APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Sounds like Duran sticking it to a wealthier part of North Arlington just because he thinks he can. Congratulations, you got what you paid for - a stupid class warrior who thinks equity means driving people of greater means out of APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Duran sticking it to a wealthier part of North Arlington just because he thinks he can. Congratulations, you got what you paid for - a stupid class warrior who thinks equity means driving people of greater means out of APS.

Upgrading North Arlington schools and making the best use of space is sticking it to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Duran sticking it to a wealthier part of North Arlington just because he thinks he can. Congratulations, you got what you paid for - a stupid class warrior who thinks equity means driving people of greater means out of APS.

This is not that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand why some Nottingham parents on this thread are proposing getting rid of ATS. I am an ATS parent who is very critical of APS’ new proposal. Little did I know that some Nottingham parents solution is to turn against ATS.

Bc fill in the blank:

APS should retain ATS because——————

Because it is hands down the highest performing school in the district AND has an incredibly diverse student body (high El, high farms, majority minority). Everyone likes to pretend it’s wealthy white families going there but It’s not. Won’t be a good look if APS closes the one school that has the lowest achievement gaps for the diverse group that attends.

What does it offer that is different from the rest of APS? It remains true to its mission and doesn’t follow the shiny new fad. In the 70s that was schools without walls before walls came back. More recently it was teaching phonics before phonics came back. Now it’s not hopping on the bandwagon of so-called equitable grading.

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. ATS performs well because they teach to the test. And as for what they offer, literally every other school in the county also has the capacity and the expertise to offer. Draft superintendent memo as follows: "All APS schools will now teach phonics and cursive, and homework is mandatory. Grading will be on a standard 4.0 scale." Done. Time to close ATS.

Not even that. It’s ATS filters for involved parents who seek out the school and navigate the lottery process.

[Anonymous]

Choice schools like ATS house a large number of students. Getting rid of ATS = district-wide boundary study/changes. Nothing brings peace to a school district like a comprehensive boundary change!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand why some Nottingham parents on this thread are proposing getting rid of ATS. I am an ATS parent who is very critical of APS’ new proposal. Little did I know that some Nottingham parents solution is to turn against ATS.

Bc fill in the blank:

APS should retain ATS because——————

Because it is hands down the highest performing school in the district AND has an incredibly diverse student body (high El, high farms, majority minority). Everyone likes to pretend it’s wealthy white families going there but It’s not. Won’t be a good look if APS closes the one school that has the lowest achievement gaps for the diverse group that attends.

What does it offer that is different from the rest of APS? It remains true to its mission and doesn’t follow the shiny new fad. In the 70s that was schools without walls before walls came back. More recently it was teaching phonics before phonics came back. Now it’s not hopping on the bandwagon of so-called equitable grading.

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. ATS performs well because they teach to the test. And as for what they offer, literally every other school in the county also has the capacity and the expertise to offer. Draft superintendent memo as follows: "All APS schools will now teach phonics and cursive, and homework is mandatory. Grading will be on a standard 4.0 scale." Done. Time to close ATS.

Not even that. It’s ATS filters for involved parents who seek out the school and navigate the lottery process.

How is that different from any of the other option schools? All of them filter out parents who apply. ATS outperforms all of the option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand why some Nottingham parents on this thread are proposing getting rid of ATS. I am an ATS parent who is very critical of APS’ new proposal. Little did I know that some Nottingham parents solution is to turn against ATS.

Bc fill in the blank:

APS should retain ATS because——————

Because it is hands down the highest performing school in the district AND has an incredibly diverse student body (high El, high farms, majority minority). Everyone likes to pretend it’s wealthy white families going there but It’s not. Won’t be a good look if APS closes the one school that has the lowest achievement gaps for the diverse group that attends.

What does it offer that is different from the rest of APS? It remains true to its mission and doesn’t follow the shiny new fad. In the 70s that was schools without walls before walls came back. More recently it was teaching phonics before phonics came back. Now it’s not hopping on the bandwagon of so-called equitable grading.

This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. ATS performs well because they teach to the test. And as for what they offer, literally every other school in the county also has the capacity and the expertise to offer. Draft superintendent memo as follows: "All APS schools will now teach phonics and cursive, and homework is mandatory. Grading will be on a standard 4.0 scale." Done. Time to close ATS.

