APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Jamestown has 85 pct. Why is Tuckahoe going to 113 percent, Discovery to 98 percent but Jamestown is staying the same? if this plan comes to pass, shouldn't they at least try to rebalance this area?

Sure. But it also shouldn't be an automatic dealbreaker for Tuckahoe to be >100% for some period of time. Depends on various factors. Forecast #s, facilities, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Jamestown has 85 pct. Why is Tuckahoe going to 113 percent, Discovery to 98 percent but Jamestown is staying the same? if this plan comes to pass, shouldn't they at least try to rebalance this area?

What about Cardinal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Maybe you should tell us why you think it's such a brilliant plan to intentionally overcrowd a school on year 1? In the past when opening new schools, APS has intentionally slightly underfilled them, to leave room to get to capacity without going significantly over. And now suddenly the exact opposite is A-ok. What gives?

[Anonymous]

Great idea. Send the other 13 percent from Nottingham to Jamestown. Problem solved. Jamestown will be at 98 and Tuckahoe at 100 percent. And Nottingham can be swing space without any trailers! Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Maybe you should tell us why you think it's such a brilliant plan to intentionally overcrowd a school on year 1? In the past when opening new schools, APS has intentionally slightly underfilled them, to leave room to get to capacity without going significantly over. And now suddenly the exact opposite is A-ok. What gives?

I'm not saying that this plan is brilliant or should even be the plan selected. Just that the best solution may involve some level of overcrowding or even trailers. Automatically killing any plan with overcrowding is short-sided and may put APS into the position of making less-than-optimal decisions. It could be an acceptable outcome when given other details (enrollment forecasts, facility planning, etc.) and after weighing the options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Maybe you should tell us why you think it's such a brilliant plan to intentionally overcrowd a school on year 1? In the past when opening new schools, APS has intentionally slightly underfilled them, to leave room to get to capacity without going significantly over. And now suddenly the exact opposite is A-ok. What gives?

I'm not saying that this plan is brilliant or should even be the plan selected. Just that the best solution may involve some level of overcrowding or even trailers. Automatically killing any plan with overcrowding is short-sided and may put APS into the position of making less-than-optimal decisions. It could be an acceptable outcome when given other details (enrollment forecasts, facility planning, etc.) and after weighing the options.

translation: the best solution for Nottingham families is overcrowding and trailers, so other school communities don’t have to be temporarily inconvenienced by anything less than purely perfect conditons during a renovation. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignorantly saying that it's never acceptable to have >100% capacity is no better.

Not at all. That's not what was said. It's not that it's never acceptable to have over 100 capacity. Sometimes it's unavoidable and schools have to deal. But it's unacceptable for APS to intentionally do that when it's not necessary. That's not the mark of a well thought out plan and if you can't see that, well.... I can't really help you.

It's one of many different factors considered when making these decisions. Again, it's ignorant to say it's never acceptable to consider it as an option.

Maybe you should tell us why you think it's such a brilliant plan to intentionally overcrowd a school on year 1? In the past when opening new schools, APS has intentionally slightly underfilled them, to leave room to get to capacity without going significantly over. And now suddenly the exact opposite is A-ok. What gives?

I'm not saying that this plan is brilliant or should even be the plan selected. Just that the best solution may involve some level of overcrowding or even trailers. Automatically killing any plan with overcrowding is short-sided and may put APS into the position of making less-than-optimal decisions. It could be an acceptable outcome when given other details (enrollment forecasts, facility planning, etc.) and after weighing the options.

translation: the best solution for Nottingham families is overcrowding and trailers, so other school communities don’t have to be temporarily inconvenienced by anything less than purely perfect conditons during a renovation. Got it.

It might be the best plan. I haven’t looked at enrollment forecast #s, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

And they will be when the time comes. No one swing space location is going to make everyone happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

And they will be when the time comes. No one swing space location is going to make everyone happy.

The time is now before a swing space is chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

And they will be when the time comes. No one swing space location is going to make everyone happy.

The time is now before a swing space is chosen.

And how does that play out? There are schools in both the north and the south that ultimately need renovations. Everyone's going to want a location that's as close as possible to their current location. I live in the south. Even if all the major renovations needing swing space are schools in the south, I think APS should use what is most feasible and cost-effective. It's those south school communities that are going to be the most inconvenienced, not anyone in the north who's merely being redistricted to a nearby school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

And they will be when the time comes. No one swing space location is going to make everyone happy.

The time is now before a swing space is chosen.

And how does that play out? There are schools in both the north and the south that ultimately need renovations. Everyone's going to want a location that's as close as possible to their current location. I live in the south. Even if all the major renovations needing swing space are schools in the south, I think APS should use what is most feasible and cost-effective. It's those south school communities that are going to be the most inconvenienced, not anyone in the north who's merely being redistricted to a nearby school.

Yes, and that's why swing space should be in the center of the county.

And they aren't "merely being redistricted to a nearby school" - APS is closing a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually supporters of this plan? The overcrowding baked into the plan is bad for students and teachers. The massive additional traffic is bad for cyclists, pedestrians and our environment. The plan's failure to identify which schools need renovations is bad for transparency and limits who is engaged in the county. It seems half baked, at best.

I don't think it sounds like a very good plan for many reasons but the argument that APS didn't ID the schools to be renovated just doesn't resonate. They got this proposed plan out early so the community could engage and they are still assessing the condition of the buildings. The list of schools to renovate will come, and I don't see how it really matters one way or another which schools are on that list. There are definitely schools that really need renovations and trying to claim otherwise would be an ugly look. Focus on your other arguments. There's the traffic safety and the overcrowding/capacity and probably a zillion other ways APS screwed up and didn't analyze data or capacity utilization correctly.

Because those families being impacted by renovations should be informed and heard from, especially if there are considerations around transportation, extended day availability, etc.

And they will be when the time comes. No one swing space location is going to make everyone happy.

The time is now before a swing space is chosen.

And how does that play out? There are schools in both the north and the south that ultimately need renovations. Everyone's going to want a location that's as close as possible to their current location. I live in the south. Even if all the major renovations needing swing space are schools in the south, I think APS should use what is most feasible and cost-effective. It's those south school communities that are going to be the most inconvenienced, not anyone in the north who's merely being redistricted to a nearby school.

Yes, and that's why swing space should be in the center of the county.

And they aren't "merely being redistricted to a nearby school" - APS is closing a neighborhood school.

DP and another south Arlington APS parent. This looks like the “most feasible and cost-effective option.” I don’t have a problem with closing a neighborhood school that’s been under capacity for years if the county needs that space for another purpose. Have you identified another available APS space owns that’s centrally located?