APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Just clearing up a few things:
-- Current CC funding only builds the new building. No $ allocated for work after that.
-- Work after that would be to renno existing CC and move MPSA there, then tear down MPSA to add more adequate green space for that site. No price on that or funding for that yet.
-- You cannot leave MPSA there long-term. There is not adequate space on the site for 3 buildings in perpetuity, and parking is only being built for 3 buildings. The site needs the open space.
-- I've also heard that the MPSA building is the worse building in all of APS so it makes sense to tear it down eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Phase three is just tearing down the current building to make room for athletic fields. There has been no public discussion about using swing space for the Montessori project - I don’t think the timing even lines up.

There has been however discussion about using the existing Montessori building as swing space once the new building is finished instead of tearing it down, but APS claims it isn’t possible. I mean it’ll be an empty school in center of the county so seems perfect. They say it is in too much disrepair but put the $5 million you’re spending on Nottingham into this idea instead.

1. It would cost much more than it would cost to prepare NES as swing space.
2. The space is needed for the outdoor space for the students at the CC site. JROTC students practice on the parking lot which is now about a third covered in trailers. Archery and PE classes, ability to offer some additional extracurriculars perhaps. And all you people complaining about the buses needed for NES?! You want to put a second "all bused" school onto the site? I've seen the Nottingham neighborhood. Have you seen the CC neighborhood?

Um, they’ll be getting a shiny brand new school, which I believe will be the most expensive in APS history. They can deal with limited green space for a few years.

Again, absolutely not. They’ve already waited YEARS so far for improvements. And green space is just not for CC students but also for the kids that live in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods who have lost so much green space and play areas already. You know, the ones you pretend to care about so much. So if you want to talk about fairness and equity, bring it on, because you will lose.

Better get ready because this is looking more likely as the interim swing space solution. Makes too much sense. APS breaks promises all the time.

They’re still going to close Nottingham, swing space or no. Your enrollment doesn’t justify an entire school and the expense of operating a building and duplicating staff for so few kids, when there are empty seats at adjacent schools. I guess you’d rather it sit empty or APS sell it than allow outsiders to invade your precious neighborhoods?

Yeah that’s not what’s happening. But thanks for playing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just clearing up a few things:
-- Current CC funding only builds the new building. No $ allocated for work after that.
-- Work after that would be to renno existing CC and move MPSA there, then tear down MPSA to add more adequate green space for that site. No price on that or funding for that yet.
-- You cannot leave MPSA there long-term. There is not adequate space on the site for 3 buildings in perpetuity, and parking is only being built for 3 buildings. The site needs the open space.
-- I've also heard that the MPSA building is the worse building in all of APS so it makes sense to tear it down eventually.

Gosh - MPSA wasn't complaining about the building condition when moving out of Drew. My how things of have changed in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The extreme contortions that Nottingham people will go to to preserve an underenrolled school surrounded by other underenrolled schools will never surprise me. These women need jobs, or more fulfilling jobs than they currently have.

They are not under enrolled by a metric any of our neighboring districts use. In fact, other districts argue that 80-90% utilization is “ideal” (in part to avoid constant boundary shifting). This mean all the schools you call “under enrolled” would be called ideal in other places. FWIW, Fairfax has an elementary school currently operating at 38% capacity. THAT is under utilized. Not 85%. A bunch of Fairfax schools are in the 70s and 80s and no one is trying to close them.

Parents have also offered that APS doing more to facilitate intro-district transfers to Nottingham is a way to decrease crowding at other schools, but were told that these transfers haven’t been popular. So the result is to decrease the overall seats available and increase crowding everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The extreme contortions that Nottingham people will go to to preserve an underenrolled school surrounded by other underenrolled schools will never surprise me. These women need jobs, or more fulfilling jobs than they currently have.

They are not under enrolled by a metric any of our neighboring districts use. In fact, other districts argue that 80-90% utilization is “ideal” (in part to avoid constant boundary shifting). This mean all the schools you call “under enrolled” would be called ideal in other places. FWIW, Fairfax has an elementary school currently operating at 38% capacity. THAT is under utilized. Not 85%. A bunch of Fairfax schools are in the 70s and 80s and no one is trying to close them.

Parents have also offered that APS doing more to facilitate intro-district transfers to Nottingham is a way to decrease crowding at other schools, but were told that these transfers haven’t been popular. So the result is to decrease the overall seats available and increase crowding everywhere

Nottingham isn't even the most under-enrolled elementary school in the county! And is barely top 5!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to the point the CCPTA Prez made in her board comment? She said there isn't funding to renovate schools for several years, so APS's plan would close Nottingham and then leave it empty for years. Is this true???

No.

