APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.arlnow.com/2013/01/23/critical-pedestrian-accident-near-kenmore-middle-school/

Any pedestrian accident is one too many, but citing one incident from 10 years ago is hardly comparable.

I notice that Troll didn't respond to the fatality by Jefferson.

one fatality is awful but NES had three so what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Is there any chance this doesn’t happen? Is there a theoretical plan B being circulated? I can’t bring myself to sift through 144 pages - but I assume the Nottingham supporters have suggested alternatives to the school board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.arlnow.com/2013/01/23/critical-pedestrian-accident-near-kenmore-middle-school/

Any pedestrian accident is one too many, but citing one incident from 10 years ago is hardly comparable.

I notice that Troll didn't respond to the fatality by Jefferson.

The traffic around Nottingham will be significantly different if it becomes a swing space than if it remains a neighborhood school. How is that so difficult to comprehend?

Yes, unfortunately there are traffic fatalities across the county - and yes, the county and APS should study traffic around all schools, especially - ESPECIALLY! - if their actions result in a significant change in traffic patterns to the surrounding community. Just because you think APS hasn't done it in the past (although indeed they have) doesn't mean they can't do it now. I mean they conducted a traffic study to look into the relocation of the Immersion program! Again, APS is haphazardly applying whatever criteria they deem fits without any rhyme or reason. The community should question their decisions and they should be held accountable for their actions.

People aren't denying this. What they're saying is, it won't be any worse than what other schools already have and have endured for years. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

They did the traffic study for the immersion program because they were proposing to move that specific program to a specific location. They have not YET done it for NES because they do not yet have a specific SCHOOL (not necessarily PROGRAM) to be temporarily (a year or two at a time) moved there.

Yes, it's right to ask the questions. What it comes down to, however, is that APS is basing this recommendation on the fact that NES is an under-enrolled school with a walk zone that overlaps with the walk zones of TWO other schools. That's why it's NES instead of DES or JES.

Look, I can underline things too!

You’re talking yourself in circles. So, if it’s bad for others somewhere else at their school, it’s ok for it to be bad at other schools? That’s the baseline we are aspiring to? I’m guessing you are one of the posters that thinks it’s ok for schools to be purposely overcrowded because other schools are also overcrowded? (look! More underlines!)

The lack of APS identifying which schools would use Nottingham as a swing is all but irrelevant to the traffic discussion: they will not be walkable so they’ll require significant resources to bus as well as a significant increase in car traffic.

I am doubtful it will even happen, anyway. By the time APS is projecting for this to happen, enrollment will change or they still won't have a schedule for renovations requiring swing space.

Perhaps. And then they will have closed the school for literally no reason. The worst outcome of all.

No, they aren't going to close the school if they aren't going to use it. If Facilities doesn't get its list and schedule and plans together in time to get projects into the CIP, everything about closing Nottingham will be delayed.

I’m sorry you believe that. The most likely outcome at this point is the school will be closed for several years before it’ll be needed as a swing space. They’d have to begin planning the new construction now and they aren’t.

You are full of crap. DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance this doesn’t happen? Is there a theoretical plan B being circulated? I can’t bring myself to sift through 144 pages - but I assume the Nottingham supporters have suggested alternatives to the school board?

There is no plan B. Staff were squarely asked and this is their only plan. That tells you right off the bat the outcome was preordained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.arlnow.com/2013/01/23/critical-pedestrian-accident-near-kenmore-middle-school/

Any pedestrian accident is one too many, but citing one incident from 10 years ago is hardly comparable.

I notice that Troll didn't respond to the fatality by Jefferson.

The traffic around Nottingham will be significantly different if it becomes a swing space than if it remains a neighborhood school. How is that so difficult to comprehend?

Yes, unfortunately there are traffic fatalities across the county - and yes, the county and APS should study traffic around all schools, especially - ESPECIALLY! - if their actions result in a significant change in traffic patterns to the surrounding community. Just because you think APS hasn't done it in the past (although indeed they have) doesn't mean they can't do it now. I mean they conducted a traffic study to look into the relocation of the Immersion program! Again, APS is haphazardly applying whatever criteria they deem fits without any rhyme or reason. The community should question their decisions and they should be held accountable for their actions.

People aren't denying this. What they're saying is, it won't be any worse than what other schools already have and have endured for years. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

They did the traffic study for the immersion program because they were proposing to move that specific program to a specific location. They have not YET done it for NES because they do not yet have a specific SCHOOL (not necessarily PROGRAM) to be temporarily (a year or two at a time) moved there.

