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:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Not for before care or extended day. Also, where are you going to park 12 busses? The school isn’t designed for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if APS provides a later bus from extended day back to the home school.
600 kids. Minimum 60 kids per bus. That's no more than 10 total buses. And you're forgetting the hundreds that won't be riding the bus because their parents will prefer to drive all the way to NES and back twice a day so their kids don't have to be on the bus for 30 minutes. So, far less than 10 buses.

Hundreds of parents driving through the neighborhood would be worse than 12 buses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you behave like this for years and eff over other schools in the community to put your own schools’ needs as primary, you can’t reasonably claim that other parents are going to miss your upper middle class values and time and effort put into APS. Lots of other parents volunteer at APS without screwing everyone else over.

Uh, the attacks on Nottingham families/parents and karma arguments aren’t persuasive. I’m not in Nottingham but the idea that we should screw over a while school community because you didn’t like some former PTa mom is … stupid? And it makes you sound like a petty little person.

They are getting assigned to demographically identical schools in a nearby location. They are def not getting a raw deal if this passes! Goodness.

Non sequiter?

Nope- PP said the Nottingham community was getting “screwed over.” They aren’t! They will get assigned to wonderful nearby school communities.

So just because the Nottingham kids will end up at another good school means parents shouldn’t fight to keep their current school open?

Yes? I mean, if you have to ask. They will likely be moved with a number of their friends, and many of the staff will be moved as well. It’s not like they’re sending your kids far away, or to an inferior school. So maybe just don’t go nuclear? Ask questions, raise concerns, sure. But don’t act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen, or claim that it will destroy your community, or other hyperbole. It’s just tone deaf, and won’t be effective at accomplishing much other than angering and alienating other members of the Arlington community.

Who said anything about going nuclear? Did you see the rational post above outlining the questions parents are asking? It was exactly what you are suggesting - ask questions, raise concerns. No where was there even a hint of this being the worst thing to happen to the community. Sure, not ideal, but everyone will get through it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you behave like this for years and eff over other schools in the community to put your own schools’ needs as primary, you can’t reasonably claim that other parents are going to miss your upper middle class values and time and effort put into APS. Lots of other parents volunteer at APS without screwing everyone else over.

Uh, the attacks on Nottingham families/parents and karma arguments aren’t persuasive. I’m not in Nottingham but the idea that we should screw over a while school community because you didn’t like some former PTa mom is … stupid? And it makes you sound like a petty little person.

They are getting assigned to demographically identical schools in a nearby location. They are def not getting a raw deal if this passes! Goodness.

Non sequiter?

Nope- PP said the Nottingham community was getting “screwed over.” They aren’t! They will get assigned to wonderful nearby school communities.

So just because the Nottingham kids will end up at another good school means parents shouldn’t fight to keep their current school open?

Yes? I mean, if you have to ask. They will likely be moved with a number of their friends, and many of the staff will be moved as well. It’s not like they’re sending your kids far away, or to an inferior school. So maybe just don’t go nuclear? Ask questions, raise concerns, sure. But don’t act as if this is the worst thing to ever happen, or claim that it will destroy your community, or other hyperbole. It’s just tone deaf, and won’t be effective at accomplishing much other than angering and alienating other members of the Arlington community.

Who said anything about going nuclear? Did you see the rational post above outlining the questions parents are asking? It was exactly what you are suggesting - ask questions, raise concerns. No where was there even a hint of this being the worst thing to happen to the community. Sure, not ideal, but everyone will get through it.

Anonymous wrote:
I’ve read all 57 pages of this thread and can’t find the elitist posts you are talking about. What I see is:

- parents not wanting their walkable, neighborhood school to close
- a neighborhood not wanting the large increase in traffic that would result from a walkable neighborhood school turning into a 100 pct bus/car school
- parents wanting answers about how to retain teachers and administrators in the 3 years it would take to put this plan into action, if it happens
- parents asking questions about the possibility outdated data being used to predict enrollment across the affected area
- parents asking questions about the multiple TBD line items in the plan to close Nottingham, and why budget figures keep changing
- parents asking if the schools that will use the Nottingham swing space for a year or two while their own school is under construction actually want to use it as a swing space

Found it. Nothing nuclear about asking questions and raising concerns.

[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:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Not for before care or extended day. Also, where are you going to park 12 busses? The school isn’t designed for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if APS provides a later bus from extended day back to the home school.
600 kids. Minimum 60 kids per bus. That's no more than 10 total buses. And you're forgetting the hundreds that won't be riding the bus because their parents will prefer to drive all the way to NES and back twice a day so their kids don't have to be on the bus for 30 minutes. So, far less than 10 buses.

Yes, “all the way to NES” is partly why this location makes no sense for a swing space. It’s on the far edge of the county.

