APS Closing Nottingham

[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:Because APS had a history of mistakes and overlooking issues. Some of us don’t think it’s in the best interest of any kids to put a 100 % drop off school in an area where three adults have recently been killed by cars.

I’m a Nott parent. I know these streets. We are incredibly lucky that no children have been killed. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Others are flippantly dismissive and just plain insensitive.

It seems odd to me that Nottingham parents are trying to portray Little Falls as a death trap while also demanding that their children get to keep attending the school. So only current families know how to navigate the traffic issues?

Not odd at all. Nottingham is known for its walkability. Current families don't ALL drive to the school, in fact very few do at all. You realize that will be the scenario right? All busses and car riders. That changes the dynamic of the neighborhood for several hours in the morning and evening (extended day). I am not a Nottingham parent but I do live in the neighborhood. Its also been proven that drivers use less caution when not in their own neighborhood and when in a hurry (drop offs).

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel here. The tragic pedestrian deaths have occurred with current traffic levels. It seems to be that a responsible, concerned parent would be advocating for the closure of Nottingham on that basis alone.

Dramatic much? No, we advocated for traffic reduction and stop signs. It's not reasonable to close a school. It is reasonable to enforce traffic safety protocols.

It’s not drama to point out how hypocritical the Nottingham parents are. If the traffic is so dangerous, why do you want your children to keep attending school there? Ohhhhh, right, that’s not what it is about at all.

This is really not a logical argument. You're talking about taking the current NES walkers, having them walk (in and around that neighborhood) to other schools, and then adding in 4-5x the number of buses that currently go to the school, plus additional cars doing drop-off and pick-up both for extended day (~7am, ~6pm) and for school hours (~9am, ~4pm). This is a material change in the traffic profile, patterns, and volume around the school. So yes, it's currently dangerous - which the neighborhood and school community dislike and have been trying to address for years with the county, with limited success as noted upthread. But this makes the situation worse - including for the students and parents being moved here as part of the swing space.

Yes, it does. Believe me, many of us living elsewhere understand completely. But I'm not going to advocate for NES to cap its enrollment to 65% capacity, or even 100% capacity, because of it - especially when other schools are over-capacity.

But this does nothing to fix capacity at other schools? APS still hasn’t given a reason for exactly why they need a swing space, or why kitchen renovations and vestibules (all they have budget for in the CIP) can’t be done in the summer. Right now there is only downside in this plan— which children’s lives are improving? Maybe APS knows, but they haven’t shared. I want every child to have access to amazing public schools. But no one has told us so far how this plan helps get there

1) I’m sure it will come out once the comprehensive review of APS facilities undertaken this summer has been completed. But it’s already common knowledge that some of our schools need repairs beyond just kitchen expansions and vestibule installations. Jamestown and Taylor both have deficient HVAC systems.

2) I didn’t read this proposal as aiming to cure capacity issues, but rather as a means to handle how these overdue repairs are made

3) you know you are not entitled to know every piece of information that APS has, right? They don’t need to convince you of their plans by proffering evidence that is satisfactory to you or even the NES community. As well, they are stewards of a large school system of 27,000 kids and have to make decisions in the overall greater good, not just the wishes of one small neighborhood. Even if that neighborhood thinks it has an outsize right to preferential treatment.

DP. As stewards of a massive amount of public dollars, they absolutely do need to convince the public of their plans because we’re the ones who vote to approve the bonds. So yeah, they kinda do need to inform the public about whatever bigger plans need swing space and likely bonds

The entire Arlington community votes, not just those affected by any given policy or plan. The idea that Arlington writ large wouldn’t approve a school bond - especially for one that makes sense to a lot of people on paper - sounds a little fanciful.

How can it make sense on paper when we know only half the story? We know they want to use Nottingham as swing space. There are no plans currently in the works that need an elementary school sized swing space. It’s completely reasonable to expect APS to be more forthcoming about big facilities plans that cost a lot of money. We even have a couple of committees that focus on - checks notes - facilities.

It is a reasonable expectation that APS will share more information…when it’s available for sharing. Just because they have not yet shared it with you doesn’t mean that APS doesn’t have a pretty good idea of which schools need repairs and renovations. They likely are waiting until the facilities review is finished this summer to share the particular details. If they released preliminary information that then needed to change, people would be crying foul for them changing the information. So while they may not have all final information and plans, they probably already know enough to know the repairs at some facilities are going to be sufficiently extensive as to warrant a swing space. Perhaps they shared this information now to start preparing people for its eventuality.

