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: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.

These are fine questions. But you can’t recast this thread as “only” reasonable questions from Nottingham parents. Most of the Nottingham parent comments on this thread is the usual Nottingham elitism and nastiness.

I’ve been in touch with a great deal of Nottingham parents and the vast majority align more with these unanswered questions than whatever poster here is trying for scorched earth. We know we’ll be fine - we obviously are trying to save our school but if it doesnt work out, we’ll be ok.

It’s an anon message board, could be trolls from other school communities stirring things up. Because it’s obvious someone really doesn’t like Nottingham kids. Sad.

That's funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all are all playing right into APS's hands. Fight amongst yourselves when the real issue is the bizarre decision-making.

APS is at capacity! So close down a school? For what what problem are we trying to solve? What renovations are absolutely needed that will take longer than a few months that can't be broken down into summer-long chunks? For how long? No partial school closures while renovating - it's all or nothing? These are BASIC questions that have no answers in the pre-CIP. This level of mismanagement and lack of rigor would get me fired at my job. Who cares about the N vs S nonsense.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Ask the real questions. Even abingdon had a full scale rebuild and never closed. What’s the plan APS? Who’s moving here? For how long? What happens to it next?

APS isn’t going to bus kids from Barcroft to Nottingham. That’s ridiculous. Is this about MPSA? because those details were a mere footnote in the career center plans. Arlington residents deserve to know what the longer term plans are and stop being expected to eat bulls*t a spoonful at a time.

MPSA was a footnote with a hug pricetag! Read the report.
Oh and I thanked my lucky stars every day my child wasn't at Abingdon. Never again should be the APS mantra on building with kids on the property. Plus it took longer (=$$$) to do it that way.

NES parents would be in an outrage if their kids had to remain in the building with an Abingdon-like project going on. This whole thread is a wasted breath....there is no enlightening the 22207 bubble with what it's like so far away on the outside in the lower 2220's.

[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.

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

[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: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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

[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: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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

[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: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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the main problem with dwindling numbers at Nottingham due to many Nottingham families going private? I think it was just under capacity before covid about 4 years ago. It's shrunk to under 400 kids because so many took their kids out for private, I thought? Not sure if I can find the 2017 numbers.

Here: In 2017, APS was projecting that Nottingham would have 535 kids attending in 2018, which for Nottingham is about 100% capacity (I think without trailers their capacity is 530). So in just 5 years they've lost more than 140 kids and their school now has under 400 kids. You're seeing that shrinkage more in the way way North where parents wend private due to school closures and less in the south where minority families who were actually more likely to be negatively affected by covid healthwise were often okay with the closures. But you can't have your cake and eat it too -- have kids leave the system in your northern elementary schools and think that's "fair" -- the reality is you're spending more on your school to staff and operate it when you've only got 400 kids compared to a school that's closer to full capacity.

I have to respond to this point. Many were not ok with the closures, especially the ones that continued to work outside the home in public facing jobs and wanted their kids to get an education or at least be supervised for 6-7 hours a day. They just didn’t have the resources to flee to private school.

No, sorry. Lower income families and many of the “brown” families you all pretended to care so much about chose virtual at a higher rate than privileged white people whose SAHM-ing or sitting-on-their-behind-in-yoga-pants “working” at home white moms was being cramped by their noisy kids being at home wanting attention and endless snacks.

I didn’t realize it at the time but turns out that APE was 100% right.

I gotta love the resident APE promoter who always pretends to be non APE but oh so supportive. Makes my day every time.

You have a sad life if this makes your day.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

How is it not irrelevant? You’re suggesting people add hours of logistics to their day, either in public transportation or their own cars. Or they’ll have to pay for Uber/Lyft. And they may not be aware this is coming down the pipe.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

The irrelevant lecture merely proves the PPP isn't concerned about poor people or people without cars.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

How is it not irrelevant? You’re suggesting people add hours of logistics to their day, either in public transportation or their own cars. Or they’ll have to pay for Uber/Lyft. And they may not be aware this is coming down the pipe.

Obviously, I meant *relevant*

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

How is it not irrelevant? You’re suggesting people add hours of logistics to their day, either in public transportation or their own cars. Or they’ll have to pay for Uber/Lyft. And they may not be aware this is coming down the pipe.

It'll suck for 180 days. Then it'll be over.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

The irrelevant lecture merely proves the PPP isn't concerned about poor people or people without cars.

Not PP but no I’m not the least bit concerned about how other people get to and from school. Not at all.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

How is it not irrelevant? You’re suggesting people add hours of logistics to their day, either in public transportation or their own cars. Or they’ll have to pay for Uber/Lyft. And they may not be aware this is coming down the pipe.

I was literally just asking about a data point.

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

How is it not irrelevant? You’re suggesting people add hours of logistics to their day, either in public transportation or their own cars. Or they’ll have to pay for Uber/Lyft. And they may not be aware this is coming down the pipe.

It'll suck for 180 days. Then it'll be over.

Yes, please add 3 hours of commuting to my day.

Why aren’t they considering trailers on-site while schools are being remodeled?

[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:

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.

A dozen buses is our concern!
There won't be a dozen buses.
All the cars is our concern!
Buses will be more convenient and used by the majority of the kids using it as swing space because of the location.
It's all the cars coming over a period of an hour or so to pick up their kids from extended day that's our concern.
And here's where we ask if it would be better that the hoards of parents picking up their kids from extended day did all come at once and you say no, that's our concern.

Seriously. A lighter, steady "stream" is far better than a joglam with everyone picking up at the same time. Just cut to the chase - cite the bottom line: we don't want, and won't accept any change. Period.

Has anyone asked the schools that will use the swing space if they want to use the swing space? Nope, because APS won’t identify which schools it is.

Parents on the other side of the county won’t want them or their students to trek up to Nottingham no matter what kind of transportation is or is not provided. It’s a far haul during rush hour, made worse if you don’t have your own car.

Does anyone know how many people actually don’t have a car? The affordable housing buildings that I see have full parking lots. I feel like a lot of the “equity” and “transportation disadvantaged” talk is a bit of an exaggeration. It kinda feels like a convenient excuse for people who don’t want to integrate the schools. But since I haven’t seen data on car ownership of parents and since I highly doubt anyone has done a study, this is really just a guess.

Btw, I’m not saying your post is racist, I just question this part of the “equity narrative” that we have all been fed.

Plenty of parents take Metro to work and leave their cars at home. Are they supposed to go home, get their car, and then drive across the county to get their kid?

Lots of families only have one car. Even high SES families. Shocking, I know.

But the PP was specifically talking about people without cars. And that’s what I asked about. I’m aware how many people get to work but thanks for your irrelevant lecture.

The irrelevant lecture merely proves the PPP isn't concerned about poor people or people without cars.

No I actually am concerned, but I think the #1 thing we can do from an equity perspective is to integrate the schools. There is nothing we can do that would be as beneficial as creating mixed-income schools. And so I was asking a question about a specific data point bc I think people have a lot of feelings about their schools but we aren’t always making data-driven decisions. It was a question as part of a conversation, not a conclusion. Back down.