APS Closing Nottingham

[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.

Tell me you don’t pay attention to APS without telling me you don’t pay attention to aps.

1 APS is all in the latest educational fad just as they were with Lucy and just as they will be for whatever’s next. It will be a decade before the roll back the latest nonsense.

2 not sure what you mean by “teaching to the test” but ATS outperforms every other APS school, including other option schools, on every available measure. No one comes close to what they are doing with a highly diverse population. Yes, every APS school should be doing what ATS is doing. Why won’t APS allow it?

100% this. All APS elem schools should teach like ATS does, but instead they teach to the test. Heavily and kids still fail their SOLs.

[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:

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.

I was responding to the question “can you please explain how that is arbitrary/capricious/abuse of discretion?”
Please move on from this particular question-you are not intellectually equipped to participate in it. I think you’re looking for the responses focussed on lobby gate at white Nottingham moms who have more money than you.

[Anonymous]

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 just it. It’s not a popular school. It’s significantly underenrolled. The most underenrolled in fact. The students in its boundaries left for private in droves. It may be a well loved school, I’m sure. But it’s not well attended. And that why it is the school to be turned into swing space.

[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.

Cool your jets on your anti-Duran narrative, APE. APS has closed and moved schools before. Former McKinley families are doing just fine at their new north Arlington schools.

The fact is that the spaces available are in the north. And the places that need a full renovation next are either in the north or could be relocated there like MPSA.

[Anonymous]

This is such a shame. I can only imagine how upsetting this must be.

[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.

Stop making things up. If that’s the reason then why is it outperforming other option schools with parents who also needed to navigate the lottery process?

ATS is a good school because it focuses on the basics. It doesn’t follow fads. It’s strict and expects students to be on their best behavior and holds its students to a high bar. For whatever reason APS and many APS parents don’t want APS to implement what makes ATS successful in other APS schools. That’s why minority parents like me flock to ATS. It reminds us of how school is back home. I am against the closing of Nottingham or any other elementary school. It breaks up the community, causes disruptions etc. But getting rid of ATS to keep Nottingham is not the way to go about saving it. Seems like these boundary changes bring the worst out in people where everyone wants to keep their school by getting rid of another one. There is no need for you to pit yourself against another school community.

[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.

Hah, no it’s not like other option schools, well except HBW.

There is HEAVY canvassing in Spanish speaking organizations and community to attract native Spanish speakers to Key and Claremont.

Campbell paints it self as a hippy school and tiger parents steer clear — plus it’s way down at south edge of Arlington so a huge pain for most commutes.

[Anonymous]

My comment doesn’t really have anything to do with Nottingham or this plan, but the overall problem of how to deal with larger renovations. I think they should build out a renovation schedule, and make the school virtual for that particular school year. People who want to opt out of virtual could go to a nearby local school. Every school sucks it up for one virtual year, and the hardship is spread around multiple schools. It will suck for one cohort of 5th graders, yes, but there could still be in person activities planned so that the kids can see each other.

[Anonymous]

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.

Oh this is going to be fun.

1) So your position is that a school board does not have authority to redistrict to establish a swing space for future renovation?! Ever? Even if a school has 50 kids left and swing space is desperately needed? Ok, Good luck with that. It says right in the statute that a school board shall Care for, manage, and control the property of the school division and Provide for the consolidation of schools or redistricting of school boundaries or adopt pupil assignment plans whenever such procedure will contribute to the efficiency of the school division. That's exactly what they are doing here. Not only that, the word SHALL is used, so the board not only has this power, they literally HAVE to do these things. They would be derelict in their duties if they do not.

2) Reliance interests of the Nottingham community?!?!?! Are you a real lawyer? LMAO over here.

3) You may have something here, IDK, haven't dug in. I would lean into this one if I were you. Forget #1 and #2. Or, don't, it's your call, more amusement for the rest of us.

[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 serious with this? You and cotton ball mom are why we can’t have nice things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My comment doesn’t really have anything to do with Nottingham or this plan, but the overall problem of how to deal with larger renovations. I think they should build out a renovation schedule, and make the school virtual for that particular school year. People who want to opt out of virtual could go to a nearby local school. Every school sucks it up for one virtual year, and the hardship is spread around multiple schools. It will suck for one cohort of 5th graders, yes, but there could still be in person activities planned so that the kids can see each other.

This is a very interesting thought and I like it very much but isn't there a state law that prohibits any virtual schooling thanks to the OPEN SCHOOLS NOW/Parent's rights lobbying groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cool your jets on your anti-Duran narrative, APE. APS has closed and moved schools before. Former McKinley families are doing just fine at their new north Arlington schools.

The fact is that the spaces available are in the north. And the places that need a full renovation next are either in the north or could be relocated there like MPSA.

APE's previous antics are coming back to bite them. They made all the teachers leave, then figured they'd go private for a few years while all that gets sorted out, and now they are apoplectic that their precious neighborhood school won't be there when they decide to come back. I remember seeing the Miranda van outside of Nottingham when I walked my kids to school during the pandemic. We all know where APE's base is.

[Anonymous]

Lol folks have been hating on ATS and HB for decades. My favorite are families whose kids attend both even though the school’s’ philosophies couldn’t be more different.

[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:

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.

Agreed, but some are trying to make it one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol folks have been hating on ATS and HB for decades. My favorite are families whose kids attend both even though the school’s’ philosophies couldn’t be more different.

How is that even relevant here?