Prove it. It is true.

Questionable analysis. See comment chain on the topic on AEM and on Arlington County Matters FB pages. I don't know that it's appropriate to copy and paste others' comments from there to here.

It's not answered in AEM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The extreme contortions that Nottingham people will go to to preserve an underenrolled school surrounded by other underenrolled schools will never surprise me. These women need jobs, or more fulfilling jobs than they currently have.

They are not under enrolled by a metric any of our neighboring districts use. In fact, other districts argue that 80-90% utilization is “ideal” (in part to avoid constant boundary shifting). This mean all the schools you call “under enrolled” would be called ideal in other places. FWIW, Fairfax has an elementary school currently operating at 38% capacity. THAT is under utilized. Not 85%. A bunch of Fairfax schools are in the 70s and 80s and no one is trying to close them.

Parents have also offered that APS doing more to facilitate intro-district transfers to Nottingham is a way to decrease crowding at other schools, but were told that these transfers haven’t been popular. So the result is to decrease the overall seats available and increase crowding everywhere

Nottingham isn't even the most under-enrolled elementary school in the county! And is barely top 5!

Which ones are more underenrolled?

[Anonymous]

It's not only about under-enrolled. It's also about where there are nearby schools that can absorb the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The extreme contortions that Nottingham people will go to to preserve an underenrolled school surrounded by other underenrolled schools will never surprise me. These women need jobs, or more fulfilling jobs than they currently have.

They are not under enrolled by a metric any of our neighboring districts use. In fact, other districts argue that 80-90% utilization is “ideal” (in part to avoid constant boundary shifting). This mean all the schools you call “under enrolled” would be called ideal in other places. FWIW, Fairfax has an elementary school currently operating at 38% capacity. THAT is under utilized. Not 85%. A bunch of Fairfax schools are in the 70s and 80s and no one is trying to close them.

Parents have also offered that APS doing more to facilitate intro-district transfers to Nottingham is a way to decrease crowding at other schools, but were told that these transfers haven’t been popular. So the result is to decrease the overall seats available and increase crowding everywhere

Nottingham isn't even the most under-enrolled elementary school in the county! And is barely top 5!

What other schools had 2 Kindergartens and are located next to 3 other schools with capacity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Phase three is just tearing down the current building to make room for athletic fields. There has been no public discussion about using swing space for the Montessori project - I don’t think the timing even lines up.

There has been however discussion about using the existing Montessori building as swing space once the new building is finished instead of tearing it down, but APS claims it isn’t possible. I mean it’ll be an empty school in center of the county so seems perfect. They say it is in too much disrepair but put the $5 million you’re spending on Nottingham into this idea instead.

1. It would cost much more than it would cost to prepare NES as swing space.
2. The space is needed for the outdoor space for the students at the CC site. JROTC students practice on the parking lot which is now about a third covered in trailers. Archery and PE classes, ability to offer some additional extracurriculars perhaps. And all you people complaining about the buses needed for NES?! You want to put a second "all bused" school onto the site? I've seen the Nottingham neighborhood. Have you seen the CC neighborhood?

Part of the plan for Nottingham as a swing space is to vastly reduce the amount of green space by adding multiple additional trailers. There’s no perfect solution. However, MPSA is more central and will be an empty elementary school already, requiring zero redistricting to accommodate this plan.

You’ll still get your green space, it’ll just be delayed. As far as busses go, elementary and high school are not at the same times. No issue.

Where is that plan? I thought part of the complaint is that there is no actual plan.

Yes, the CC site will eventually get its green space, just delayed....by years and years. Newsflash: the whole CC site redevelopment has already been delayed. It is only now getting started after the original working group's work was completely dismissed and they started all over.
By the time that green space arrives under your plan, none of the kids attending any of the schools there currently will ever step foot on it. I'm sure you would accept that for your kid, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Phase three is just tearing down the current building to make room for athletic fields. There has been no public discussion about using swing space for the Montessori project - I don’t think the timing even lines up.

There has been however discussion about using the existing Montessori building as swing space once the new building is finished instead of tearing it down, but APS claims it isn’t possible. I mean it’ll be an empty school in center of the county so seems perfect. They say it is in too much disrepair but put the $5 million you’re spending on Nottingham into this idea instead.

1. It would cost much more than it would cost to prepare NES as swing space.
2. The space is needed for the outdoor space for the students at the CC site. JROTC students practice on the parking lot which is now about a third covered in trailers. Archery and PE classes, ability to offer some additional extracurriculars perhaps. And all you people complaining about the buses needed for NES?! You want to put a second "all bused" school onto the site? I've seen the Nottingham neighborhood. Have you seen the CC neighborhood?