Sorry you’re not getting all the information you want at exactly the moment you want it, Veruca.

So APS can share some facility review plans in a pre-CIP (closing a school), but not others that directly impact that decision (renovation projects) and they can because....reasons? Bold take. What's the reason for the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Has APE SB candidate Miranda publicly commented on this proposal yet? I think she had a lot of supporters at Nottingham so where does she stand on this issue?

I don’t know but it’s telling that APE has already commented publicly on this move in the arlnow story but nothing about the other proposed moves. They don’t care much when it’s not their kids but we already knew that.

Yeah - we already knew they were (aggressively) only looking out for themselves.

So interesting the issues APE chooses to comment on, or not. Didn't they say that support for LGBTQ kids and pushing back on Youngkin's anti mask stance during the pandemic was outside of their core mission? But keeping their kids from being moved to another neighborhood school is?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read the whole thread, but on paper, this whole thing makes a lot of sense to me. We do have excess capacity in that part of Arlington right now, we do need a swing space because we have a lot of old buildings.

I am sorry for the Nottingham community, as someone who has been through a boundary process that chopped up our neighborhood school, it sucked. But as a taxpayer, sorry folks, this is just life. There is no perfect solution, but I think this is a good call on APS' part.

As for traffic, etc. PLEASE. You have no idea. There are lots of neighborhoods in Arlington with multiple schools. Also plenty that have lived through huge construction projects. You will be OK.

I was with you until the traffic comment. The community is very sensitive because of the three tragic, recent deaths.

I live near TJ middle school where a pedestrian was also recently killed. Since we moved here, they have built Fleet and are now adding 1000 seats to the Career Center. They also took our neighborhood elementary school (Henry) and chopped it in half. So, again, I am sympathetic, I am, but I still think this decision makes sense.

Also, with the passage of Missing Middle, Arlington is basically announcing that no one is guaranteed anything, so get used to it, folks.

Oh, I totally agree that this makes sense, but flippant comments about getting over the traffic concerns are really unnecessary given the background of what has happened in the community/Neughborhood.

OK, fair enough. I don't know the whole background. I was just trying to make the point that lots of Arlington neighborhoods have to deal with significant amounts of school related traffic. I am not flippant about pedestrian deaths, and if there have been lots around Nottingham, that is a concern. Arlington Heights had to advocate years ago for a STOP sign on a busy school route. It took a ridiculous amount of time to get it, too. But generally speaking, I don't see APS stopping any projects because of traffic concerns. You will just have to advocate for safety where you can. Every school project has traffic concerns is my point.

For one, a Nottingham mother was killed in front of the school by a truck.

https://jb-lf.org/jennifers-story/

That was awful. But unless you're proposing not having any schools on any major roads, I'm not sure what your point is.

If you were following the thread you’d see the point is that flippant posts about the how community is unnecessarily concerned about additional traffic is uncalled for. Another resident was killed just last year in a crosswalk by the school.

Or maybe people are pointing out that unless you can conclusively prove the drivers were school related, the problem in your neighborhood is actually drivers using Little Falls as a commuter route from Mclean/Falls Church/Arlington to Chain Bridge. Which is an unfortunate but separate issue being used by upset parents.

The first person to die was a parent visiting the school in her car. The parking lot there is not very big- you park on streets if you visit. Not sure how much more conclusive you want.

Is it so very hard to understand that we are concerned that adding more vehicle trips and drop offs to a road with a demonstrably poor safety record could be a problem? Not just for our kids who will be walking further distances and encountering more cut through traffic on their routes, but for the kids and parents using Little Falls as their drop off areas? I can’t think of a worse place to line up several dozen buses and cars than a road that is unsafe even when practically empty.

Not the victims; I was referring to the drivers making Little Falls a “death trap”. I have to assume the dangerous drivers are all from outside the neighborhood? They are the problem? Unless you are insinuating parents are the problem? I will say, I don’t think parking without a bike lane buffer is abnormal - I find it odd people aren’t checking for traffic in their mirrors before getting out. Irregardless, the point is, Little Falls has a traffic safety issue, yes? Whether the school stays neighborhood, swing or choice? So that is a distinct issue - one in fact that Nottingham parents could perhaps leverage if they were so inclined, by negotiating a stoplight, flashing crossers, etc for the school if they expect more traffic. As others have pointed out, that is not a strong argument to sway anyone’s opinion; one could argue that having a school full of walkers in a dangerous neighborhood is worse than having all drop off kids with more traffic at 8:30 and 4 - which might actually calm traffic by jamming it. Arguments for a neughborhood school should be based on capacity. I would consider 3 classes per grade small, 4 classes more the norm based on APS schools we are familiar with. If Nottingham continues to only fill 2 classes ANd most of their students live in walk zones for Tuckahoe and Discovery, it seems like a no brainer regardless of what the property is used for.