Not even that. It’s ATS filters for involved parents who seek out the school and navigate the lottery process.

How is that different from any of the other option schools? All of them filter out parents who apply. ATS outperforms all of the option schools.

Dp, the point is the demographics of the school is overly involved parents who are seeking out what they perceive, the best educational opportunity in the public school system. The same mentality parents in other APS schools likely have kids with very similar test results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you propose as the alternative, Nottingham parents? Earnest question.

I haven’t seen one substantive argument in this entire thread against APS’s proposal. Their assumptions are all wrong is as much as we’ve gotten. I read their assumptions. They don’t sound all wrong to me.

I haven’t seen any good reason for APS’s proposal to shut down a well established and popular school when we are supposedly at capacity, and only a pandemic away from years of unexpected and significant growth. I don’t think they’ve even justified a need for “swing space” without an idea of the schools that are being renovated or the scope of work to be done with them.

Their data methodology- you can drive a truck through it.

It’s not my job to offer alternatives - it’s theirs to prove this is sound and reasoned decision. Not seeing it.

That’s not how this works. Lolz

Lolz at the idiot who doesn’t know how government is supposed to work. Google “arbitrary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion.”

I don’t think the Administrative Procedure Act applies to APS.

Here you go!

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-87/

Granted, it doesn’t apply to sheer incompetence and bad decision making. That has to be addressed at the polls. But they have to at least pretend to make an informed decision.

Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?

NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria.

But it isn't the Board's role to articulate any of that, to justify any of Staff's recommendations, or to redistrict anything. That's administration's job. The Board sets a budget and votes on the staff recommendations it's supposed to. It isn't supposed to vote and approve on everything.

Besides, redistricting "for the purpose of establishing swing space for future renovation" - especially when buildings are significantly under-enrolled - IS "for the efficiency of the division." Balancing enrollment across facilities and maximizing use of individual facilities are also a matter of "efficiency of the division."

I would argue that Arlington does not even have a specific "accepted community planning criteria." Just because you don't like the option staff is recommending does not mean it violates all legal parameters.

I guess a judge can decide whether the articulated purpose for the rezoning is appropriate, but a plain reading of the boards powers to me, indicates that the board overstepped its authority to redistrict in order to create a swing space. In fact, the report mentioned nothing about enrollment at all in the context of the development of a swing space. It’s clearly just about upgrading the plant facility, which is not an acceptable reason for redistricting. The board does not have broad powers to redistrict and it’s actually glaringly obvious to me that they stepped outside their authority here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you propose as the alternative, Nottingham parents? Earnest question.

I haven’t seen one substantive argument in this entire thread against APS’s proposal. Their assumptions are all wrong is as much as we’ve gotten. I read their assumptions. They don’t sound all wrong to me.

I haven’t seen any good reason for APS’s proposal to shut down a well established and popular school when we are supposedly at capacity, and only a pandemic away from years of unexpected and significant growth. I don’t think they’ve even justified a need for “swing space” without an idea of the schools that are being renovated or the scope of work to be done with them.

Their data methodology- you can drive a truck through it.

It’s not my job to offer alternatives - it’s theirs to prove this is sound and reasoned decision. Not seeing it.

That’s not how this works. Lolz

Lolz at the idiot who doesn’t know how government is supposed to work. Google “arbitrary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion.”

I don’t think the Administrative Procedure Act applies to APS.

Here you go!

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-87/

Granted, it doesn’t apply to sheer incompetence and bad decision making. That has to be addressed at the polls. But they have to at least pretend to make an informed decision.

Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?

NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria.

But it isn't the Board's role to articulate any of that, to justify any of Staff's recommendations, or to redistrict anything. That's administration's job. The Board sets a budget and votes on the staff recommendations it's supposed to. It isn't supposed to vote and approve on everything.

Besides, redistricting "for the purpose of establishing swing space for future renovation" - especially when buildings are significantly under-enrolled - IS "for the efficiency of the division." Balancing enrollment across facilities and maximizing use of individual facilities are also a matter of "efficiency of the division."

