APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares if Nottingham pta moms leave Arlington. Seriously. No one.

I believe this is true. The problem is when all the north Arlington pta moms leave and you are stuck in Alexandria public schools. Good luck!

Gee, I never thought of it that way. After all, it's the north Arlington PTA moms that determine the quality of my south arlington schools. If they leave, surely our teachers and involved south Arlington parents will leave, too.

You have to understand that losing a highly motivated, highly involved UMC population from your school system does not bode well for its future, right? Not a threat, just a fact.

We have an example of what that looks like next door and in just about every town in the southern United States.

We all have an interest in rational decision making from APS because we all pay for it and are affected by it.

I commit to be rational and think of the whole, if my neighbors in other schools can commit to not be vindictive based on perceived slights from 10 years ago.

This is just hysteria and get over yourself. 1. All of Nottingham is not going anywhere even if the school closes. Most people don't have that opttion and carry on. 2. You are a sliver of the UMC crowd in Arlington. A sliver. "All the north Arlington PTA moms" are not going anywhere.

So to recap, get over yourself.

. Is that true? I mean, APS says they oevrestimated seats in N Arlington by 1000 seats? Is that the “sliver” you are talking about? Because I agree with you in theory if it’s a sliver, but it appears to be a potential sea change. I just want to understand and it appears to me that you and APS are dismissing this. If it’s 1000 seats … then that is meaningful.

This isn’t about APS estimates potentially being off. This is about a few families at Nottingham who can’t be inconvenienced to go to school at Discovery or Tuckahoe. Each of which is almost so close you could throw a rock and hit it. The families that go private because of that were never committed to public school. And walkability clearly isn’t the motivating factor if they leave for private!!

This is not at all what it’s about. We don’t want a bunch of buses and cars coming through our neighborhood.

Take some advice from someone who has been a part of multiple boundary changes and watched even more over the years in APS. The traffic argument will get you nowhere. Wherever the swing pace is located will get more traffic. Nottingham COULD get some traction with the unusual number of deaths along Yorktown Blvd. However, pushing that could backfire. Right now there are a lot of kids walking to that site. If you claim it’s super dangerous, then why not turn it into a school where kids are bussed or driven. Yes, neighborhood people would still be pedestrians but a lot of pedestrians would be removed if there were no walkers. So making Nottingham swing space BECAUSE of the dangerous walking situation might be the likely result. I’d stop focusing on traffic and focus on other viable alternatives besides another school site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok but the enrollment numbers show Nottingham is not needed as a neighborhood school. So what to do with it? Maybe a community center swap?

[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.

Stupid comment. A 5 year old who enters K is a completely different kid when they enter MS. HB might just be the best school fit for that kid who was a. prepped well by ATS to enter HB or b. the kid never quite fit the bill at ATS so HB ends up being a good choice.

Same old recycled commentary comes up every time some ninny gets pissed about changes to their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares if Nottingham pta moms leave Arlington. Seriously. No one.

I believe this is true. The problem is when all the north Arlington pta moms leave and you are stuck in Alexandria public schools. Good luck!

Gee, I never thought of it that way. After all, it's the north Arlington PTA moms that determine the quality of my south arlington schools. If they leave, surely our teachers and involved south Arlington parents will leave, too.

You have to understand that losing a highly motivated, highly involved UMC population from your school system does not bode well for its future, right? Not a threat, just a fact.

We have an example of what that looks like next door and in just about every town in the southern United States.

We all have an interest in rational decision making from APS because we all pay for it and are affected by it.

I commit to be rational and think of the whole, if my neighbors in other schools can commit to not be vindictive based on perceived slights from 10 years ago.

This is just hysteria and get over yourself. 1. All of Nottingham is not going anywhere even if the school closes. Most people don't have that opttion and carry on. 2. You are a sliver of the UMC crowd in Arlington. A sliver. "All the north Arlington PTA moms" are not going anywhere.

So to recap, get over yourself.

. Is that true? I mean, APS says they oevrestimated seats in N Arlington by 1000 seats? Is that the “sliver” you are talking about? Because I agree with you in theory if it’s a sliver, but it appears to be a potential sea change. I just want to understand and it appears to me that you and APS are dismissing this. If it’s 1000 seats … then that is meaningful.

This isn’t about APS estimates potentially being off. This is about a few families at Nottingham who can’t be inconvenienced to go to school at Discovery or Tuckahoe. Each of which is almost so close you could throw a rock and hit it. The families that go private because of that were never committed to public school. And walkability clearly isn’t the motivating factor if they leave for private!!

This is not at all what it’s about. We don’t want a bunch of buses and cars coming through our neighborhood.