DP. I’m mostly with you, but you can’t just negotiate safety measures with the county. They don’t want to spend the money to build or maintain the measures “needlessly.” They make it very hard.

Also from what I’m reading, the safety situation here should have been fixed already. I can’t think of what more the community could add. (I don’t live here, FWIW).

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Because APS had a history of mistakes and overlooking issues. Some of us don’t think it’s in the best interest of any kids to put a 100 % drop off school in an area where three adults have recently been killed by cars.

I’m a Nott parent. I know these streets. We are incredibly lucky that no children have been killed. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Others are flippantly dismissive and just plain insensitive.

It seems odd to me that Nottingham parents are trying to portray Little Falls as a death trap while also demanding that their children get to keep attending the school. So only current families know how to navigate the traffic issues?

Not odd at all. Nottingham is known for its walkability. Current families don't ALL drive to the school, in fact very few do at all. You realize that will be the scenario right? All busses and car riders. That changes the dynamic of the neighborhood for several hours in the morning and evening (extended day). I am not a Nottingham parent but I do live in the neighborhood. Its also been proven that drivers use less caution when not in their own neighborhood and when in a hurry (drop offs).

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel here. The tragic pedestrian deaths have occurred with current traffic levels. It seems to be that a responsible, concerned parent would be advocating for the closure of Nottingham on that basis alone.

Dramatic much? No, we advocated for traffic reduction and stop signs. It's not reasonable to close a school. It is reasonable to enforce traffic safety protocols.

It’s not drama to point out how hypocritical the Nottingham parents are. If the traffic is so dangerous, why do you want your children to keep attending school there? Ohhhhh, right, that’s not what it is about at all.

This is really not a logical argument. You're talking about taking the current NES walkers, having them walk (in and around that neighborhood) to other schools, and then adding in 4-5x the number of buses that currently go to the school, plus additional cars doing drop-off and pick-up both for extended day (~7am, ~6pm) and for school hours (~9am, ~4pm). This is a material change in the traffic profile, patterns, and volume around the school. So yes, it's currently dangerous - which the neighborhood and school community dislike and have been trying to address for years with the county, with limited success as noted upthread. But this makes the situation worse - including for the students and parents being moved here as part of the swing space.

Yes, it does. Believe me, many of us living elsewhere understand completely. But I'm not going to advocate for NES to cap its enrollment to 65% capacity, or even 100% capacity, because of it - especially when other schools are over-capacity.

But this does nothing to fix capacity at other schools? APS still hasn’t given a reason for exactly why they need a swing space, or why kitchen renovations and vestibules (all they have budget for in the CIP) can’t be done in the summer. Right now there is only downside in this plan— which children’s lives are improving? Maybe APS knows, but they haven’t shared. I want every child to have access to amazing public schools. But no one has told us so far how this plan helps get there

1) I’m sure it will come out once the comprehensive review of APS facilities undertaken this summer has been completed. But it’s already common knowledge that some of our schools need repairs beyond just kitchen expansions and vestibule installations. Jamestown and Taylor both have deficient HVAC systems.

2) I didn’t read this proposal as aiming to cure capacity issues, but rather as a means to handle how these overdue repairs are made

3) you know you are not entitled to know every piece of information that APS has, right? They don’t need to convince you of their plans by proffering evidence that is satisfactory to you or even the NES community. As well, they are stewards of a large school system of 27,000 kids and have to make decisions in the overall greater good, not just the wishes of one small neighborhood. Even if that neighborhood thinks it has an outsize right to preferential treatment.

DP. As stewards of a massive amount of public dollars, they absolutely do need to convince the public of their plans because we’re the ones who vote to approve the bonds. So yeah, they kinda do need to inform the public about whatever bigger plans need swing space and likely bonds

The entire Arlington community votes, not just those affected by any given policy or plan. The idea that Arlington writ large wouldn’t approve a school bond - especially for one that makes sense to a lot of people on paper - sounds a little fanciful.

