Is APS really looking to close a N. Arlington elem school again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move Montessori back to Drew.

The Drew Model School never should have moved out of the Drew School, but it's too late to go back and recreate that. Montessori has been adrift ever since then, and they desperately want a permanent home.

I'm old enough to remember when Montessori said they were ok moving into an old building and didn't need a fancy new space. Well, that didn't age well.

That's because MPSA wanted to get away from Drew. Back then, Drew was being run like a prison camp while MPSA was its affluent school within a school.

Yes I know that MPSA wanted to get away from Drew. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Nottingham, Mary K. is going to kill your school. Tune in to the board meeting Dec. 18. She’s already ruled out closing Taylor and while Mary’s proposal will mention a south ES, the huge lack of seats in the south means not even Drew will be converted to an option school. (Also, good luck taking that historic black community’s school from them and bussing their kids elsewhere, amirite?). This means only Nottingham is left and please remember Mary supported that school being swing space last year. Good luck.

Wow, grabbing the popcorn. She's using her last meeting to propose closing Nottingham AND a cascading boundary process that will impact Jamestown, Discovery, Tuckahoe, Taylor, Glebe and Cardinal? 340 students may not sound like much but they're not going to easily get rolled into the next school over. There aren't 170 seats available at Discovery and Tuckahoe. It's going to be a cascading boundary process to balance enrollments across all those schools. That's a pretty cowardly thing to do at your last meeting. Make your successors run a controversial school closing and boundary process while you get out of town. And what are they gonna do with a closed building anyway?

Empty Nottingham, then temporary move all of Taylor and raze that building and put up classrooms with walls etc. but they just built new playground so that seems unlikely. Probably a SA school?

There is no money to rebuild Taylor. APS has maxxed out its bond capacity. They need to look at the facilities and then close the worst one. It might be Taylor. Are there other elementary buildings in worse shape?

They haven't maxed out their bond capacity. Did you look at the close-out document? They're way under their 10% debt capacity. The CIP direction is also posted. Looks like they're wasting a lot of money just to save the idea of building more seats on the ACC campus. More seats are, what, 100 seats (capacity of renovated ACC minus capacity of knocked down MPSA)? That's pennies compared to the dollars they're wasting with all the extra studying they're asking staff to do in this CIP direction. They're clearly delaying moving MPSA into the ACC even though it was already approved and bonded for $45M. And instead, they're going to study Nottingham and then the costs will go up because of the delay and the Nottingham community is going to put up roadblocks when the ACC neighborhood had already accepted the school on the site. This is a mess. They should have just stuck with the plan. People who want Taylor renovated, follow the mistakes being made now and that's why your school won't be in this CIP.

What I meant was that the bond capacity was maxxed out with the existing plan for Montessori/AT/career center. I guess they could get some of that back if they change the plan.

Moving MPSA to the old ACC is in the current CIP and no bond capacity isn't close to its max in the current CIP. If they change the plan now, they will increase costs and waste time in finishing the ACC site with a plan the community supported. They'll lose bond capacity in the process and delay later projects (like Taylor). You'd have to renovate Nottingham if you wanted to move MPSA there and increase its capacity and change boundaries across north Arlington. Nottingham is smaller than MPSA. Changing the plan is costly and controversial. Why would the board want to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Nottingham, Mary K. is going to kill your school. Tune in to the board meeting Dec. 18. She’s already ruled out closing Taylor and while Mary’s proposal will mention a south ES, the huge lack of seats in the south means not even Drew will be converted to an option school. (Also, good luck taking that historic black community’s school from them and bussing their kids elsewhere, amirite?). This means only Nottingham is left and please remember Mary supported that school being swing space last year. Good luck.

Wow, grabbing the popcorn. She's using her last meeting to propose closing Nottingham AND a cascading boundary process that will impact Jamestown, Discovery, Tuckahoe, Taylor, Glebe and Cardinal? 340 students may not sound like much but they're not going to easily get rolled into the next school over. There aren't 170 seats available at Discovery and Tuckahoe. It's going to be a cascading boundary process to balance enrollments across all those schools. That's a pretty cowardly thing to do at your last meeting. Make your successors run a controversial school closing and boundary process while you get out of town. And what are they gonna do with a closed building anyway?

Empty Nottingham, then temporary move all of Taylor and raze that building and put up classrooms with walls etc. but they just built new playground so that seems unlikely. Probably a SA school?

There is no money to rebuild Taylor. APS has maxxed out its bond capacity. They need to look at the facilities and then close the worst one. It might be Taylor. Are there other elementary buildings in worse shape?

