APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This seems like a good idea. It’ll suck for 180 days (just like driving across the county!) but then you’ll be left with a new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

[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:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

[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:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

No I’m telling you that most schools can’t accommodate the trailers. The parcels aren’t big enough. It’s not a question of “will.”

And I don’t really care what they do to Jamestown and the park, but if there’s an under- capacity school and they can assign those kids to nearby schools and use the school for swing space , I think that’s preferable to closing a park for both park patrons and students.

[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:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

No I’m telling you that most schools can’t accommodate the trailers. The parcels aren’t big enough. It’s not a question of “will.”

And I don’t really care what they do to Jamestown and the park, but if there’s an under- capacity school and they can assign those kids to nearby schools and use the school for swing space , I think that’s preferable to closing a park for both park patrons and students.

Oh, are you an expert in land use?

I think temporarily closing a field to rec soccer is better than permanently closing a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

No I’m telling you that most schools can’t accommodate the trailers. The parcels aren’t big enough. It’s not a question of “will.”

And I don’t really care what they do to Jamestown and the park, but if there’s an under- capacity school and they can assign those kids to nearby schools and use the school for swing space , I think that’s preferable to closing a park for both park patrons and students.

Oh, are you an expert in land use?

I think temporarily closing a field to rec soccer is better than permanently closing a neighborhood school.

Are you an expert in creating a school for hundreds of kids from trailers? Does Jamestown Park have sufficient utilities to hook up all the bathrooms for the students and faculty? Or would you bring in bathroom trailers? Where would the traffic and parking go for both the construction site and the school? Would the students in your scenario have any space for specials and gym or would these just be your standard relocatable classrooms? What is the cost difference to set up an entire school of trailers verses swing space? And to set this trailer school up at every school that needs renovations? Please share!

[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:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

No I’m telling you that most schools can’t accommodate the trailers. The parcels aren’t big enough. It’s not a question of “will.”

And I don’t really care what they do to Jamestown and the park, but if there’s an under- capacity school and they can assign those kids to nearby schools and use the school for swing space , I think that’s preferable to closing a park for both park patrons and students.

Oh, are you an expert in land use?

I think temporarily closing a field to rec soccer is better than permanently closing a neighborhood school.

Are you an expert in creating a school for hundreds of kids from trailers? Does Jamestown Park have sufficient utilities to hook up all the bathrooms for the students and faculty? Or would you bring in bathroom trailers? Where would the traffic and parking go for both the construction site and the school? Would the students in your scenario have any space for specials and gym or would these just be your standard relocatable classrooms? What is the cost difference to set up an entire school of trailers verses swing space? And to set this trailer school up at every school that needs renovations? Please share!

Right, there are no answers to any of these questions just like there are no answers to many of the questions Nottingham parents are asking.

[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:

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?

The schools can’t support the amount of trailers it would take to hold the capacity of an entire school. A lot of the schools already have trailers. Do you think the parcels are big enough to add trailers for hundreds of students?

Isn’t Jamestown next to a park though? I suppose in theory the parks and sports fields could be covered for a year if they were large enough. But then people would
be upset about no sports and parks.

Now who’s the one that won’t accept any alternatives. When there’s a will, there’s a way.

No I’m telling you that most schools can’t accommodate the trailers. The parcels aren’t big enough. It’s not a question of “will.”

And I don’t really care what they do to Jamestown and the park, but if there’s an under- capacity school and they can assign those kids to nearby schools and use the school for swing space , I think that’s preferable to closing a park for both park patrons and students.

Oh, are you an expert in land use?

I think temporarily closing a field to rec soccer is better than permanently closing a neighborhood school.

Is anyone weighing in here an expert on anything?

[Anonymous]

I am an expert on hitting snooze in the morning and also desktop publishing trends from the 1990s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm more sad for the one person in APE who clearly spends all of their time on DCUM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm more sad for the one person in APE who clearly spends all of their time on DCUM

Ok, dear. It’s an anonymous board. Your theory can’t be proven nor disproven, nor can mine that the 13-year olds have found this forum and blessed us all with their “you’re dumb” witticism.

Time to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm more sad for the one person in APE who clearly spends all of their time on DCUM

Ok, dear. It’s an anonymous board. Your theory can’t be proven nor disproven, nor can mine that the 13-year olds have found this forum and blessed us all with their “you’re dumb” witticism.

Time to move on.

HA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm more sad for the one person in APE who clearly spends all of their time on DCUM

Ok, dear. It’s an anonymous board. Your theory can’t be proven nor disproven, nor can mine that the 13-year olds have found this forum and blessed us all with their “you’re dumb” witticism.

Time to move on.

I completely agree with you that it's impossible to distinguish between the behavior of an APE and a 13 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm more sad for the one person in APE who clearly spends all of their time on DCUM

Ok, dear. It’s an anonymous board. Your theory can’t be proven nor disproven, nor can mine that the 13-year olds have found this forum and blessed us all with their “you’re dumb” witticism.

Time to move on.

I completely agree with you that it's impossible to distinguish between the behavior of an APE and a 13 year old.

Come on, now, some of the ”Nottie” haters on here write suspiciously like teenagers. Black and white, nothing in between, looking for a “Gotcha! You’re cancelled!” and incapable of nuance or context.

But I guess they could be adults with the mental intellect of children. We certainly have plenty of them to go around, even in Arlington, and I’ll be the first to admit they’re on both sides.

[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.

This “equity narrative” about cars is being driven, not by snobby Notties, but by the affordable housing special interests who want to pack CAFs into dense, transit-oriented neighborhoods without building sufficient parking for the cars that will inevitably show up on the neighborhood streets.

I’m sensitive to the concerns about being an inclusive community and having price points accessible to people who are not law firm partners.

But no one wants to talk about the cars because it raises too many uncomfortable questions- like why are we putting in CAFs in someplace expensive, desirable, and transit-oriented like Rosslyn if the people who live there are driving out into the suburbs to do their jobs and their errands. On the flip side, if everyone has a car, why not park the CAFs in 22207? Or for that matter, somewhere more affordable at a market rate that’s not Arlington?

It’s better for everyone involved if we pretend “poor” people earning $40k-$80k per year or whatever our income limit is don’t drive cars even though they absolutely do.