How can it make sense on paper when we know only half the story? We know they want to use Nottingham as swing space. There are no plans currently in the works that need an elementary school sized swing space. It’s completely reasonable to expect APS to be more forthcoming about big facilities plans that cost a lot of money. We even have a couple of committees that focus on - checks notes - facilities.

It is a reasonable expectation that APS will share more information…when it’s available for sharing. Just because they have not yet shared it with you doesn’t mean that APS doesn’t have a pretty good idea of which schools need repairs and renovations. They likely are waiting until the facilities review is finished this summer to share the particular details. If they released preliminary information that then needed to change, people would be crying foul for them changing the information. So while they may not have all final information and plans, they probably already know enough to know the repairs at some facilities are going to be sufficiently extensive as to warrant a swing space. Perhaps they shared this information now to start preparing people for its eventuality.

Sorry you’re not getting all the information you want at exactly the moment you want it, Veruca.

So APS can share some facility review plans in a pre-CIP (closing a school), but not others that directly impact that decision (renovation projects) and they can because....reasons? Bold take. What's the reason for the difference?

So here’s the thing: it sounds like the school is closing due to low enrollment at this AND neighboring schools. So they are consolidating facilities for efficiency, and rather than sell the property and lose it forever (like Fairlington, Walter Reed, Arlington Arts Center, Madison Community Center, etc.) they are going to potentially use it for swing space while undertaking renovations at other schools. I don’t thinks it’s really about the renovations or urgent need to use Nottingham for another purpose. It’s more about demographic trends in the surrounding neighborhoods and not needing all these seats right at the moment. Perhaps having a swing space will allow them to speed up other planned renovations, like doing more of the kitchen and safety vestibule and HVAC renovations during the school year rather than all during the summer. So why you personally feel this information is being withheld for some nefarious reason, I think it’s more likely that your school is too small and getting smaller and they can’t justify the cost of keeping it open when there are available seats very close by.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because APS had a history of mistakes and overlooking issues. Some of us don’t think it’s in the best interest of any kids to put a 100 % drop off school in an area where three adults have recently been killed by cars.

I’m a Nott parent. I know these streets. We are incredibly lucky that no children have been killed. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Others are flippantly dismissive and just plain insensitive.

It seems odd to me that Nottingham parents are trying to portray Little Falls as a death trap while also demanding that their children get to keep attending the school. So only current families know how to navigate the traffic issues?

Not odd at all. Nottingham is known for its walkability. Current families don't ALL drive to the school, in fact very few do at all. You realize that will be the scenario right? All busses and car riders. That changes the dynamic of the neighborhood for several hours in the morning and evening (extended day). I am not a Nottingham parent but I do live in the neighborhood. Its also been proven that drivers use less caution when not in their own neighborhood and when in a hurry (drop offs).

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel here. The tragic pedestrian deaths have occurred with current traffic levels. It seems to be that a responsible, concerned parent would be advocating for the closure of Nottingham on that basis alone.

Dramatic much? No, we advocated for traffic reduction and stop signs. It's not reasonable to close a school. It is reasonable to enforce traffic safety protocols.

It’s not drama to point out how hypocritical the Nottingham parents are. If the traffic is so dangerous, why do you want your children to keep attending school there? Ohhhhh, right, that’s not what it is about at all.

This is really not a logical argument. You're talking about taking the current NES walkers, having them walk (in and around that neighborhood) to other schools, and then adding in 4-5x the number of buses that currently go to the school, plus additional cars doing drop-off and pick-up both for extended day (~7am, ~6pm) and for school hours (~9am, ~4pm). This is a material change in the traffic profile, patterns, and volume around the school. So yes, it's currently dangerous - which the neighborhood and school community dislike and have been trying to address for years with the county, with limited success as noted upthread. But this makes the situation worse - including for the students and parents being moved here as part of the swing space.

Yes, it does. Believe me, many of us living elsewhere understand completely. But I'm not going to advocate for NES to cap its enrollment to 65% capacity, or even 100% capacity, because of it - especially when other schools are over-capacity.

But this does nothing to fix capacity at other schools? APS still hasn’t given a reason for exactly why they need a swing space, or why kitchen renovations and vestibules (all they have budget for in the CIP) can’t be done in the summer. Right now there is only downside in this plan— which children’s lives are improving? Maybe APS knows, but they haven’t shared. I want every child to have access to amazing public schools. But no one has told us so far how this plan helps get there

1) I’m sure it will come out once the comprehensive review of APS facilities undertaken this summer has been completed. But it’s already common knowledge that some of our schools need repairs beyond just kitchen expansions and vestibule installations. Jamestown and Taylor both have deficient HVAC systems.

