APS Closing Nottingham

[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.

What's the difference? The kids are going to nearby schools because their school is being used for something else. The kids are going to nearby schools because they're closing the school. Same thing, as far as the kids go.

Yes, it would be nice if swing space were more centrally located. Tell that to the County who sold the VHC site back to VHC (or at least part of it). Still, it would cost tens of millions - not to mention a few years - to prepare the site so it can even be used for swing space. Whereas an existing elementary school that can be done without due to enrollment can be flipped cheaply and quickly to swing space.

[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.

But they will be, isn't that coming in early fall?

[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.

But they will be, isn't that coming in early fall?

Yes, about a week before the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well stated - hard agree. And the other PP makes a great point that you won't be able to give every school being renovated space that is right near their school -- so Nottingham is central enough for these purposes.

Nottingham is hugely underenrolled and the schools nearby are ALSO underenrolled, and the site offers a trifecta of benefits that you won't see anywhere else in land-challenged APS where space is expensive: (1) the site is already useable as a school for kids of these age and wouldn't need expensive renovations; (2) the school currently is severely underenrolled AND SO ARE THE SCHOOLS NEXT TO IT meaning they can absorb the extra kids fairly easily; and (3) the whole thing can be undone if needed after a year or two if Nottingham kids suddenly start coming back from private.

The comments from upset Nottingham people are understandable, but they're really not taking into consideration the needs of the district as a whole and the fact that their undersubscribed schools in the North are placing a burden on APS when they could be providing an opportunity. Instead it's all the "why does it have to be US" whining that this particular group of Karens is so good at. If you would just look at the whole picture and see that this isn't permanent and you can serve the community -- AND YOUR KIDS WILL STILL GO TO GREAT NEARBY SCHOOLS -- I think you would have a better attitude about this. I hope you are able to find a sense of proportion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well stated - hard agree. And the other PP makes a great point that you won't be able to give every school being renovated space that is right near their school -- so Nottingham is central enough for these purposes.

Nottingham is hugely underenrolled and the schools nearby are ALSO underenrolled, and the site offers a trifecta of benefits that you won't see anywhere else in land-challenged APS where space is expensive: (1) the site is already useable as a school for kids of these age and wouldn't need expensive renovations; (2) the school currently is severely underenrolled AND SO ARE THE SCHOOLS NEXT TO IT meaning they can absorb the extra kids fairly easily; and (3) the whole thing can be undone if needed after a year or two if Nottingham kids suddenly start coming back from private.

The comments from upset Nottingham people are understandable, but they're really not taking into consideration the needs of the district as a whole and the fact that their undersubscribed schools in the North are placing a burden on APS when they could be providing an opportunity. Instead it's all the "why does it have to be US" whining that this particular group of Karens is so good at. If you would just look at the whole picture and see that this isn't permanent and you can serve the community -- AND YOUR KIDS WILL STILL GO TO GREAT NEARBY SCHOOLS -- I think you would have a better attitude about this. I hope you are able to find a sense of proportion.

Let's be real - if this goes through, the school will be closed for at least 10 years. That's as close to permanent as you can get in APS today

As a Nottingham parent, I am not of the opinion that this shouldn't happen no matter what - if it truly is beneficial for the county as a whole, and APS has the data and planning to back that up, then so be it. But that's not what's happening so far. APS has not fully addressed the community's concerns about this proposal, often using incomplete or missing data.

And I'm sure you'll respond, APS doesn't need to make the case or back up their decision - of course they do! They are looking to close a highly walkable neighborhood school, which should be the last course of action after other options are examined. The board works for their constituents.

[Anonymous]

The Nottingham “community’s concerns” are and historically have in the past been those of a bunch of over privileged richer parents who dig in whenever anything slightly bad is sent their way. Just deal, please, like other school communities have done. Your kids will be fine at Discovery and other nearby schools, and I for one (anndbo suspect many others here) are tired of listening to you whine. Being upset about your kids going to Discovery is really the most ridiculous champagne problem on this board right now.

[Anonymous]

This “highly walkable neighborhood school” has been significantly underenrolled for years. And it’s getting worse, not better with fewer than 50 kids in K. So that data alone combines with the two other “highly walkable” schools within a mile or so in each direction strongly supports the APS plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham “community’s concerns” are and historically have in the past been those of a bunch of over privileged richer parents who dig in whenever anything slightly bad is sent their way. Just deal, please, like other school communities have done. Your kids will be fine at Discovery and other nearby schools, and I for one (anndbo suspect many others here) are tired of listening to you whine. Being upset about your kids going to Discovery is really the most ridiculous champagne problem on this board right now.