I would argue that Arlington does not even have a specific "accepted community planning criteria." Just because you don't like the option staff is recommending does not mean it violates all legal parameters.

I guess a judge can decide whether the articulated purpose for the rezoning is appropriate, but a plain reading of the boards powers to me, indicates that the board overstepped its authority to redistrict in order to create a swing space. In fact, the report mentioned nothing about enrollment at all in the context of the development of a swing space. It’s clearly just about upgrading the plant facility, which is not an acceptable reason for redistricting. The board does not have broad powers to redistrict and it’s actually glaringly obvious to me that they stepped outside their authority here.

Are you really that upset about Sally having to go to a different school for a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you propose as the alternative, Nottingham parents? Earnest question.

I haven’t seen one substantive argument in this entire thread against APS’s proposal. Their assumptions are all wrong is as much as we’ve gotten. I read their assumptions. They don’t sound all wrong to me.

I haven’t seen any good reason for APS’s proposal to shut down a well established and popular school when we are supposedly at capacity, and only a pandemic away from years of unexpected and significant growth. I don’t think they’ve even justified a need for “swing space” without an idea of the schools that are being renovated or the scope of work to be done with them.

Their data methodology- you can drive a truck through it.

It’s not my job to offer alternatives - it’s theirs to prove this is sound and reasoned decision. Not seeing it.

That’s not how this works. Lolz

Lolz at the idiot who doesn’t know how government is supposed to work. Google “arbitrary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion.”

I don’t think the Administrative Procedure Act applies to APS.

Here you go!

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-87/

Granted, it doesn’t apply to sheer incompetence and bad decision making. That has to be addressed at the polls. But they have to at least pretend to make an informed decision.

Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?

NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria.

But it isn't the Board's role to articulate any of that, to justify any of Staff's recommendations, or to redistrict anything. That's administration's job. The Board sets a budget and votes on the staff recommendations it's supposed to. It isn't supposed to vote and approve on everything.

Besides, redistricting "for the purpose of establishing swing space for future renovation" - especially when buildings are significantly under-enrolled - IS "for the efficiency of the division." Balancing enrollment across facilities and maximizing use of individual facilities are also a matter of "efficiency of the division."

I would argue that Arlington does not even have a specific "accepted community planning criteria." Just because you don't like the option staff is recommending does not mean it violates all legal parameters.

I guess a judge can decide whether the articulated purpose for the rezoning is appropriate, but a plain reading of the boards powers to me, indicates that the board overstepped its authority to redistrict in order to create a swing space. In fact, the report mentioned nothing about enrollment at all in the context of the development of a swing space. It’s clearly just about upgrading the plant facility, which is not an acceptable reason for redistricting. The board does not have broad powers to redistrict and it’s actually glaringly obvious to me that they stepped outside their authority here.

Are you really that upset about Sally having to go to a different school for a year?

What a great retort for when you can’t articulate a legally insightful response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what other school is going to be moved into this swing space? Taylor for a complete rebuild? Then Mpsa for same reason? They aren’t going to use it as swing space for south Arlington schools.

Does APS even have that level of bonding capacity after the career center?

As others have speculated, I think it’s Taylor and Jamestown. Both need upgrades especially with electrical and HVAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you propose as the alternative, Nottingham parents? Earnest question.

I haven’t seen one substantive argument in this entire thread against APS’s proposal. Their assumptions are all wrong is as much as we’ve gotten. I read their assumptions. They don’t sound all wrong to me.

I haven’t seen any good reason for APS’s proposal to shut down a well established and popular school when we are supposedly at capacity, and only a pandemic away from years of unexpected and significant growth. I don’t think they’ve even justified a need for “swing space” without an idea of the schools that are being renovated or the scope of work to be done with them.

Their data methodology- you can drive a truck through it.

It’s not my job to offer alternatives - it’s theirs to prove this is sound and reasoned decision. Not seeing it.

That’s not how this works. Lolz

Lolz at the idiot who doesn’t know how government is supposed to work. Google “arbitrary and capricious” and “abuse of discretion.”

I don’t think the Administrative Procedure Act applies to APS.

Here you go!

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-87/

Granted, it doesn’t apply to sheer incompetence and bad decision making. That has to be addressed at the polls. But they have to at least pretend to make an informed decision.

