them (see upstate NY), but I don’t see any one claiming that here.

[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:

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!

Any kid can do it. It’s not an issue.

But if we had a choice, why would you do?

[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:

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!

Any kid can do it. It’s not an issue.

But if we had a choice, why would you do?

Because trailers are no big deal. And it might be the right move for the county overall.

[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:

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!

Any kid can do it. It’s not an issue.

But if we had a choice, why would you do?

Because trailers are no big deal. And it might be the right move for the county overall.

Like most things on an anonymous internet board, this is an unproductive conversation.

You may think trailers are no big deal. You may think overcrowding is no big deal. But others disagree, including me.

I’m glad it worked for you, however, given a choice I’d prefer my kids to not be in a school purposely zoned to be overcrowded and over enrolled due to the school administrations decisions - and not because of a “natural” phenomenon. We shouldn’t be designing our boundaries in such a way that creates overenrolled schools. It an unnecessary strain on the system.

[Anonymous]

How man of these “strain on the system” people are Nottingham parents? That’s the question.

[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:

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!

Any kid can do it. It’s not an issue.

But if we had a choice, why would you do?

Because trailers are no big deal. And it might be the right move for the county overall.

Like most things on an anonymous internet board, this is an unproductive conversation.

You may think trailers are no big deal. You may think overcrowding is no big deal. But others disagree, including me.

I’m glad it worked for you, however, given a choice I’d prefer my kids to not be in a school purposely zoned to be overcrowded and over enrolled due to the school administrations decisions - and not because of a “natural” phenomenon. We shouldn’t be designing our boundaries in such a way that creates overenrolled schools. It an unnecessary strain on the system.

It depends on why it's being considered. And the facilities/programs involved, enrollment forecasts, other long-term plans, etc.

It's all about balancing costs/benefits. Which you would know if you had kids in APS and were engaged in any way in previous planning efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How man of these “strain on the system” people are Nottingham parents? That’s the question.

I'm wondering how many actually have kids in APS at all.

[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.

My kid was there then as well. I want to say it was 10:20 but it was so long ago I don't remember. I do remember that it was insanely early.

-no dog in this fight. My kids have graduated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How man of these “strain on the system” people are Nottingham parents? That’s the question.

I'm wondering how many actually have kids in APS at all.

Why do you all assume that people would care enough to post here if they didn't have kids at APS? That's crazy. Of course I have kids at APS - I'm not wasting my time here if I didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How man of these “strain on the system” people are Nottingham parents? That’s the question.

Tuckahoe parents can't register their dissatisfaction with this plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How man of these “strain on the system” people are Nottingham parents? That’s the question.

I'm wondering how many actually have kids in APS at all.

Sounds like the APS staff members are back. Don't you all have like actual jobs to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and makes 113 look like child's play

Oh yes the good old I had it so much worse so you will just have to suck it up and deal approach. That's a great way to make decisions about children's education.