[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:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Not for before care or extended day. Also, where are you going to park 12 busses? The school isn’t designed for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if APS provides a later bus from extended day back to the home school.
600 kids. Minimum 60 kids per bus. That's no more than 10 total buses. And you're forgetting the hundreds that won't be riding the bus because their parents will prefer to drive all the way to NES and back twice a day so their kids don't have to be on the bus for 30 minutes. So, far less than 10 buses.

Yes, “all the way to NES” is partly why this location makes no sense for a swing space. It’s on the far edge of the county.

See? It doesn't matter what the answers are, everything is an issue and cause for objection. But "A" won't work! "B" solves "A" but "B will be even worse!"

None of it matters!!! The problem is: THERE ARE TOO MANY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS too CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE NOT-VERY-DENSE NW PART OF THE COUNTY!

Discovery was stupid. You should have fought that as unnecessary and divisive to the community. You should have advocated for more strategic geographical placement for schools and forcing the County to cooperate.

Truth is, Nottingham's placement simply isn't good for swing space, an option school, OR a current elementary school. But using it for something is better than not. And with current enrollment in the NW quadrant in conjunction with the holy triangle of elementary schools on top of each other there, using it for swing space is the best option.

[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:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Not for before care or extended day. Also, where are you going to park 12 busses? The school isn’t designed for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if APS provides a later bus from extended day back to the home school.
600 kids. Minimum 60 kids per bus. That's no more than 10 total buses. And you're forgetting the hundreds that won't be riding the bus because their parents will prefer to drive all the way to NES and back twice a day so their kids don't have to be on the bus for 30 minutes. So, far less than 10 buses.

Yes, “all the way to NES” is partly why this location makes no sense for a swing space. It’s on the far edge of the county.

See? It doesn't matter what the answers are, everything is an issue and cause for objection. But "A" won't work! "B" solves "A" but "B will be even worse!"

None of it matters!!! The problem is: THERE ARE TOO MANY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS too CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE NOT-VERY-DENSE NW PART OF THE COUNTY!

Discovery was stupid. You should have fought that as unnecessary and divisive to the community. You should have advocated for more strategic geographical placement for schools and forcing the County to cooperate.

Truth is, Nottingham's placement simply isn't good for swing space, an option school, OR a current elementary school. But using it for something is better than not. And with current enrollment in the NW quadrant in conjunction with the holy triangle of elementary schools on top of each other there, using it for swing space is the best option.

* current NEIGHBORHOOD elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Yes, and we had all these exact concerns and discussions within the ATS community - moved from a perfect central location to the edge of the county and into a perfectly walkable neighborhood and their school - which somehow was falling apart despite the money APS had sunk into it just a few years prior. We had 16 buses I believe. APS condensed them. Most kids take the bus. I know the immediate neighborhood doesn’t like the excess cars, but hey, they all wanted the shiny new school, which was, as it turns out, a completely unnecessary built and expenditure. No foresight, and a CB continuously working against the SB. So on brand Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone cares, at Campbell (which is an option school), parents are not allowed to pick children up via car after school. So there are buses in the morning and afternoon, a car drop off line in the morning, and then cars picking kids up from extended day, plus the kids who walk.

They did that to control the flow of cars into/out of the neighborhood in the afternoon.

The carpool drop off line still snarls traffic in the morning, so there is still room for improvement there.

Interesting. The fact that it’s a choice school probably gives them more flexibility to limit transportation options. If Nottingham becomes a swing school, it might be too much to ban the temporary occupants from the option of picking their kids up in the afternoon. If it were my kid, I could handle being displaced for renovations, but telling me I can’t pick my kid up from the new location would feel unreasonable. I might also raise the objection that Nottingham parents were allowed to pick up their kids, why can’t we?

No, I think any school could do this. It’s not a right to pick up your kid in your car from school, not if it’s making the neighbors angry or endangering others. The school doesn’t have to make a pick up line or organize getting the kids out the door except to the buses or to walk home. It’s not impossible. If anything, an option school is less able to “force” these type of changes. People can and do leave for reasons like this. But neighborhood schools probably wouldn’t risk losing students if they banned car pick ups.

This seems like a very reasonable solution to the safety concerns at Nottingham. Would basically solve the car traffic issue.

Not really, it would just cause more people to be jockeying for street parking in the neighborhood.

The Notties are an endless source of entertainment. No practical suggestions can possibly alleviate their woes. The only answer is to keep things exactly as they are so they can enjoy all the benefits of their underenrolled walkable high status neighborhood. Screw everyone else. They never disappoint!

Sorry you can’t afford it.

