Is Nottingham going to be the new option school in Arlington or its still being decided?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is time for the Save Ohio Street t-shirts! We need to Make Nottingham Great Again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s ATS. Not ARS.
And this is what Nottingham should argue. Not traffic.

Nottingham has been making these points to the people who count, which isn’t the typical DCUM poster. Conversation here has been diverted to lesser arguments like traffic because people who want to rag on Nottingham focus on those rather than the stronger arguments to which they have no counters.

[Anonymous]

If the only move would be to put an immersion program at Barcroft, how do the crowding numbers for that area compare to either Key or Claremont? Can it really absorb an option program? I thought the reason an option move was being seriously considered was because Nottingham and the schools close by are expected to have extra seats as the result of Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the only move would be to put an immersion program at Barcroft, how do the crowding numbers for that area compare to either Key or Claremont? Can it really absorb an option program? I thought the reason an option move was being seriously considered was because Nottingham and the schools close by are expected to have extra seats as the result of Reed.

South Arlington will also have excess seats after Fleet opens, and will have the same kind of boundary challenges they’re supposedly concerned about around Nottingham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only move would be to put an immersion program at Barcroft, how do the crowding numbers for that area compare to either Key or Claremont? Can it really absorb an option program? I thought the reason an option move was being seriously considered was because Nottingham and the schools close by are expected to have extra seats as the result of Reed.

South Arlington will also have excess seats after Fleet opens, and will have the same kind of boundary challenges they’re supposedly concerned about around Nottingham.

Stop with the fake news, APS is going to tear down a South Arlington ES (Henry) to build a High School. It doesn't take a genius to realize we will have extra capacity in NW Arlington.

[Anonymous]

If APS decides not to relocate any of the choice schools to Nottingham (or its immediate neighbors), it becomes much harder to move any of the choice schools as part of this boundary process. Nottingham may not be an ideal location, but there’s going to be a lot about the boundary changes that is less than ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the only move would be to put an immersion program at Barcroft, how do the crowding numbers for that area compare to either Key or Claremont? Can it really absorb an option program? I thought the reason an option move was being seriously considered was because Nottingham and the schools close by are expected to have extra seats as the result of Reed.

South Arlington will also have excess seats after Fleet opens, and will have the same kind of boundary challenges they’re supposedly concerned about around Nottingham.

Stop with the fake news, APS is going to tear down a South Arlington ES (Henry) to build a High School. It doesn't take a genius to realize we will have extra capacity in NW Arlington.

If they draw Ashlawn’s boundaries across 50, which they’ve foreshadowed in other ways beyond just suggesting it in the sexond analysis, there will be no excess seats in NW.

[Anonymous]

The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

[Anonymous]

My take is that they wanted to free up seats at Key, and they thought it would be easy enough to move Key to ATS and ATS to Nottingham. That plan seems to be falling apart so they’re throwing Barcroft into the mix. I’m not saying Barcroft would be a bad location for an immersion school, but it’s probably going to completely mess with the projected seats and overcrowding issues in the south. So essentially, shifting the problem of a shortage of seats from the north to the south to keep Nottingham neighborhood and ATS centrally located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My take is that they wanted to free up seats at Key, and they thought it would be easy enough to move Key to ATS and ATS to Nottingham. That plan seems to be falling apart so they’re throwing Barcroft into the mix. I’m not saying Barcroft would be a bad location for an immersion school, but it’s probably going to completely mess with the projected seats and overcrowding issues in the south. So essentially, shifting the problem of a shortage of seats from the north to the south to keep Nottingham neighborhood and ATS centrally located.

Regardless of whether Barcroft should hold an option program, more than 2/3 of its neighborhood population ops out, in part as a result of its year-round calendar. APS is challenged to fill the seats in that building and needs to look at whether they can be filled via an option program, or doing away with the year-round calendar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So as much as I love me some good Nottingham ribbing. And believe me I do; there are many compelling reasons not to put an option there:
1. Proposal to put immersion at Barcroft and leave ARS came from principals and should get a great deal of weight. How often do principals weigh in on this stuff? Most of them have worked in multiple schools around the county. They have more objective view of what’s best.
2. Once in a lifetime chance to maybe rearrange some of the planning units in our poorest elementaries and improve outcomes at all schools.
3. Compelling reasons to keep our options central to encourage the most disadvantaged children to attend and escape their overly poor elementary.
4. NW population growth isn’t going to slow down. Take transfers if there’s room for 2021-2024. You’ll need all those NW seats after that anyway.

Where did you hear the Barcroft idea came from principals, and which ones? Not doubting you, I just hadn't heard that before and it gives a very different color to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Yep. Option to Nottingham is really just a veiled effort to keep the Southies on their side of the DMZ.

Yup is that why North Arlington keeps Jamestown empty?

The only people who want Jamestown empty are Jamestown people. The rest of North Arlington would like to see Jamestown take on its fair share of the overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The boundaries should go across 50. Stop with the N S. Ash lawn and Long Branch should cross 50. We are one county. I am hoping the board acts courageous. 50 isn’t even close to the middle of the county.

Long Branch already crosses 50. The Fleet location is going to make it really hard to justify putting anything S of 50 that is contiguous with Long Branch into its boundary.