2) I didn’t read this proposal as aiming to cure capacity issues, but rather as a means to handle how these overdue repairs are made

3) you know you are not entitled to know every piece of information that APS has, right? They don’t need to convince you of their plans by proffering evidence that is satisfactory to you or even the NES community. As well, they are stewards of a large school system of 27,000 kids and have to make decisions in the overall greater good, not just the wishes of one small neighborhood. Even if that neighborhood thinks it has an outsize right to preferential treatment.

DP. As stewards of a massive amount of public dollars, they absolutely do need to convince the public of their plans because we’re the ones who vote to approve the bonds. So yeah, they kinda do need to inform the public about whatever bigger plans need swing space and likely bonds

The entire Arlington community votes, not just those affected by any given policy or plan. The idea that Arlington writ large wouldn’t approve a school bond - especially for one that makes sense to a lot of people on paper - sounds a little fanciful.

How can it make sense on paper when we know only half the story? We know they want to use Nottingham as swing space. There are no plans currently in the works that need an elementary school sized swing space. It’s completely reasonable to expect APS to be more forthcoming about big facilities plans that cost a lot of money. We even have a couple of committees that focus on - checks notes - facilities.

It is a reasonable expectation that APS will share more information…when it’s available for sharing. Just because they have not yet shared it with you doesn’t mean that APS doesn’t have a pretty good idea of which schools need repairs and renovations. They likely are waiting until the facilities review is finished this summer to share the particular details. If they released preliminary information that then needed to change, people would be crying foul for them changing the information. So while they may not have all final information and plans, they probably already know enough to know the repairs at some facilities are going to be sufficiently extensive as to warrant a swing space. Perhaps they shared this information now to start preparing people for its eventuality.

Sorry you’re not getting all the information you want at exactly the moment you want it, Veruca.

So APS can share some facility review plans in a pre-CIP (closing a school), but not others that directly impact that decision (renovation projects) and they can because....reasons? Bold take. What's the reason for the difference?

So here’s the thing: it sounds like the school is closing due to low enrollment at this AND neighboring schools. So they are consolidating facilities for efficiency, and rather than sell the property and lose it forever (like Fairlington, Walter Reed, Arlington Arts Center, Madison Community Center, etc.) they are going to potentially use it for swing space while undertaking renovations at other schools. I don’t thinks it’s really about the renovations or urgent need to use Nottingham for another purpose. It’s more about demographic trends in the surrounding neighborhoods and not needing all these seats right at the moment. Perhaps having a swing space will allow them to speed up other planned renovations, like doing more of the kitchen and safety vestibule and HVAC renovations during the school year rather than all during the summer. So why you personally feel this information is being withheld for some nefarious reason, I think it’s more likely that your school is too small and getting smaller and they can’t justify the cost of keeping it open when there are available seats very close by.

If that’s the reason then APS should lead with that. Not a Nottingham family. As it stands, the idea sounds capricious and half baked. Transparency goes a long way to help people understand and have buy-in on a major changes in publicly funded institutions.

[Anonymous]

Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

Can’t imagine Tuck wants that either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

No trailers will go at Discovery bc those fields are used by the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

No trailers will go at Discovery bc those fields are used by the county.

huh? Who cares if the county uses the fields.

[Anonymous]

APS has been developing plans to renovate older schools for over 2 years. Plan will be presented in CIP next year. Everyone paying attention knew Nottingham was on the list for possible swing space— that search was also discussed over 2 years ago. So now they’re providing a heads-up. Would you rather they waited until CIP season next spring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

No trailers will go at Discovery bc those fields are used by the county.

huh? Who cares if the county uses the fields.

They are heavily used artificial turf fields. I'm not sure if the actual property is APS or County, but either way there's no way trailers will go on them. It's just not something that is going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there actually enough seats at neighboring schools though? Real seats in the building not trailers? I can handle moving but I will be unhappy if they move my kid out of a Nott classroom into a trailer at Tuckahoe.

No trailers will go at Discovery bc those fields are used by the county.

huh? Who cares if the county uses the fields.

