APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

My family is immune compromised and we were all about staying home as long as we could. I now realize what a mistake both academically and socially. When my kids went to middle school, the teachers were shocked at how far behind they (as a whole) were in math as compared with Past years. Luckily they caught them up, but it was not a good situation for the teachers or the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why you would have the option of going to another school for a year.

[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.

I totally agree with this. I felt like they slipped the class size increase through. And now that they have space—I get it it’s in N Arlington and those elitists should burn—too bad sucker. It’s so frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nottingham has some grades that are quite fully enrolled. Really big classes in K and 1.

[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.

Again, the Board is not the one making this proposal. This is APS STAFF and SUPERINTENDENT managing facilities (and enrollment, whether this document specifically cites it or not).

[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.

No thanks. That would be worse for the kids on multiple levels, starting with the quality of their education and including social development and maturity. Far worse than moving physical locations for a year. Using swing space doesn't tear them apart - they still all go to school together. Virtual school tears everyone apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this. I felt like they slipped the class size increase through. And now that they have space—I get it it’s in N Arlington and those elitists should burn—too bad sucker. It’s so frustrating.

Both of you need to get some facts.

Only 2 kindergarten classes this past year. Both at or above class size max. 3 classes in most of the higher grades and mostly at or just under the max size. Similar to many of the elementaries. 5th grades classes are among the smallest.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Class-Size-Report-2022-23_FINAL-2.pdf

[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?

Here's an idea: how about using it for swing space?!
Then, once some renovations are done, if enrollment from that part of the county goes back up, it can revert to being the heartbeat of the community again.

[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.

If the pedestrian fatalities aren't related to the school, why is this issue even being brought up in this discussion? Either this is a sticking point, or it isn't. Y'all need to make up your minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First they overcrowded Glebe
And I did not speak out
Because I didn't have kids there and so eff that.
Then they repurposed McKinley
And I did not speak out
and in fact was a little grateful over it because better them than us.
Then they came for Nottingham
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
and in fact for some reason people don't seem to like me that much and they're starting to get on my nerves

It's funny because if Nottingham hadn't been so vocal about turning away kids from other schools before because they were oh so crowded, they might not be underenrolled now. But noooooo, like always the Nottingham moms and dads were all: FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!

Everyone else is really done with Nottingham's Thunderdome antics. Reading some of the terrible "I'm a lawyer but have no experience with this kind of law" takes posted here is hysterical -- you guys are too much. Look at this this way, Nottingham: This is actually an opportunity for you, since your school isn't being scrapped, it's being given an extension. If enrollment numbers in your area go back up after covid, like you have been saying they will when folks return from private, then Nottingham will turn back into a local elementary in several years after the renovations. If not, and if you've been wrong about the numbers, then let's see what this experiment shows re whether the school is really needed as a local elementary.

[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 would be such a logistical nightmare it’s not even funny. It’s not like all the kids from X school could move to Y school during renovation. They’d have to be divided amongst multiple schools. And then moved back to their original school a year later. That is even more disruptive than just one move. Not to mention continually changing the bus schedule and also parents who are going to (rightfully) fight back on virtual becoming the default offering for the school year that they then have to opt out of. And why is “spreading the hardship” a good thing? You are saying APS should strive to disrupt as many students as possible? This may be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First they overcrowded Glebe
And I did not speak out
Because I didn't have kids there and so eff that.
Then they repurposed McKinley
And I did not speak out
and in fact was a little grateful over it because better them than us.
Then they came for Nottingham
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
and in fact for some reason people don't seem to like me that much and they're starting to get on my nerves

It's funny because if Nottingham hadn't been so vocal about turning away kids from other schools before because they were oh so crowded, they might not be underenrolled now. But noooooo, like always the Nottingham moms and dads were all: FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!

Everyone else is really done with Nottingham's Thunderdome antics. Reading some of the terrible "I'm a lawyer but have no experience with this kind of law" takes posted here is hysterical -- you guys are too much. Look at this this way, Nottingham: This is actually an opportunity for you, since your school isn't being scrapped, it's being given an extension. If enrollment numbers in your area go back up after covid, like you have been saying they will when folks return from private, then Nottingham will turn back into a local elementary in several years after the renovations. If not, and if you've been wrong about the numbers, then let's see what this experiment shows re whether the school is really needed as a local elementary.