They haven't maxed out their bond capacity. Did you look at the close-out document? They're way under their 10% debt capacity. The CIP direction is also posted. Looks like they're wasting a lot of money just to save the idea of building more seats on the ACC campus. More seats are, what, 100 seats (capacity of renovated ACC minus capacity of knocked down MPSA)? That's pennies compared to the dollars they're wasting with all the extra studying they're asking staff to do in this CIP direction. They're clearly delaying moving MPSA into the ACC even though it was already approved and bonded for $45M. And instead, they're going to study Nottingham and then the costs will go up because of the delay and the Nottingham community is going to put up roadblocks when the ACC neighborhood had already accepted the school on the site. This is a mess. They should have just stuck with the plan. People who want Taylor renovated, follow the mistakes being made now and that's why your school won't be in this CIP.

What I meant was that the bond capacity was maxxed out with the existing plan for Montessori/AT/career center. I guess they could get some of that back if they change the plan.

Moving MPSA to the old ACC is in the current CIP and no bond capacity isn't close to its max in the current CIP. If they change the plan now, they will increase costs and waste time in finishing the ACC site with a plan the community supported. They'll lose bond capacity in the process and delay later projects (like Taylor). You'd have to renovate Nottingham if you wanted to move MPSA there and increase its capacity and change boundaries across north Arlington. Nottingham is smaller than MPSA. Changing the plan is costly and controversial. Why would the board want to do that?

Since APS disposed of its planning department, they would have to spend money on out-of-state consultants and a public process that would last the better part of a year. I think that’s why APS is looking to use Langston for swing space, even if they haven’t said so publicly. That plan, if true, entails keeping Nottingham open as a neighborhood school for now.

The era of boundary changes may be over—for the next few years. I’m even doubting APS will spend time and money on the proposed high school boundary changes that were supposed to coincide with the opening of the new Arlington Tech building. That process should have started this year. And I guess the Ashlawn/Yorktown families are still happy they get automatic/guaranteed neighborhood transfers into W-L. They are the only Arlington neighborhood with a guaranteed choice of two high schools for all four years.

I’m beginning to think that the current crop of Syphax/APS decision-makers would rather not mess with boundaries again if they can avoid doing so. They have probably observed the boundary change struggles over at FCPS and MCPS this past year.

[Anonymous]

Why do they get guaranteed transfers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do they get guaranteed transfers?

Because the neighborhood didn't want to be reassigned to Yorktown from W-L. And the school board promised them they would be reassigned back to W-L when the W-L expansion was completed. Since that never happened, APS has allowed this option between Yorktown and W-L to remain in place, at least until the next comprehensive high school boundary changes happen. But that looks increasingly unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Nottingham, Mary K. is going to kill your school. Tune in to the board meeting Dec. 18. She’s already ruled out closing Taylor and while Mary’s proposal will mention a south ES, the huge lack of seats in the south means not even Drew will be converted to an option school. (Also, good luck taking that historic black community’s school from them and bussing their kids elsewhere, amirite?). This means only Nottingham is left and please remember Mary supported that school being swing space last year. Good luck.

Wow, grabbing the popcorn. She's using her last meeting to propose closing Nottingham AND a cascading boundary process that will impact Jamestown, Discovery, Tuckahoe, Taylor, Glebe and Cardinal? 340 students may not sound like much but they're not going to easily get rolled into the next school over. There aren't 170 seats available at Discovery and Tuckahoe. It's going to be a cascading boundary process to balance enrollments across all those schools. That's a pretty cowardly thing to do at your last meeting. Make your successors run a controversial school closing and boundary process while you get out of town. And what are they gonna do with a closed building anyway?

Empty Nottingham, then temporary move all of Taylor and raze that building and put up classrooms with walls etc. but they just built new playground so that seems unlikely. Probably a SA school?

There is no money to rebuild Taylor. APS has maxxed out its bond capacity. They need to look at the facilities and then close the worst one. It might be Taylor. Are there other elementary buildings in worse shape?

They haven't maxed out their bond capacity. Did you look at the close-out document? They're way under their 10% debt capacity. The CIP direction is also posted. Looks like they're wasting a lot of money just to save the idea of building more seats on the ACC campus. More seats are, what, 100 seats (capacity of renovated ACC minus capacity of knocked down MPSA)? That's pennies compared to the dollars they're wasting with all the extra studying they're asking staff to do in this CIP direction. They're clearly delaying moving MPSA into the ACC even though it was already approved and bonded for $45M. And instead, they're going to study Nottingham and then the costs will go up because of the delay and the Nottingham community is going to put up roadblocks when the ACC neighborhood had already accepted the school on the site. This is a mess. They should have just stuck with the plan. People who want Taylor renovated, follow the mistakes being made now and that's why your school won't be in this CIP.

