APS Closing Nottingham

[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

We're not operating according to other district's definitions.
I don't disagree on the basic idea of 80% being "ok." However, multiple neighboring schools at less than 90% deserves some evaluation and consideration.
And stop it with the transfer nonsense. People keep bringing that up like it's a novel idea. APS ALREADY ALLOWS neighborhood transfers to under-capacity schools. APS has also tried niche programs for each school to encourage people to choose other schools. There's a whole history of providing incentives to encourage transfers. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That isn't what the PP was complaining about - they don't even want to close Nottingham for swing space, they just want to close it to save money because it is so under enrolled according to them. I was just pointing out that there are other schools that are even more under enrolled, so if you want to claim you're closing it so save money and its wasteful to keep it open, start at the bottom. And if the complaint then is that those underenrolled schools don't have enough schools nearby with capacity, shouldn't they then be redistricting to better balance out that area?

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

OMG. You are truly astoundingly dense.

As to your question, Yes, actually. $5m does include a fresh coat of paint. $5 million is not an exact budget for a precise plan. It is an estimate based on the types of things they think they will need to do, including paint and space for additional buses. Personally, I don't see why it would need much at all if NES isn't in need of a renovation to begin with.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

No. I didn't care about a pool. I was fine with field trips to Long Bridge. For the amount of time kids are actually in the pool for PE class, not a tremendous issue for me.

The original project would have cost more but this current plan is less cost-effective. Delays add cost. I've toured the CC building, not having kids attending there. Those kids deserve better. And now, they've added an entire new program and crammed it into the same building. CTE classes are more limited for the neighborhood high school kids as a result. This is a benefit to the whole district.

If you're so money-conscious, you should support the NES plan because it is the least expensive option.

[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?

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.

OMG. You are truly astoundingly dense.

As to your question, Yes, actually. $5m does include a fresh coat of paint. $5 million is not an exact budget for a precise plan. It is an estimate based on the types of things they think they will need to do, including paint and space for additional buses. Personally, I don't see why it would need much at all if NES isn't in need of a renovation to begin with.

Yes, and that's exactly the problem - no plan! Oh, and NES needs space for additional buses? You mean they are going to add more buses beyond the 2 that currently serve the school? So a significant change from what the school was designed for? So you do admit NES isn't currently capable of handling more buses!

[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.

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?

No. I didn't care about a pool. I was fine with field trips to Long Bridge. For the amount of time kids are actually in the pool for PE class, not a tremendous issue for me.

The original project would have cost more but this current plan is less cost-effective. Delays add cost. I've toured the CC building, not having kids attending there. Those kids deserve better. And now, they've added an entire new program and crammed it into the same building. CTE classes are more limited for the neighborhood high school kids as a result. This is a benefit to the whole district.

If you're so money-conscious, you should support the NES plan because it is the least expensive option.

You know why APS has to be so budget-conscious? Because they are spending $180 million on ONE project!

[Anonymous]

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

The question was only which schools were more under enrolled than NES. Sensitive much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

The question was only which schools were more under enrolled than NES. Sensitive much?

The question came up in the context of which other schools could be closed for underenrollment. Innovation doesn’t fit that description. People on this board love to spew random factoids in a vaccuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

Same goes for Randolph (Barcroft apts). The upcoming ES boundary change will move kids from Abingdon to Drew, so it will be full. Discovery is a palace and isn’t going to be made swing space. I don’t know the Long Branch numbed, but they didn’t have only 2 K classes, and the first few multiplexes allowed by MM have been approved in this zone. Really, Nottingham and all the adjacent zones aren’t getting more density any time soon, and the cost of housing is so high that more families are opting for private, so there just isn’t a reason to expect the decline to reverse course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

Same goes for Randolph (Barcroft apts). The upcoming ES boundary change will move kids from Abingdon to Drew, so it will be full. Discovery is a palace and isn’t going to be made swing space. I don’t know the Long Branch numbed, but they didn’t have only 2 K classes, and the first few multiplexes allowed by MM have been approved in this zone. Really, Nottingham and all the adjacent zones aren’t getting more density any time soon, and the cost of housing is so high that more families are opting for private, so there just isn’t a reason to expect the decline to reverse course.

Ok so Nottingham had 2 K classes last year. But things were weird after pandemic school closure. How many K classes does Nottingham have this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

OMG. You are truly astoundingly dense.

As to your question, Yes, actually. $5m does include a fresh coat of paint. $5 million is not an exact budget for a precise plan. It is an estimate based on the types of things they think they will need to do, including paint and space for additional buses. Personally, I don't see why it would need much at all if NES isn't in need of a renovation to begin with.

Yes, and that's exactly the problem - no plan! Oh, and NES needs space for additional buses? You mean they are going to add more buses beyond the 2 that currently serve the school? So a significant change from what the school was designed for? So you do admit NES isn't currently capable of handling more buses!

I suspect it could already handle more than two buses. Nevertheless, IDGF whether it can or not. The whole point was what the $5M is for to prepare it as swing space. If that includes changing something to facilitate more buses, fine. Using your logic, you could say the current building has old paint and we have to admit it has old paint. OK. It has old paint. Part of the $5M will go to new paint!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just answer the question, which ones are under enrolled?

Drew, Discovery, Long Branch, Innovation, Randolph - all currently are or are projected to be more under enrolled than Nottingham. Nottingham isn't even top 5.

Innovation is going to be filled up with hundreds of units from an affordable housing development in Rosslyn in the next 3ish years. Your privilege in not knowing this is astounding.

Same goes for Randolph (Barcroft apts). The upcoming ES boundary change will move kids from Abingdon to Drew, so it will be full. Discovery is a palace and isn’t going to be made swing space. I don’t know the Long Branch numbed, but they didn’t have only 2 K classes, and the first few multiplexes allowed by MM have been approved in this zone. Really, Nottingham and all the adjacent zones aren’t getting more density any time soon, and the cost of housing is so high that more families are opting for private, so there just isn’t a reason to expect the decline to reverse course.

It should be noted that Long Branch is also one of the smallest, if not the smallest, capacity and land area elementary. Randolph is very limited in land space as well. You know, since everyone's claiming NES will have to get a slew of trailers to be used as swing space.....so these schools are less suited for the task.

Drew, however, is quite a large building. But the surrounding schools don't have capacity to shift Drew kids elsewhere like another school might....like Nottingham.