Take some advice from someone who has been a part of multiple boundary changes and watched even more over the years in APS. The traffic argument will get you nowhere. Wherever the swing pace is located will get more traffic. Nottingham COULD get some traction with the unusual number of deaths along Yorktown Blvd. However, pushing that could backfire. Right now there are a lot of kids walking to that site. If you claim it’s super dangerous, then why not turn it into a school where kids are bussed or driven. Yes, neighborhood people would still be pedestrians but a lot of pedestrians would be removed if there were no walkers. So making Nottingham swing space BECAUSE of the dangerous walking situation might be the likely result. I’d stop focusing on traffic and focus on other viable alternatives besides another school site.

Easy for you to say, have you had 3 adult fatalities by cars within a block of your school in recent years? It’s not the kids being hit.

[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?

I wonder if APS articulated it as closing a school due to under enrollment (saving money on salaries etc), then they’d have to redistribute the kids from the closed school. The swing space issue goes to keeping the building operational in case they need to move another school there temporarily OR enrollment in that area rises to the level of needing another neighborhood elementary school.

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

Best comment of the thread. Keep hustling, lawyer and cotton ball moms.

[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?

I wonder if APS articulated it as closing a school due to under enrollment (saving money on salaries etc), then they’d have to redistribute the kids from the closed school. The swing space issue goes to keeping the building operational in case they need to move another school there temporarily OR enrollment in that area rises to the level of needing another neighborhood elementary school.

I think it’s actually a pretty creative solution to upgrading the current schools, especially in an area that has three under-enrolled schools within walking distance of each other. Does it suck for these families, yes. Our kids moved during elementary school and it was difficult, but they are resilient and made new friends quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The last thing APS boundRy wars needs is for APE to get involved. They are already posting about it on their Facebook page. Sounds like some of them are posting here too when they complain about equity and Duran. Make the popcorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok but the enrollment numbers show Nottingham is not needed as a neighborhood school. So what to do with it? Maybe a community center swap?

Isnt the under enrollment a function of 1) APS enrollment predictions are terrible and
2) the Nottingham (and other) north Arlington kids left for private school? What am I missing?

The first appears to me be a long-standing truth. Which is what causes the frequency of these wasteful boundary changes.

The second is a new unknown. If the impact is significant, then don’t we need some explanation of whether this is a short or long term trend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares if Nottingham pta moms leave Arlington. Seriously. No one.

I believe this is true. The problem is when all the north Arlington pta moms leave and you are stuck in Alexandria public schools. Good luck!

Gee, I never thought of it that way. After all, it's the north Arlington PTA moms that determine the quality of my south arlington schools. If they leave, surely our teachers and involved south Arlington parents will leave, too.

You have to understand that losing a highly motivated, highly involved UMC population from your school system does not bode well for its future, right? Not a threat, just a fact.

We have an example of what that looks like next door and in just about every town in the southern United States.

We all have an interest in rational decision making from APS because we all pay for it and are affected by it.

I commit to be rational and think of the whole, if my neighbors in other schools can commit to not be vindictive based on perceived slights from 10 years ago.

This is just hysteria and get over yourself. 1. All of Nottingham is not going anywhere even if the school closes. Most people don't have that opttion and carry on. 2. You are a sliver of the UMC crowd in Arlington. A sliver. "All the north Arlington PTA moms" are not going anywhere.

So to recap, get over yourself.

. Is that true? I mean, APS says they oevrestimated seats in N Arlington by 1000 seats? Is that the “sliver” you are talking about? Because I agree with you in theory if it’s a sliver, but it appears to be a potential sea change. I just want to understand and it appears to me that you and APS are dismissing this. If it’s 1000 seats … then that is meaningful.

This isn’t about APS estimates potentially being off. This is about a few families at Nottingham who can’t be inconvenienced to go to school at Discovery or Tuckahoe. Each of which is almost so close you could throw a rock and hit it. The families that go private because of that were never committed to public school. And walkability clearly isn’t the motivating factor if they leave for private!!

This is not at all what it’s about. We don’t want a bunch of buses and cars coming through our neighborhood.

Take some advice from someone who has been a part of multiple boundary changes and watched even more over the years in APS. The traffic argument will get you nowhere. Wherever the swing pace is located will get more traffic. Nottingham COULD get some traction with the unusual number of deaths along Yorktown Blvd. However, pushing that could backfire. Right now there are a lot of kids walking to that site. If you claim it’s super dangerous, then why not turn it into a school where kids are bussed or driven. Yes, neighborhood people would still be pedestrians but a lot of pedestrians would be removed if there were no walkers. So making Nottingham swing space BECAUSE of the dangerous walking situation might be the likely result. I’d stop focusing on traffic and focus on other viable alternatives besides another school site.

Yes, but we will still live in the community, be walking in our own neighborhood, etc. Only one of the pedestrian deaths was related to the school, the others were adults walking in their neighborhood. Saying “great, don’t walk to school if it’s so dangerous” doesn’t solve for making it more dangerous for everyone, students or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares if Nottingham pta moms leave Arlington. Seriously. No one.