County OWNS the fields- they are turf and used all hours of day/evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the traffic deaths and safety issues are the primary concerns of the Nottingham neighborhood, then let’s have some meetings with County traffic experts and figure this out!! It can’t be that the facility can never be used for bus and car traffic. It just may take some additional calming measures or re-routing if school bound traffic. Plenty of neighborhoods have one-way traffic on streets near schools to avoid cut through and maximize safety. I’m positive the County and the neighborhood can work together to make this safe.

We've been trying for years, but you sound very optimistic.

yeah, lol, let's just have some meetings and figure this out!

do you really think that has not been tried? what makes you so positive they will listen when they have not for YEARS. Good lord, the naivete.

TJ and the surrounding neighborhood had the same problem. And they had to fight fight fight even after Fleet opened. But the County did finally add crosswalks and stop signs. you will need to be pushing both APS and the County and APS needs to push the County. Will you ever be completely satisfied? No. Will accidents still happen. Most likely. Just like everywhere else.

Try talking to the people who live near ATS. Option schools / swing space result in families who mostly do not live in the neighborhood and seem to drive / park / act as if no one else does either. The ATS parents at the old McKinley building speed, block driveways, make illegal u turns and generally behave in ways that parents did not when it was a neighborhood school. Plenty of complaints have been made - APS and Arlington do not care.

Calm down. It’s literally the same two parents each time.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because APS had a history of mistakes and overlooking issues. Some of us don’t think it’s in the best interest of any kids to put a 100 % drop off school in an area where three adults have recently been killed by cars.

I’m a Nott parent. I know these streets. We are incredibly lucky that no children have been killed. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Others are flippantly dismissive and just plain insensitive.

It seems odd to me that Nottingham parents are trying to portray Little Falls as a death trap while also demanding that their children get to keep attending the school. So only current families know how to navigate the traffic issues?

Not odd at all. Nottingham is known for its walkability. Current families don't ALL drive to the school, in fact very few do at all. You realize that will be the scenario right? All busses and car riders. That changes the dynamic of the neighborhood for several hours in the morning and evening (extended day). I am not a Nottingham parent but I do live in the neighborhood. Its also been proven that drivers use less caution when not in their own neighborhood and when in a hurry (drop offs).

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel here. The tragic pedestrian deaths have occurred with current traffic levels. It seems to be that a responsible, concerned parent would be advocating for the closure of Nottingham on that basis alone.

Dramatic much? No, we advocated for traffic reduction and stop signs. It's not reasonable to close a school. It is reasonable to enforce traffic safety protocols.

It’s not drama to point out how hypocritical the Nottingham parents are. If the traffic is so dangerous, why do you want your children to keep attending school there? Ohhhhh, right, that’s not what it is about at all.

This is really not a logical argument. You're talking about taking the current NES walkers, having them walk (in and around that neighborhood) to other schools, and then adding in 4-5x the number of buses that currently go to the school, plus additional cars doing drop-off and pick-up both for extended day (~7am, ~6pm) and for school hours (~9am, ~4pm). This is a material change in the traffic profile, patterns, and volume around the school. So yes, it's currently dangerous - which the neighborhood and school community dislike and have been trying to address for years with the county, with limited success as noted upthread. But this makes the situation worse - including for the students and parents being moved here as part of the swing space.

Yes, it does. Believe me, many of us living elsewhere understand completely. But I'm not going to advocate for NES to cap its enrollment to 65% capacity, or even 100% capacity, because of it - especially when other schools are over-capacity.

But this does nothing to fix capacity at other schools? APS still hasn’t given a reason for exactly why they need a swing space, or why kitchen renovations and vestibules (all they have budget for in the CIP) can’t be done in the summer. Right now there is only downside in this plan— which children’s lives are improving? Maybe APS knows, but they haven’t shared. I want every child to have access to amazing public schools. But no one has told us so far how this plan helps get there

1) I’m sure it will come out once the comprehensive review of APS facilities undertaken this summer has been completed. But it’s already common knowledge that some of our schools need repairs beyond just kitchen expansions and vestibule installations. Jamestown and Taylor both have deficient HVAC systems.

2) I didn’t read this proposal as aiming to cure capacity issues, but rather as a means to handle how these overdue repairs are made

3) you know you are not entitled to know every piece of information that APS has, right? They don’t need to convince you of their plans by proffering evidence that is satisfactory to you or even the NES community. As well, they are stewards of a large school system of 27,000 kids and have to make decisions in the overall greater good, not just the wishes of one small neighborhood. Even if that neighborhood thinks it has an outsize right to preferential treatment.