What I meant was that the bond capacity was maxxed out with the existing plan for Montessori/AT/career center. I guess they could get some of that back if they change the plan.

Moving MPSA to the old ACC is in the current CIP and no bond capacity isn't close to its max in the current CIP. If they change the plan now, they will increase costs and waste time in finishing the ACC site with a plan the community supported. They'll lose bond capacity in the process and delay later projects (like Taylor). You'd have to renovate Nottingham if you wanted to move MPSA there and increase its capacity and change boundaries across north Arlington. Nottingham is smaller than MPSA. Changing the plan is costly and controversial. Why would the board want to do that?

Since APS disposed of its planning department, they would have to spend money on out-of-state consultants and a public process that would last the better part of a year. I think that’s why APS is looking to use Langston for swing space, even if they haven’t said so publicly. That plan, if true, entails keeping Nottingham open as a neighborhood school for now.

The era of boundary changes may be over—for the next few years. I’m even doubting APS will spend time and money on the proposed high school boundary changes that were supposed to coincide with the opening of the new Arlington Tech building. That process should have started this year. And I guess the Ashlawn/Yorktown families are still happy they get automatic/guaranteed neighborhood transfers into W-L. They are the only Arlington neighborhood with a guaranteed choice of two high schools for all four years.

I’m beginning to think that the current crop of Syphax/APS decision-makers would rather not mess with boundaries again if they can avoid doing so. They have probably observed the boundary change struggles over at FCPS and MCPS this past year.

I expect the planning team to pop up as those consultants, after forming an LLC. Then they are just outside of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Nottingham, Mary K. is going to kill your school. Tune in to the board meeting Dec. 18. She’s already ruled out closing Taylor and while Mary’s proposal will mention a south ES, the huge lack of seats in the south means not even Drew will be converted to an option school. (Also, good luck taking that historic black community’s school from them and bussing their kids elsewhere, amirite?). This means only Nottingham is left and please remember Mary supported that school being swing space last year. Good luck.

Wow, grabbing the popcorn. She's using her last meeting to propose closing Nottingham AND a cascading boundary process that will impact Jamestown, Discovery, Tuckahoe, Taylor, Glebe and Cardinal? 340 students may not sound like much but they're not going to easily get rolled into the next school over. There aren't 170 seats available at Discovery and Tuckahoe. It's going to be a cascading boundary process to balance enrollments across all those schools. That's a pretty cowardly thing to do at your last meeting. Make your successors run a controversial school closing and boundary process while you get out of town. And what are they gonna do with a closed building anyway?

Oh Christ, not again. I’m sure the Montessori people would love to put it to use for their strange little program, although Nottingham is not really equipped to handle 700 kids worth of busses from SA. Have we even considered maybe taking a holistic look at ALL the boundaries to free up some space where it’s needed and not put kids on a 30 minute cross county bus ride? I know some kids might have to hop on a bus to cross 50 but that seems a lot more preferable than (1) winning an option lottery to (2) bus to a school 10 miles away.

Montessori currently has 515 kids enrolled and Nottingham's permanent capacity is 513. Also, as an option school, Montessori can easily control their enrollment. There is no way to draw boundaries including walk zones to fill all of the schools on the western edge of the county with neighborhood kids. There is nowhere in the county 10 miles from Notthingham. Did you research any of this before you starting typing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move Montessori back to Drew.

The Drew Model School never should have moved out of the Drew School, but it's too late to go back and recreate that. Montessori has been adrift ever since then, and they desperately want a permanent home.

I'm old enough to remember when Montessori said they were ok moving into an old building and didn't need a fancy new space. Well, that didn't age well.

This is the weirdest argument that keeps getting repeated. A renovated career center will not be a fancy new space. Have you seen the building? APS should be happy that MPSA wants it. Otherwise it will remain empty. No other school or program will want to be there and the building will sit empty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move Montessori back to Drew.

The Drew Model School never should have moved out of the Drew School, but it's too late to go back and recreate that. Montessori has been adrift ever since then, and they desperately want a permanent home.

I'm old enough to remember when Montessori said they were ok moving into an old building and didn't need a fancy new space. Well, that didn't age well.