Um, they’ll be getting a shiny brand new school, which I believe will be the most expensive in APS history. They can deal with limited green space for a few years.

They have already dealt with it for years. There have been a few graduating classes already all the way through "dealing with it."
Don't even try to compare the cost of the CC site project with the price tag of HBW. It's a far more complicated site and they're still not getting all of the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The extreme contortions that Nottingham people will go to to preserve an underenrolled school surrounded by other underenrolled schools will never surprise me. These women need jobs, or more fulfilling jobs than they currently have.

Their reaction is actually 100 percent the fault of APS. This is what happens when you allow a socioeconomically diverse school district to be so segregated. These Nottingham people are clueless because they live in a bubble of APS’s and the County’s making. Hopefully change is coming soon because this model isn’t sustainable.

What change do you think is actually going to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Phase three is just tearing down the current building to make room for athletic fields. There has been no public discussion about using swing space for the Montessori project - I don’t think the timing even lines up.

There has been however discussion about using the existing Montessori building as swing space once the new building is finished instead of tearing it down, but APS claims it isn’t possible. I mean it’ll be an empty school in center of the county so seems perfect. They say it is in too much disrepair but put the $5 million you’re spending on Nottingham into this idea instead.

1. It would cost much more than it would cost to prepare NES as swing space.
2. The space is needed for the outdoor space for the students at the CC site. JROTC students practice on the parking lot which is now about a third covered in trailers. Archery and PE classes, ability to offer some additional extracurriculars perhaps. And all you people complaining about the buses needed for NES?! You want to put a second "all bused" school onto the site? I've seen the Nottingham neighborhood. Have you seen the CC neighborhood?

Part of the plan for Nottingham as a swing space is to vastly reduce the amount of green space by adding multiple additional trailers. There’s no perfect solution. However, MPSA is more central and will be an empty elementary school already, requiring zero redistricting to accommodate this plan.

You’ll still get your green space, it’ll just be delayed. As far as busses go, elementary and high school are not at the same times. No issue.

Where is that plan? I thought part of the complaint is that there is no actual plan.

Yes, the CC site will eventually get its green space, just delayed....by years and years. Newsflash: the whole CC site redevelopment has already been delayed. It is only now getting started after the original working group's work was completely dismissed and they started all over.
By the time that green space arrives under your plan, none of the kids attending any of the schools there currently will ever step foot on it. I'm sure you would accept that for your kid, right?

What do you think the $5 million is for? A new coat of paint?

Cool, sorry it was delayed. But it was. Amazing how it is ok for other schools to take on the burden of the county's needs but when your number is up, start complaining that it isn't fair. The price tag is outrageous - there's a lot that could be done with that money over multiple schools that isn't being done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just clearing up a few things:
-- Current CC funding only builds the new building. No $ allocated for work after that.
-- Work after that would be to renno existing CC and move MPSA there, then tear down MPSA to add more adequate green space for that site. No price on that or funding for that yet.
-- You cannot leave MPSA there long-term. There is not adequate space on the site for 3 buildings in perpetuity, and parking is only being built for 3 buildings. The site needs the open space.
-- I've also heard that the MPSA building is the worse building in all of APS so it makes sense to tear it down eventually.

Gosh - MPSA wasn't complaining about the building condition when moving out of Drew. My how things of have changed in a few years.

Uh. Yes, they did!
But it was programatically more important to move out of Drew and then work on getting their shiny new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Phase three is just tearing down the current building to make room for athletic fields. There has been no public discussion about using swing space for the Montessori project - I don’t think the timing even lines up.

There has been however discussion about using the existing Montessori building as swing space once the new building is finished instead of tearing it down, but APS claims it isn’t possible. I mean it’ll be an empty school in center of the county so seems perfect. They say it is in too much disrepair but put the $5 million you’re spending on Nottingham into this idea instead.

1. It would cost much more than it would cost to prepare NES as swing space.
2. The space is needed for the outdoor space for the students at the CC site. JROTC students practice on the parking lot which is now about a third covered in trailers. Archery and PE classes, ability to offer some additional extracurriculars perhaps. And all you people complaining about the buses needed for NES?! You want to put a second "all bused" school onto the site? I've seen the Nottingham neighborhood. Have you seen the CC neighborhood?

Um, they’ll be getting a shiny brand new school, which I believe will be the most expensive in APS history. They can deal with limited green space for a few years.

They have already dealt with it for years. There have been a few graduating classes already all the way through "dealing with it."
Don't even try to compare the cost of the CC site project with the price tag of HBW. It's a far more complicated site and they're still not getting all of the basics.

Are you the person that was complaining about a lack of pool? How much more money do you want APS to spend on one project?