DP. As stewards of a massive amount of public dollars, they absolutely do need to convince the public of their plans because we’re the ones who vote to approve the bonds. So yeah, they kinda do need to inform the public about whatever bigger plans need swing space and likely bonds

The entire Arlington community votes, not just those affected by any given policy or plan. The idea that Arlington writ large wouldn’t approve a school bond - especially for one that makes sense to a lot of people on paper - sounds a little fanciful.

How can it make sense on paper when we know only half the story? We know they want to use Nottingham as swing space. There are no plans currently in the works that need an elementary school sized swing space. It’s completely reasonable to expect APS to be more forthcoming about big facilities plans that cost a lot of money. We even have a couple of committees that focus on - checks notes - facilities.

It is a reasonable expectation that APS will share more information…when it’s available for sharing. Just because they have not yet shared it with you doesn’t mean that APS doesn’t have a pretty good idea of which schools need repairs and renovations. They likely are waiting until the facilities review is finished this summer to share the particular details. If they released preliminary information that then needed to change, people would be crying foul for them changing the information. So while they may not have all final information and plans, they probably already know enough to know the repairs at some facilities are going to be sufficiently extensive as to warrant a swing space. Perhaps they shared this information now to start preparing people for its eventuality.

Sorry you’re not getting all the information you want at exactly the moment you want it, Veruca.

So APS can share some facility review plans in a pre-CIP (closing a school), but not others that directly impact that decision (renovation projects) and they can because....reasons? Bold take. What's the reason for the difference?

So here’s the thing: it sounds like the school is closing due to low enrollment at this AND neighboring schools. So they are consolidating facilities for efficiency, and rather than sell the property and lose it forever (like Fairlington, Walter Reed, Arlington Arts Center, Madison Community Center, etc.) they are going to potentially use it for swing space while undertaking renovations at other schools. I don’t thinks it’s really about the renovations or urgent need to use Nottingham for another purpose. It’s more about demographic trends in the surrounding neighborhoods and not needing all these seats right at the moment. Perhaps having a swing space will allow them to speed up other planned renovations, like doing more of the kitchen and safety vestibule and HVAC renovations during the school year rather than all during the summer. So why you personally feel this information is being withheld for some nefarious reason, I think it’s more likely that your school is too small and getting smaller and they can’t justify the cost of keeping it open when there are available seats very close by.

100%. This is so obvious if you look at the enrollment numbers. Keeping Nottingham open for ~380 kids that can easily be absorbed by empty space at Tuckahoe, Discovery, and Jamestown is a waste of money. Nottingham was protected in the past by Barbara K on the School Board, but she's gone now. I can't think of a single current School Board member who is going to have any sympathy for Nottingham. This is a done deal.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because APS had a history of mistakes and overlooking issues. Some of us don’t think it’s in the best interest of any kids to put a 100 % drop off school in an area where three adults have recently been killed by cars.

I’m a Nott parent. I know these streets. We are incredibly lucky that no children have been killed. Some of us would like to keep it that way. Others are flippantly dismissive and just plain insensitive.

It seems odd to me that Nottingham parents are trying to portray Little Falls as a death trap while also demanding that their children get to keep attending the school. So only current families know how to navigate the traffic issues?

Not odd at all. Nottingham is known for its walkability. Current families don't ALL drive to the school, in fact very few do at all. You realize that will be the scenario right? All busses and car riders. That changes the dynamic of the neighborhood for several hours in the morning and evening (extended day). I am not a Nottingham parent but I do live in the neighborhood. Its also been proven that drivers use less caution when not in their own neighborhood and when in a hurry (drop offs).

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel here. The tragic pedestrian deaths have occurred with current traffic levels. It seems to be that a responsible, concerned parent would be advocating for the closure of Nottingham on that basis alone.

Dramatic much? No, we advocated for traffic reduction and stop signs. It's not reasonable to close a school. It is reasonable to enforce traffic safety protocols.

It’s not drama to point out how hypocritical the Nottingham parents are. If the traffic is so dangerous, why do you want your children to keep attending school there? Ohhhhh, right, that’s not what it is about at all.