Yes, it's right to ask the questions. What it comes down to, however, is that APS is basing this recommendation on the fact that NES is an under-enrolled school with a walk zone that overlaps with the walk zones of TWO other schools. That's why it's NES instead of DES or JES.

Look, I can underline things too!

You’re talking yourself in circles. So, if it’s bad for others somewhere else at their school, it’s ok for it to be bad at other schools? That’s the baseline we are aspiring to? I’m guessing you are one of the posters that thinks it’s ok for schools to be purposely overcrowded because other schools are also overcrowded? (look! More underlines!)

The lack of APS identifying which schools would use Nottingham as a swing is all but irrelevant to the traffic discussion: they will not be walkable so they’ll require significant resources to bus as well as a significant increase in car traffic.

I am doubtful it will even happen, anyway. By the time APS is projecting for this to happen, enrollment will change or they still won't have a schedule for renovations requiring swing space.

Perhaps. And then they will have closed the school for literally no reason. The worst outcome of all.

I was initially against using NES as swing space, but am now in favor. Mostly because you’re so obnoxious. Seriously, who has the time to comment so often on DCUM?

Great way to make decisions

You’re doing a great job of getting people on your side. Enjoy the consequences!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance this doesn’t happen? Is there a theoretical plan B being circulated? I can’t bring myself to sift through 144 pages - but I assume the Nottingham supporters have suggested alternatives to the school board?

There is no plan B. Staff were squarely asked and this is their only plan. That tells you right off the bat the outcome was preordained.

Right. It’s a done deal. Time to move on.

[Anonymous]

How disappointing for the people living nearby who thought they were able to walk to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How disappointing for the people living nearby who thought they were able to walk to school.

Yeah I don’t understand the glee in which people are so enthusiastic about closing a neighborhood school. This is happening because of APS mismanagement. Disappointing is the right word here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any chance this doesn’t happen? Is there a theoretical plan B being circulated? I can’t bring myself to sift through 144 pages - but I assume the Nottingham supporters have suggested alternatives to the school board?

There is no plan B. Staff were squarely asked and this is their only plan. That tells you right off the bat the outcome was preordained.

Not everything is up for debate. The community isn't the decision-maker of anything except who gets onto the SB. APS is making a recommendation to the SB. The SB can say no, come up with something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How disappointing for the people living nearby who thought they were able to walk to school.

Yeah I don’t understand the glee in which people are so enthusiastic about closing a neighborhood school. This is happening because of APS mismanagement. Disappointing is the right word here.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How disappointing for the people living nearby who thought they were able to walk to school.

The right to attend a school within walking distance, an existing walkable neighborhood school, and zoning to a specific school do not convey with the purchase or the lease of a home. Churches and schools and community facilities are things not expected to change or go away. But they do.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s fair to say it must be disappointing to Nottingham. It is disappointing. I agree. It’s when they start to go ballistic and say that PEOPLE WILL DIE and SCHOOLS WILL BE DISASTEROUSLY OVERCROWDED that the Nottingham people lost me. It’s a reasonable decision. And it doesn’t need extensive public debate. But it is disappointing for families nearby. I get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fair to say it must be disappointing to Nottingham. It is disappointing. I agree. It’s when they start to go ballistic and say that PEOPLE WILL DIE and SCHOOLS WILL BE DISASTEROUSLY OVERCROWDED that the Nottingham people lost me. It’s a reasonable decision. And it doesn’t need extensive public debate. But it is disappointing for families nearby. I get that.

Not an NES parent but this is a beyond stupid decision. APS projections are alway crap, and it’s easy to deal with a temporary drop in enrollment but a temporary spike in enrollment causes havoc. Having slack in the system where you must adjust all students within the resident boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fair to say it must be disappointing to Nottingham. It is disappointing. I agree. It’s when they start to go ballistic and say that PEOPLE WILL DIE and SCHOOLS WILL BE DISASTEROUSLY OVERCROWDED that the Nottingham people lost me. It’s a reasonable decision. And it doesn’t need extensive public debate. But it is disappointing for families nearby. I get that.

I don't have kids at N'ham and I think the traffic concerns are very valid. Three pedestrian deaths is pretty serious.

[Anonymous]

It's tight rolling through Little Falls near that school for sure. I'm amazed how a school that just yesterday was the poster board for overcrowding is not on the chopping block. I'm getting old AF. The only thing that is certain is the blowhards on the School Board don't know shit beyond the shit they throw against the wall.