10000%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well stated - hard agree. And the other PP makes a great point that you won't be able to give every school being renovated space that is right near their school -- so Nottingham is central enough for these purposes.

Nottingham is hugely underenrolled and the schools nearby are ALSO underenrolled, and the site offers a trifecta of benefits that you won't see anywhere else in land-challenged APS where space is expensive: (1) the site is already useable as a school for kids of these age and wouldn't need expensive renovations; (2) the school currently is severely underenrolled AND SO ARE THE SCHOOLS NEXT TO IT meaning they can absorb the extra kids fairly easily; and (3) the whole thing can be undone if needed after a year or two if Nottingham kids suddenly start coming back from private.

The comments from upset Nottingham people are understandable, but they're really not taking into consideration the needs of the district as a whole and the fact that their undersubscribed schools in the North are placing a burden on APS when they could be providing an opportunity. Instead it's all the "why does it have to be US" whining that this particular group of Karens is so good at. If you would just look at the whole picture and see that this isn't permanent and you can serve the community -- AND YOUR KIDS WILL STILL GO TO GREAT NEARBY SCHOOLS -- I think you would have a better attitude about this. I hope you are able to find a sense of proportion.

Let's be real - if this goes through, the school will be closed for at least 10 years. That's as close to permanent as you can get in APS today

As a Nottingham parent, I am not of the opinion that this shouldn't happen no matter what - if it truly is beneficial for the county as a whole, and APS has the data and planning to back that up, then so be it. But that's not what's happening so far. APS has not fully addressed the community's concerns about this proposal, often using incomplete or missing data.

And I'm sure you'll respond, APS doesn't need to make the case or back up their decision - of course they do! They are looking to close a highly walkable neighborhood school, which should be the last course of action after other options are examined. The board works for their constituents.

It is a highly walkable school....to three different schools. Since many in the current NES zone will become walkers to two other schools, it's not a horrible plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham “community’s concerns” are and historically have in the past been those of a bunch of over privileged richer parents who dig in whenever anything slightly bad is sent their way. Just deal, please, like other school communities have done. Your kids will be fine at Discovery and other nearby schools, and I for one (anndbo suspect many others here) are tired of listening to you whine. Being upset about your kids going to Discovery is really the most ridiculous champagne problem on this board right now.

Please. Can we stop pretending that UMC households in Arlington have degrees of over privilege? The folks buying new builds in 22204 for $1.6m are not hard up. Average prices are what they are, folks. I very much doubt the ESL FARMS families are debating on this board. Take your high but not high enough earner insecurity somewhere else and try to engage in the merits, OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This “highly walkable neighborhood school” has been significantly underenrolled for years. And it’s getting worse, not better with fewer than 50 kids in K. So that data alone combines with the two other “highly walkable” schools within a mile or so in each direction strongly supports the APS plan.

Undernrolled with trailers? That’s the only way you get “significantly.”

From all the kids I’m seeing around here, kids which are mysteriously missing from APS’ data, Tuckahoe and Discovery will likely be overcrowded on Day 1. Nottingham won’t be converted back until every single renovation on the books is done and a year-long redistricting is done. Kindergartners will be in HS before anything gets fixed.

Please tell me you’d sign up for overcrowding if it was for the “greater good” but not your kids. Go ahead. Show us how selfless and un-privileged you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This “highly walkable neighborhood school” has been significantly underenrolled for years. And it’s getting worse, not better with fewer than 50 kids in K. So that data alone combines with the two other “highly walkable” schools within a mile or so in each direction strongly supports the APS plan.

Undernrolled with trailers? That’s the only way you get “significantly.”

From all the kids I’m seeing around here, kids which are mysteriously missing from APS’ data, Tuckahoe and Discovery will likely be overcrowded on Day 1. Nottingham won’t be converted back until every single renovation on the books is done and a year-long redistricting is done. Kindergartners will be in HS before anything gets fixed.

Please tell me you’d sign up for overcrowding if it was for the “greater good” but not your kids. Go ahead. Show us how selfless and un-privileged you are.

I signed up for overcrowding as a member of McKinley when we were under renovations and you guys just COULD NOT manage to take on extra planning units. McKinley took them even though we were still having trailers and renovations didn't finish in time so as a PP said we were at approximately 125%. We took them because Nottingham put up a fight -- it was just going to be too hard for you all -- and you said you could not. (Just like you are saying now -- it's going to just be too hard!!) So please don't lecture me about how I wouldn't do something if it benefited the greater good. I would and I have.