Sorry you’re so insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, let’s be honest. That there have been a couple of truly tragic deaths near Nottingham in the past decade is awful. Just awful. But that’s NOT why Nottingham families don’t want to give up their neighborhood schools. It just isn’t.

Exactly.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I’m Nottingham, I’m all over that. Why close it if they need a place for kids from that huge development. They can send those kids to Tuckahoe easily but not if they close Nottingham and move half of Tuckahoe there.

Of course, students from that development would be bus riders and drop offs, and EVERYONE WILL DIE if there’s more bus riders at Nottingham.

You're a horrible person you know making fun of the people who died, including a mom of three very young kids. Shame on you.

PP is making fun of the other PP who is being ridiculous.

Exploiting her death in this situation is actually kinda gross.

You've got to be kidding me. I guess you are ok with just letting more mothers die? Sit down and STFU.

Dial down the melodrama, Becky. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sort of the point. There is traffic and cut through everywhere. Nottingham is not special and doesn’t deserve special protection because you paid a lot for your house. Despite your arguments to the contrary.

I’m very sorry for you that you didn’t want to make things better for your neighborhood, or that your efforts were not successful.

Aww, you really tried with this. Here’s a cookie.

[Anonymous]

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.

I live in their neighborhood. You don't think we advocated for safety after the 1st, 2nd and 3rd death?! Get over yourself, you are truly awful.

You don't know anything about me, but thanks for calling me awful. Take a look at the pedestrian injury/fatality map in Arlington. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOTljN2M0YjQtNjU4ZS00MDJmLWI1NjMtYjc4MDRkMDI5ZjU1IiwidCI6IjgwMzU0ODA0LTFmZGYtNDI4ZS05ZjVmLTUwOTFlOTk0Y2Y1NCIsImMiOjF9

There certainly is a cluster of deaths and injuries along Little Falls, but also check out 2nd St S in Arlington Heights. You can see 2 deaths and 2 injuries in the last 10 years (and that's ignoring all the injuries along Rt. 50 just north of there). This neighborhood is home to 4 schools: TJ, Fleet, MPSA, and the Career Center. Over 3,000+ students.

And, you are not even talking about APS adding a new school at Tuckahoe. They are changing the traffic patterns around an existing site -- I would guess adding a lot more buses and fewer cars. And, for the third time, yes, I am sorry about the traffic concerns, and I think they are real, but that does not mean APS can't or should not do this.

But, I say this as a site neighbor to the Career Center site which is going to be under construction for MANY YEARS, in a neighborhood that already has a lot of students and a lot of traffic and also a lot of injuries, I do think this is part of living in an urban environment. I'm not saying to ignore safety, but I don't think we can not make changes because of traffic. We just have to do the best we can to mitigate it.

And, again, really, I feel your pain. I do. A lot of us do. APS does not value continuity for kids at all, as it has shown in every single boundary process.

+1000 And I would also include the fact that the Career Center site is being expanded; so even more students will be coming and going to and from this compact area surrounded by major thoroughfare roads (Columbia Pike, Walter Reed, Glebe, and 50).

Unfortunately, PP, 22207 folks think this is fine for us folks living in less expensive neighborhoods in an urban environment; but believe they do not live in an urban environment - and expect to keep it that way no matter how much density is forced on the rest of Arlington.

Yeah those of us who are so-called “discount buyers” who “made different choices” should just suck it up for the Notties. I mean we we chose to live here so we definitely should give them deference about their traffic concerns. We’ve had traffic fatalities in our neighborhood too.

These next few months are going to be so much fun hearing all the arguments why their school is so special compared to all the other schools.

Groan. Crap like this is why we still have hazing in 2023. Someone put up with something stupid, and thinks it’s only fair to force others to put up with the same. And it’s not “Nottingham” or it’s PTA or it’s parents doing anything to you or not allowing something to happen. It’s APS staff, with a school board YOU elected. If your school is dysfunctional TAKE IT UP WITH THEM.

“Hazing?” Oh, please. Are you a frat boy?

[Anonymous]

To me, it’s ironic that APS wanted to make Nottingham an option school 5 years ago (or whenever) and they protested and deflected that to another school, which didn’t ultimately solve the underenrollment problem near Nottingham and Discovery.

Now the old McKinley people are living right next to two option schools and a neighborhood school. Meanwhile Nottingham isn’t turning into an option school, but a swing space, which doesn’t help them at all. If Nottingham had just shut up five years ago, they could have had both a nearby neighborhood school and nearby option school. But they talked APS out of it, in a way that didn’t solve the underlying problem, so here they are now with worse options.

[Anonymous]

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.

Groan. Here come the Route 50 frontage road discount buyers telling us what we should and shouldn’t put up with. Some people made different choices than you to live in a quiet neighborhood.