Nottingham was overcrowded. Significantly so, and for some time. So overcrowded that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new elementary schools nearby. Now, less than a decade later, we are shutting down Nottingham because oops, we didn’t need that space after all.

Tell me- did the school board screw up then, or is it screwing up now? Because no rational district spends hundreds of millions of dollars to create new schools that aren’t needed. Have things changed so permanently and remarkably after COVID that we need to completely change course? If so, why aren’t we looking at that?

I don’t trust their projection data. Their confidence in it, despite being repeatedly wrong and it having the same sort of limitations that caused them to be caught flat footed in the 2010s, is very concerning.

I can see few people share this concern when it comes to sticking it to the Nottingham community. I don’t like being surrounded by idiots, and for that reason I’m looking toward the exits. Enjoy the bond service on those hundred million dollar schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why you would have the option of going to another school for a year.

And when 90+% choose to go to a “nearby local school” how is that less disruptive to figure out and why would you have a whole virtual school for less than 10% of the students for a year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First they overcrowded Glebe
And I did not speak out
Because I didn't have kids there and so eff that.
Then they repurposed McKinley
And I did not speak out
and in fact was a little grateful over it because better them than us.
Then they came for Nottingham
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
and in fact for some reason people don't seem to like me that much and they're starting to get on my nerves

It's funny because if Nottingham hadn't been so vocal about turning away kids from other schools before because they were oh so crowded, they might not be underenrolled now. But noooooo, like always the Nottingham moms and dads were all: FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!

Everyone else is really done with Nottingham's Thunderdome antics. Reading some of the terrible "I'm a lawyer but have no experience with this kind of law" takes posted here is hysterical -- you guys are too much. Look at this this way, Nottingham: This is actually an opportunity for you, since your school isn't being scrapped, it's being given an extension. If enrollment numbers in your area go back up after covid, like you have been saying they will when folks return from private, then Nottingham will turn back into a local elementary in several years after the renovations. If not, and if you've been wrong about the numbers, then let's see what this experiment shows re whether the school is really needed as a local elementary.

Nottingham was overcrowded. Significantly so, and for some time. So overcrowded that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new elementary schools nearby. Now, less than a decade later, we are shutting down Nottingham because oops, we didn’t need that space after all.

Tell me- did the school board screw up then, or is it screwing up now? Because no rational district spends hundreds of millions of dollars to create new schools that aren’t needed. Have things changed so permanently and remarkably after COVID that we need to completely change course? If so, why aren’t we looking at that?

I don’t trust their projection data. Their confidence in it, despite being repeatedly wrong and it having the same sort of limitations that caused them to be caught flat footed in the 2010s, is very concerning.

I can see few people share this concern when it comes to sticking it to the Nottingham community. I don’t like being surrounded by idiots, and for that reason I’m looking toward the exits. Enjoy the bond service on those hundred million dollar schools.

You had ONLY 50 kids enrolled in kindergarten this year! Ashlawn had 100. Cardinal had over 120. Glebe had 80. Even Taylor had 75. Abington had 120! How is that fair to other schools who are actually pulling their weight? Then you complain whenever the board attempts to redistrict more kids to Nottingham. Something is ALWAYS wrong with the plan, something is always "very concerning," ha. As a group, you are exhausting. I don't feel community with Nottingham because they have thrown other kids under the bus multiple times over the last several years. I wouldn't push for something to happen to their school, but if APS puts them on the chopping block, I'm not going out of my way to make arguments for you. Reap what you've sown -- if you look at it, you've brought this on yourselves by all your past actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this. I felt like they slipped the class size increase through. And now that they have space—I get it it’s in N Arlington and those elitists should burn—too bad sucker. It’s so frustrating.

Both of you need to get some facts.

Only 2 kindergarten classes this past year. Both at or above class size max. 3 classes in most of the higher grades and mostly at or just under the max size. Similar to many of the elementaries. 5th grades classes are among the smallest.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Class-Size-Report-2022-23_FINAL-2.pdf

TWO kindergartens?! That’s a not a school that people are coming back to post-pandemic. That’s a school that is not going to make it. How many kids is that, 50? 52?