Suck it up and deal like everyone else around you does. Tuckahoe and Taylor etc are great schools with great supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This “highly walkable neighborhood school” has been significantly underenrolled for years. And it’s getting worse, not better with fewer than 50 kids in K. So that data alone combines with the two other “highly walkable” schools within a mile or so in each direction strongly supports the APS plan.

Undernrolled with trailers? That’s the only way you get “significantly.”

From all the kids I’m seeing around here, kids which are mysteriously missing from APS’ data, Tuckahoe and Discovery will likely be overcrowded on Day 1. Nottingham won’t be converted back until every single renovation on the books is done and a year-long redistricting is done. Kindergartners will be in HS before anything gets fixed.

Please tell me you’d sign up for overcrowding if it was for the “greater good” but not your kids. Go ahead. Show us how selfless and un-privileged you are.

I signed up for overcrowding as a member of McKinley when we were under renovations and you guys just COULD NOT manage to take on extra planning units. McKinley took them even though we were still having trailers and renovations didn't finish in time so as a PP said we were at approximately 125%. We took them because Nottingham put up a fight -- it was just going to be too hard for you all -- and you said you could not. (Just like you are saying now -- it's going to just be too hard!!) So please don't lecture me about how I wouldn't do something if it benefited the greater good. I would and I have.

Suck it up and deal like everyone else around you does. Tuckahoe and Taylor etc are great schools with great supports.

Hasn’t this version of events already been debunked upthread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham “community’s concerns” are and historically have in the past been those of a bunch of over privileged richer parents who dig in whenever anything slightly bad is sent their way. Just deal, please, like other school communities have done. Your kids will be fine at Discovery and other nearby schools, and I for one (anndbo suspect many others here) are tired of listening to you whine. Being upset about your kids going to Discovery is really the most ridiculous champagne problem on this board right now.

Please. Can we stop pretending that UMC households in Arlington have degrees of over privilege? The folks buying new builds in 22204 for $1.6m are not hard up. Average prices are what they are, folks. I very much doubt the ESL FARMS families are debating on this board. Take your high but not high enough earner insecurity somewhere else and try to engage in the merits, OK?

Why do you assume that PP has a lower HHI or home value than you do? Relativity of privilege is irrelevant and I fully agree with the PP. MANY communities of all HHIs have sucked up much worse scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This “highly walkable neighborhood school” has been significantly underenrolled for years. And it’s getting worse, not better with fewer than 50 kids in K. So that data alone combines with the two other “highly walkable” schools within a mile or so in each direction strongly supports the APS plan.

Undernrolled with trailers? That’s the only way you get “significantly.”

From all the kids I’m seeing around here, kids which are mysteriously missing from APS’ data, Tuckahoe and Discovery will likely be overcrowded on Day 1. Nottingham won’t be converted back until every single renovation on the books is done and a year-long redistricting is done. Kindergartners will be in HS before anything gets fixed.

Please tell me you’d sign up for overcrowding if it was for the “greater good” but not your kids. Go ahead. Show us how selfless and un-privileged you are.

I signed up for overcrowding as a member of McKinley when we were under renovations and you guys just COULD NOT manage to take on extra planning units. McKinley took them even though we were still having trailers and renovations didn't finish in time so as a PP said we were at approximately 125%. We took them because Nottingham put up a fight -- it was just going to be too hard for you all -- and you said you could not. (Just like you are saying now -- it's going to just be too hard!!) So please don't lecture me about how I wouldn't do something if it benefited the greater good. I would and I have.

Suck it up and deal like everyone else around you does. Tuckahoe and Taylor etc are great schools with great supports.

Hasn’t this version of events already been debunked upthread?

And the argument isn't that it'll be "too hard" for Nottingham families - the argument is that we want APS to show us what their plan actually consists of, something they have so far failed to do apart from turning Nottingham into a swing space.

What is their plan for the over enrollment of Tuckahoe on day 1? What is the plan for the extra traffic around the school (which lacks any major streets or significant parking for buses/cars)? Have you identified which schools need significant renovations and do you have the funding for those projects? What will you do to encourage teachers and admins to stay at Nottingham if the conversion happens?

The jist on this board is basically, Why are you complaining? You'll end up at Tuckahoe and Discovery! Some here expect Nottingham families to just accept it and move-on, but c'mon, in no world would you be expected to do the same if it was your school. That's a mighty high horse you rode in on...