APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a useful thread from back in the day: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/593495.page

Nottingham protested getting extra planning units and was then the most under-capacity school in the entire county in Fall of 2016, while McKinley was over capacity by about 50 kids (based on what the renovated school could contain, even though it was still undergoing renovations and dealing with trailers).

Also this one: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/547393.page

Oh my god, look at you. You're digging up posts from 2016?! It is time to move on.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the posts. It's helpful to understand what really went on in the past and how difference school communities approached the capacity issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a useful thread from back in the day: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/593495.page

Nottingham protested getting extra planning units and was then the most under-capacity school in the entire county in Fall of 2016, while McKinley was over capacity by about 50 kids (based on what the renovated school could contain, even though it was still undergoing renovations and dealing with trailers).

Also this one: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/547393.page

Oldtime Nottingham parent here chiming in with a history lesson. When Discovery was being planned, there was a pretty major boundary process in this part of the County to draw the new Discovery boundaries. It involved several elementary schools. The point was to relieve overcrowding, especially at Nottingham and Tuckahoe, which were just ridiculously overcrowded. I cannot tell you how hard it was to have a school at 140% capacity.

Then a year or so later, APS said, oops, we screwed up, we left Tuckahoe too overcrowded, so we need to move some of the Tuckahoe planning units out. They opened up a new surprise boundary process that was much smaller in scope and involved moving Tuckahoe kids to either Nottingham or McKinley. APS had also screwed up by leaving Jamestown way under-enrolled in the previous process, but for some reason they refused to fix that. They left Jamestown out of the new boundary process and focused only on moving kids to McKinley and Nottingham. That was a mistake.

I specifically recall there were two planning units from Tuckahoe in question. Both were south of Langston (then Lee Hwy). One was larger than the other. The larger one had at least 100 students in it. I looked at the numbers at the time. It was very clear that Nottingham did not have room to take on the larger PU.

In the end, the larger PU went to McKinley. Projections showed there was capacity for it there at that time. Nottingham got the smaller PU and a pre k class. This was a compromise. Nottingham was not under capacity after that. There were classes that had to be in trailers.

Later it came out that APS had screwed up the projections for McKinley and forget to add in some other students that has previously been redistricted there in the first process. So I guess that's why the above post says that McKinley ended up about 50 over. But if APS had sent those kids to Nottingham, then Nottingham would have been overcapacity. I guess the McKinley parents would have thought that was perfectly ok?

Beats me why they blame Nottingham parents for all of this. APS screwed them by not putting the kids at Jamestown where there actually was room, and not estimating capacity correctly.

[Anonymous]

Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

No, sweetie. Not history, just you view it differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

Also it sounds like you should be mad at your own PTA at McKinley. You wanted them to stick up for you, are dismayed that they didn't and then paint the PTA that did stick up for its community as evil. Can't have it both ways, sorry.

[Anonymous]

The sock puppetry is amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

This is why people don’t really care about the Nottingham issue. It’s only a big deal for the people involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

This is why people don’t really care about the Nottingham issue. It’s only a big deal for the people involved.

That’s fine. We don’t need everyone to care - only the people affected, which - surprise! - is actually more than just the people currently at Nottingham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

This is why people don’t really care about the Nottingham issue. It’s only a big deal for the people involved.

That’s fine. We don’t need everyone to care - only the people affected, which - surprise! - is actually more than just the people currently at Nottingham.

Good luck. It looks like this plan has been in the works for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

Elected officials? Well, yeah, they went to the school board, which makes sense since they voted to make the decision. Not sure how that's a power play but ok. And McKinley parents were doing the same thing, just not their PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this issue just doesn’t seem to go away, the reason the schools are viewed differently is because the approaches the PTAs took. Nottingham tried to get elected officials involved as a show of power. They also said they couldn’t possibly handle any more kids and they had their turn and someone else should have it.