Ok, I'll bite. If APS decides to close an underenrolled school to use the building as the most cost-effective option to house students in while the school division does long overdue repairs on very old school facilities, can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?

NP but here is what I would say:

1 - The Board does not have the authority to redistrict for the purpose of establishing a swing space for future renovation. Redistricting authority is limited to the efficiency of the division, and in fact, maintenance of the schools is treated as a separate authority. While the Board certainly has redistricting authority, this authority is not broad and in fact, very specific in scope. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter7/section22.1-79/

2 - Second, I would argue that the failure of the Board to articulate specific renovation projects renders Board's justification of Nottingham as a swing space arbitrary and capricious. The Board failed to balance the reliance interests of the Nottingham community against its renovation needs - in fact it failed to even articulate what such "future renovation needs" would be at all.

3- Third, I would argue that in the evaluation of the 16 sites that met the Board's criteria for swing space, impact on the immediate community was neither evaluated nor even considered. The seven evaluation criteria appear arbitrary and not aligned with any accepted community planning criteria.

But it isn't the Board's role to articulate any of that, to justify any of Staff's recommendations, or to redistrict anything. That's administration's job. The Board sets a budget and votes on the staff recommendations it's supposed to. It isn't supposed to vote and approve on everything.

Besides, redistricting "for the purpose of establishing swing space for future renovation" - especially when buildings are significantly under-enrolled - IS "for the efficiency of the division." Balancing enrollment across facilities and maximizing use of individual facilities are also a matter of "efficiency of the division."

I would argue that Arlington does not even have a specific "accepted community planning criteria." Just because you don't like the option staff is recommending does not mean it violates all legal parameters.

I guess a judge can decide whether the articulated purpose for the rezoning is appropriate, but a plain reading of the boards powers to me, indicates that the board overstepped its authority to redistrict in order to create a swing space. In fact, the report mentioned nothing about enrollment at all in the context of the development of a swing space. It’s clearly just about upgrading the plant facility, which is not an acceptable reason for redistricting. The board does not have broad powers to redistrict and it’s actually glaringly obvious to me that they stepped outside their authority here.

Are you really that upset about Sally having to go to a different school for a year?

What a great retort for when you can’t articulate a legally insightful response.

This is not a legal issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good god you’re complaining about elementary cohorts being split too? That happens all over the County.

Yep. Full complaining. Do not like it and would prefer it not happen to my kid. Sorry you don’t care.

I am hoping you're a troll because if not, you are an awful person and an embarrassment to other (reasonable) Nottingham parents, including me. APS decisions should be based on what's best for the most kids, not just yours. The worst case scenario here for Nottingham students is that they will go to a different school nearby. Which will be TOTALLY FINE.

Keeping cohorts together is a stated goal of APS. Not a troll. Lots of parents want this. Duh. This, I am allowed to complain that Taylor — not Nottingham— is being split again after finally being cohorted together for middle school. Note that DHMS opened four years ago and the staff APS are now re-jiggering the boundaries because they couldn’t get it right a couple of years ago.

And what is best for all students is not what this process is at all about. APS has proven that time and time again.

And if your kid gets moved to a nearby school they will become in a cohort with those kids. For instance, your kid and a bunch of other Nottingham kids go to Tuckahoe. They then mostly go on together to Williamsburg and Yorktown. I get this being disappointing for the kids who can currently walk and will now be bussed. But then again I’ve made friends with other parents at the bus stop and my kids love riding the bus. So I think even that will be ok. I get that change can feel upsetting at first and it’s sad when something you’re happy with is taken away. But if you take a step back, it really will be ok. There are other great schools nearby full of kids your kids will eventually go to MS/HS with anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to understand why some Nottingham parents on this thread are proposing getting rid of ATS. I am an ATS parent who is very critical of APS’ new proposal. Little did I know that some Nottingham parents solution is to turn against ATS.

Because there. I reason for ATS to exist. Why should some kids who are savvy get a better education because they won some lottery? This is public school. Should be the same crappy education for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long term Nottingham site can be ATS 2.

We don't need an ATS 2. We don't need any more "option" schools. We need to just make all schools provide optimum educational effectiveness.