I believe this is true. The problem is when all the north Arlington pta moms leave and you are stuck in Alexandria public schools. Good luck!

Gee, I never thought of it that way. After all, it's the north Arlington PTA moms that determine the quality of my south arlington schools. If they leave, surely our teachers and involved south Arlington parents will leave, too.

You have to understand that losing a highly motivated, highly involved UMC population from your school system does not bode well for its future, right? Not a threat, just a fact.

We have an example of what that looks like next door and in just about every town in the southern United States.

We all have an interest in rational decision making from APS because we all pay for it and are affected by it.

I commit to be rational and think of the whole, if my neighbors in other schools can commit to not be vindictive based on perceived slights from 10 years ago.

This is just hysteria and get over yourself. 1. All of Nottingham is not going anywhere even if the school closes. Most people don't have that opttion and carry on. 2. You are a sliver of the UMC crowd in Arlington. A sliver. "All the north Arlington PTA moms" are not going anywhere.

So to recap, get over yourself.

. Is that true? I mean, APS says they oevrestimated seats in N Arlington by 1000 seats? Is that the “sliver” you are talking about? Because I agree with you in theory if it’s a sliver, but it appears to be a potential sea change. I just want to understand and it appears to me that you and APS are dismissing this. If it’s 1000 seats … then that is meaningful.

This isn’t about APS estimates potentially being off. This is about a few families at Nottingham who can’t be inconvenienced to go to school at Discovery or Tuckahoe. Each of which is almost so close you could throw a rock and hit it. The families that go private because of that were never committed to public school. And walkability clearly isn’t the motivating factor if they leave for private!!

This is not at all what it’s about. We don’t want a bunch of buses and cars coming through our neighborhood.

Take some advice from someone who has been a part of multiple boundary changes and watched even more over the years in APS. The traffic argument will get you nowhere. Wherever the swing pace is located will get more traffic. Nottingham COULD get some traction with the unusual number of deaths along Yorktown Blvd. However, pushing that could backfire. Right now there are a lot of kids walking to that site. If you claim it’s super dangerous, then why not turn it into a school where kids are bussed or driven. Yes, neighborhood people would still be pedestrians but a lot of pedestrians would be removed if there were no walkers. So making Nottingham swing space BECAUSE of the dangerous walking situation might be the likely result. I’d stop focusing on traffic and focus on other viable alternatives besides another school site.

Yes, but we will still live in the community, be walking in our own neighborhood, etc. Only one of the pedestrian deaths was related to the school, the others were adults walking in their neighborhood. Saying “great, don’t walk to school if it’s so dangerous” doesn’t solve for making it more dangerous for everyone, students or otherwise.

But they’ve instituted significant traffic calming since then. Four way stops at multiple locations. Hard to think that traffic safety is going to carry the day now that the county gave that neighborhood every fix they asked for. Again, in my experience, traffic will not be your winning argument. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I think many people should be upset over this-“underemrollment” means there are not 27 kids packed into a classroom. The 27 maximum permitted per classroom as a new phenomenon, previously was 24, and before that 22 or something like that. Let’s not act like Nottingham has 10 or 12 kids in the classroom. There are plenty of kids there. “ Underenrollment” is a misleading term when you think about what full enrollment looks like. Nottingham is actually closer to an ideal student ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think many people should be upset over this-“underemrollment” means there are not 27 kids packed into a classroom. The 27 maximum permitted per classroom as a new phenomenon, previously was 24, and before that 22 or something like that. Let’s not act like Nottingham has 10 or 12 kids in the classroom. There are plenty of kids there. “ Underenrollment” is a misleading term when you think about what full enrollment looks like. Nottingham is actually closer to an ideal student ratio.

Hahaha. That’s the entitlement speaking. APS has a set class size. Your school doesn’t get to be under that class size. The school should be used to the set seat number. Not underenrolled relative to the rest of the country but because you think that’s best. If that’s best, it should be the number for ALL schools, not Nottingham. You need to get some perspective before you bring these arguments public. You will be crushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think many people should be upset over this-“underemrollment” means there are not 27 kids packed into a classroom. The 27 maximum permitted per classroom as a new phenomenon, previously was 24, and before that 22 or something like that. Let’s not act like Nottingham has 10 or 12 kids in the classroom. There are plenty of kids there. “ Underenrollment” is a misleading term when you think about what full enrollment looks like. Nottingham is actually closer to an ideal student ratio.

There are fewer classes than in other schools. Having three classes in a grade when the school can support four or five.

[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.

You must not have had your kids virtual during covid. They don’t learn anything and it’s difficult/impossible for parents to work full time. Missing a year of elementary is actually a big deal and could have far reaching ramifications (think maybe not recovering until highschool). It’s not just a social hit— they literally don’t learn anything that year.