Guaranteed the choices that made your neighborhood what it is were not done in 3 months when over half the people being affected had no idea it was even happening.

WOW. What do you Nottingham families REALLY think about the rest of us?!

This Nottingham family thinks there are a lot of people out there that have an inferiority complex despite being objectively wealthy and incredibly privileged. Grow up. You are not debating the people in the $3m homes. You are not likely writing from a CAF, either.

DP but COME ON. "Some people made different choices than you to live in a quiet neighborhood" is the statement you're apparently defending here by saying the person who objected to it has "an inferiority complex despite being objectively wealthy and incredibly privileged" I guess? You're doing great, here, coming off really well.

I have an issue when people who bought on a busy road or in a known high traffic area to get more house for their $1.x million dollars claim it is only “fair” to force that same burden on everyone else, regardless of the rationale offered, and that people who refuse to accept that burden lying down are privileged wealthy snobs living in a bubble.

I’ve driven down Carlin Springs road many times, and I’ve driven down and walked down Little Falls. There are jerks who think surface streets are the autobahn everywhere. But Little Falls seems to be special in just how badly drivers lose line of sight on that road. Maybe it’s the hills and the varying width of the road? I’m no traffic engineer and don’t pretend to be one. The brand new stop signs earned in blood are appreciated but I don’t know it’s going to be enough to make Nottingham ready to be drop off central.

What do you mean “refuse to accept that burden lying down?” It is going to happen and you are going to deal with it. Not without whining, apparently, but deal with it you will.

[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:It seems obvious that Nottingham should be shut down. Less than 400 kids? Give me a break. Unless there us another school with even fewer kids it just makes sense.

Fewer than 400 kids !!! I remember when the community was up in arms about leaving drew so underenrolled after MPSA left. Drew is now larger than Nottingham.

But the housing policies that filled up Drew don’t apply to Nottingham. Unless the community is asking the county to build a CAF up in that neighborhood to fill up the school. One building would do it.

I remember a few years ago Jamestown was so under enrolled that they had to fill it with pre school and sped programs. Is that still the case? Maybe Nott isn’t really the lowest enrollment if you compare the number of neighborhood kids across schools, and don’t take into account the other programs that don’t have to be in any particular place.

And why did APS fill up Jamestown with these other programs instead of closing it, but now wants to close Nott? Nott isn’t that underenrolled. APS could move some of the programs out of the overcrowded schools and get it right back up to 100.

But look at how fast a Nottingham parent is to point to Jamestown or some other elementary school as an alternative chopping block head to get them out of their problem. They do this every cycle, did it with McKinley a few times and Taylor or Tuckahoe when they didn’t want to take in excess kids and pointed them towards other schools instead. You guys are the worst.

They don't want more buses that come from being used as swing space; yet it's fine to to add buses to move the programs out of crowded schools from other parts of the county. NES folks need to come up with an agreed argument and stick to it.

You don't see the difference between adding 1-2 programs to a mostly walking school vs switching a 90% walking school to a 100% driving school?

As swing space, the 100% driving school would be mainly buses and probably not much more individual cars for pick-ups and such as you have as a neighborhood program. And probably a lot less independent drivers on those rainy or cold days when all those walkers don't actually walk. So, differences; but overall, not a tremendous increase in danger, no. As an option program, there would still be those same buses and maybe more drivers depending on the program and where most of the students come from.

Nevertheless, the other issue is the constant - or frequent - relocation of those programs. Instructional consistency is needed for special programs, too; and it isn't right to keep moving those around like second-class citizens. Sure, parents may only be involved in a preK program for a year or so; but the teachers also have to move with the program, schools have to re-arrange to accommodate, admin has to adapt, etc. personally, I think every single elementary school should have pre-K classrooms and all Montessori preK should be with Montessori (if we have to keep Montessori).

And you base this conclusion that it would be mainly buses on what? I completely disagree. With longer bus rides, more parents would likely drive and there would be a lot more individual cars in the neighborhood.

trust me, Nottingham is not convenient enough for most parents to drive their kids to and from school every day. The bus will be far more convenient.

Not for before care or extended day. Also, where are you going to park 12 busses? The school isn’t designed for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if APS provides a later bus from extended day back to the home school.
600 kids. Minimum 60 kids per bus. That's no more than 10 total buses. And you're forgetting the hundreds that won't be riding the bus because their parents will prefer to drive all the way to NES and back twice a day so their kids don't have to be on the bus for 30 minutes. So, far less than 10 buses.

umm you know all parents don't just get out of work and pick their kids up at the same time, right? That's not how it works. Parents arrive at extended day at all different times up until it closes.

And all those parents driving to NES so their kids don't have to be on the bus is precisely what the neighborhood is worried about.