This is really not a logical argument. You're talking about taking the current NES walkers, having them walk (in and around that neighborhood) to other schools, and then adding in 4-5x the number of buses that currently go to the school, plus additional cars doing drop-off and pick-up both for extended day (~7am, ~6pm) and for school hours (~9am, ~4pm). This is a material change in the traffic profile, patterns, and volume around the school. So yes, it's currently dangerous - which the neighborhood and school community dislike and have been trying to address for years with the county, with limited success as noted upthread. But this makes the situation worse - including for the students and parents being moved here as part of the swing space.

Yes, it does. Believe me, many of us living elsewhere understand completely. But I'm not going to advocate for NES to cap its enrollment to 65% capacity, or even 100% capacity, because of it - especially when other schools are over-capacity.

But this does nothing to fix capacity at other schools? APS still hasn’t given a reason for exactly why they need a swing space, or why kitchen renovations and vestibules (all they have budget for in the CIP) can’t be done in the summer. Right now there is only downside in this plan— which children’s lives are improving? Maybe APS knows, but they haven’t shared. I want every child to have access to amazing public schools. But no one has told us so far how this plan helps get there

1) I’m sure it will come out once the comprehensive review of APS facilities undertaken this summer has been completed. But it’s already common knowledge that some of our schools need repairs beyond just kitchen expansions and vestibule installations. Jamestown and Taylor both have deficient HVAC systems.

2) I didn’t read this proposal as aiming to cure capacity issues, but rather as a means to handle how these overdue repairs are made

3) you know you are not entitled to know every piece of information that APS has, right? They don’t need to convince you of their plans by proffering evidence that is satisfactory to you or even the NES community. As well, they are stewards of a large school system of 27,000 kids and have to make decisions in the overall greater good, not just the wishes of one small neighborhood. Even if that neighborhood thinks it has an outsize right to preferential treatment.

DP. As stewards of a massive amount of public dollars, they absolutely do need to convince the public of their plans because we’re the ones who vote to approve the bonds. So yeah, they kinda do need to inform the public about whatever bigger plans need swing space and likely bonds

The entire Arlington community votes, not just those affected by any given policy or plan. The idea that Arlington writ large wouldn’t approve a school bond - especially for one that makes sense to a lot of people on paper - sounds a little fanciful.

How can it make sense on paper when we know only half the story? We know they want to use Nottingham as swing space. There are no plans currently in the works that need an elementary school sized swing space. It’s completely reasonable to expect APS to be more forthcoming about big facilities plans that cost a lot of money. We even have a couple of committees that focus on - checks notes - facilities.

It is a reasonable expectation that APS will share more information…when it’s available for sharing. Just because they have not yet shared it with you doesn’t mean that APS doesn’t have a pretty good idea of which schools need repairs and renovations. They likely are waiting until the facilities review is finished this summer to share the particular details. If they released preliminary information that then needed to change, people would be crying foul for them changing the information. So while they may not have all final information and plans, they probably already know enough to know the repairs at some facilities are going to be sufficiently extensive as to warrant a swing space. Perhaps they shared this information now to start preparing people for its eventuality.

Sorry you’re not getting all the information you want at exactly the moment you want it, Veruca.

So APS can share some facility review plans in a pre-CIP (closing a school), but not others that directly impact that decision (renovation projects) and they can because....reasons? Bold take. What's the reason for the difference?

So here’s the thing: it sounds like the school is closing due to low enrollment at this AND neighboring schools. So they are consolidating facilities for efficiency, and rather than sell the property and lose it forever (like Fairlington, Walter Reed, Arlington Arts Center, Madison Community Center, etc.) they are going to potentially use it for swing space while undertaking renovations at other schools. I don’t thinks it’s really about the renovations or urgent need to use Nottingham for another purpose. It’s more about demographic trends in the surrounding neighborhoods and not needing all these seats right at the moment. Perhaps having a swing space will allow them to speed up other planned renovations, like doing more of the kitchen and safety vestibule and HVAC renovations during the school year rather than all during the summer. So why you personally feel this information is being withheld for some nefarious reason, I think it’s more likely that your school is too small and getting smaller and they can’t justify the cost of keeping it open when there are available seats very close by.

100%. This is so obvious if you look at the enrollment numbers. Keeping Nottingham open for ~380 kids that can easily be absorbed by empty space at Tuckahoe, Discovery, and Jamestown is a waste of money. Nottingham was protected in the past by Barbara K on the School Board, but she's gone now. I can't think of a single current School Board member who is going to have any sympathy for Nottingham. This is a done deal.

Why would Barbara protect Nottingham?