This is the weirdest argument that keeps getting repeated. A renovated career center will not be a fancy new space. Have you seen the building? APS should be happy that MPSA wants it. Otherwise it will remain empty. No other school or program will want to be there and the building will sit empty.

Yes I have seen the building. I recall Montessori saying they'd be ok anywhere including their current location. But now that's not good enough. Move them back to Drew, there's space.

[Anonymous]

There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

APS is proposing bare minimum renovations for both TJ and Swanson. Unfortunate, since TJ already went through previous, long, drawn-out BLPC processes with published designs for new school buildings following many months of hard work.

For this round, it looks like a paint job, new roof, and new fixtures and furnishings are all the school may get--to last for the next 25 years. Although it wasn't intentional, so not a criticism, but the option programs have been getting really beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities. Timing was off for Swanson and TJ, so the neighborhood schools get the shaft in this renovation cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

APS is proposing bare minimum renovations for both TJ and Swanson. Unfortunate, since TJ already went through previous, long, drawn-out BLPC processes with published designs for new school buildings following many months of hard work.

For this round, it looks like a paint job, new roof, and new fixtures and furnishings are all the school may get--to last for the next 25 years. Although it wasn't intentional, so not a criticism, but the option programs have been getting really beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities. Timing was off for Swanson and TJ, so the neighborhood schools get the shaft in this renovation cycle.

If they had opted for cheaper standard designs for new buildings (vs $100M heights) there would be capital for other schools. But someone wanted the LEED award etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

APS is proposing bare minimum renovations for both TJ and Swanson. Unfortunate, since TJ already went through previous, long, drawn-out BLPC processes with published designs for new school buildings following many months of hard work.

For this round, it looks like a paint job, new roof, and new fixtures and furnishings are all the school may get--to last for the next 25 years. Although it wasn't intentional, so not a criticism, but the option programs have been getting really beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities. Timing was off for Swanson and TJ, so the neighborhood schools get the shaft in this renovation cycle.

If they had opted for cheaper standard designs for new buildings (vs $100M heights) there would be capital for other schools. But someone wanted the LEED award etc.

LEED is literally required in Virginia. So ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

APS is proposing bare minimum renovations for both TJ and Swanson. Unfortunate, since TJ already went through previous, long, drawn-out BLPC processes with published designs for new school buildings following many months of hard work.

For this round, it looks like a paint job, new roof, and new fixtures and furnishings are all the school may get--to last for the next 25 years. Although it wasn't intentional, so not a criticism, but the option programs have been getting really beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities. Timing was off for Swanson and TJ, so the neighborhood schools get the shaft in this renovation cycle.

That is not true at all. APS built several really nice new facilities for neighborhood schools - Discovery, Fleet, Cardinal. While Swanson and TJ are old, Kenmore is a really nice facility. Before the move to the new school (which HB and Shriver did not want), the building they were in was very old and not in very good shape. When APS kicked them out for a neighborhood middle school, it renovated it substantially and it's much much nicer now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t enough money to properly fix Swanson and TJ so finding money to renovate Taylor isn’t gonna happen.

APS is proposing bare minimum renovations for both TJ and Swanson. Unfortunate, since TJ already went through previous, long, drawn-out BLPC processes with published designs for new school buildings following many months of hard work.

For this round, it looks like a paint job, new roof, and new fixtures and furnishings are all the school may get--to last for the next 25 years. Although it wasn't intentional, so not a criticism, but the option programs have been getting really beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities. Timing was off for Swanson and TJ, so the neighborhood schools get the shaft in this renovation cycle.

That is not true at all. APS built several really nice new facilities for neighborhood schools - Discovery, Fleet, Cardinal. While Swanson and TJ are old, Kenmore is a really nice facility. Before the move to the new school (which HB and Shriver did not want), the building they were in was very old and not in very good shape. When APS kicked them out for a neighborhood middle school, it renovated it substantially and it's much much nicer now.

The "new" Kenmore was built over 20 years ago. The original Kenmore would have been renovated if it came up for replacement in the current fiscal climate. Swanson received a low budget renovation and air-conditioning in 1994. The historic, arched gym windows at Swanson were replaced about 6 years ago. So yes, APS has invested in neighborhood schools and all three high schools were rebuilt beginning in the 00s. But in terms of timing, after the beautiful Heights and Arlington Tech buildings, it's unfortunate that windowless TJ (which should be rebuilt with the county facility to house a proper indoor track) and Swanson will receive cheapo renovations. Bad timing is all.