The McKinley, PTA, to the dismay of some people, refused to say they didn’t want the planning units, and the students should go to Nottingham. The Mckinley PTA would only say something to the effect of balance of the enrollment. They wanted Aps to look at the area more holistically and not leave any school overcrowded. They didn’t point a finger at Nottingham and that is why history views the two schools differently.

Also, APS knew about the projection errors before they made the boundary change. There were some heavily involved parents from Madison Manor, who pointed it out to the planners before the vote even went through. Aps knew what it was doing.

"History" views it this way? Oh that has to be the funniest thing on DCUM today. Thank you for this, really. This completely articulates your self- aggrandizing view.

Pretty sure "history" doesn't care that your elementary school was a few kids over capacity.

This is why people don’t really care about the Nottingham issue. It’s only a big deal for the people involved.

I'm not involved and I care to some extent. I'm mildly against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a useful thread from back in the day: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/593495.page

Nottingham protested getting extra planning units and was then the most under-capacity school in the entire county in Fall of 2016, while McKinley was over capacity by about 50 kids (based on what the renovated school could contain, even though it was still undergoing renovations and dealing with trailers).

Also this one: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/547393.page

I used to be a McKinley parent and I posted this comment in that second thread:

I'm a current McKinley parent and I guess I don't really think this is a big deal, and that the parents are having a harder time with it than the kids will.

My child LOVED having gym in the trailer, and all the echoey sounds you could make with your voice in there.

The school dealt with space issues this year by making some specials classes "roaming" classes, so for example the kids might have Spanish or Art or Music in their own classrooms instead of going to a room dedicated to that subject. It would not be an ideal long term plan, but for a year or two I don't see any negative effects on my child or his education.

My kid has never had class all year in a trailer, but my understanding is that the kids actually quite like the trailers. It seems to build class unity and make you feel like you are your own special community, plus you can do whatever you want to the walls. Again, I wouldn't want trailers as the long term plan (which is why they are doing this renovation/addition to the school in the first place), but as a temporary thing, it's fine.

I appreciate that in general McKinley is not full of spoiled people who are constantly asking for special treatment and privileges and not taking "more than our share." When something is important -- like when Tuckahoe wanted to move two of its planning groups over so they could keep their neighborhood together even though that would have put McKinley at 110% capacity AFTER THE NEW ADDITION WAS ADDED -- we will talk reasonably to APS and get them to change their mind. In this case we are talking about a three month delay of the main new construction, so three months of a trailer fleet. I just don't think that's a big deal. And if a new child was coming to the school over from Glebe or Tuckahoe, they might find the whole thing fun and again, sort of community building. "Look we're all getting through this together." If they waited to come until the following year, they would have missed out on that.

I don't think the parking is that big of a deal because there is quite a lot of street parking.

I just think all this complaining is very much a spoiled North Arlington mindset -- "MY CHILD SHALL NOT BE INCONVENIENCED BY TRAILERS" -- when you are coming from schools that already have fleets of trailers in their fields. Maybe you just don't want to leave your home schools, and that's fair. I wouldn't want to either, probably. But we're all in this together, and we can get through it as a community.

The new school is going to be really, really beautiful.

I also defended Nottingham in that thread.

Ha ha, joke’s on me. I have since lost all positive vibes towards Nottingham parents. It seems to be an area that looks out only for its own rather than caring for the community at large, and I am tired of it. So much of this they have absolutely done to themselves, even though they blame literally everyone BUT themselves. They refused to take more kids. They got upset over Covid and fled to private. They passed the buck about being turned into an option school — that shoe just didn’t fit their dainty little foot either. And every time APS asked them to eat poop for the community, not only did they not eat the poop, they found another community to target to eat the poop and lobbied hard to give the steaming poop to that community instead, it was just such a much better fit for them.

So Nottingham, welcome to your swing space shit sandwich. Nobody else is going to eat it for you. Bon appetit.

[Anonymous]

The elected official thing wasn’t referencing the SB. Everyone does that. They tried getting someone like Beyer involved. I don’t remember exactly who it was, but I’m sure a former Mck person remembers. It was as so over the top that it stood out at the time.