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: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.

They have done studies to see how much parking is needed for buildings like Queen's Court. These studies involve counting the cars in the parking lot at various times of day and they extrapolate from there. Of course, these studies don't capture the number of resident owned cars that have MD tags and are parking on nearby streets to avoid having to register in VA or pay parking fees.

[Anonymous]

all the discussion about whether or not Nottingham is appropriate for swing space is really missing the point of why APS is proposing closing it. APS is proposing closing Nottingham b/c it is underenrolled- as are the surrounding schools. The last month APS published enrollment statistics was February. Nottingham had 382 students with a capacity of 513. Tuckahoe had 429 students with a capacity of 545. (I'm intentionally leaving preschool out of this conversation). Discovery 493 students with a capacity of 630. Cardinal 701 with a capacity of 732. Close Nottingham and 281 of those students are easily absorbed. Going slightly futher- Jamestown had 437 with a capacity of 597. Shift the discovery boundary to move units back to Jamestown- and the rest of Nottingham goes to discovery.
The swing space is to say that APS is going to continue to own it rather than sell or give it to the county to use as parkland/ a community center etc.
Closing one of those schools is good fiscal management- operating buildings and schools way under capacity is not prudent. Honestly, you can make the case for closing Tuckahoe too- (not closing both Nottingham and Tuckahoe- but one of them).

[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.

Folks, parents don't get to decide these things. All parents aren't going to agree, anyway.
It's APS' job to manage buildings and programs. You don't have to like how they do it. Your individual preferences don't have to be accommodated. It isn't about what "we" want. It's about what APS needs and APS gets to manage it.

[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?

Arlington isn't very big. It isn't going to increase your commute by 3 hours a day.
I'm sure NES would be thrilled to house all their kids in trailers during a renovation, if it were their school being renovated. Parents have griped about trailers for almost two decades. Suddenly they're the recommended option by parents? You'll gripe again when you see how much space that many trailers takes up...in addition to all the construction vehicles.

[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.

Folks, parents don't get to decide these things. All parents aren't going to agree, anyway.
It's APS' job to manage buildings and programs. You don't have to like how they do it. Your individual preferences don't have to be accommodated. It isn't about what "we" want. It's about what APS needs and APS gets to manage it.

Yes, but the APS board answers ultimately to their constituents, and there are consequences for not following the will of the people that vote for you.

[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.

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.

You're right. If APS made data-driven decisions, they would have integrated the schools a long time ago.

[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?

Arlington isn't very big. It isn't going to increase your commute by 3 hours a day.
I'm sure NES would be thrilled to house all their kids in trailers during a renovation, if it were their school being renovated. Parents have griped about trailers for almost two decades. Suddenly they're the recommended option by parents? You'll gripe again when you see how much space that many trailers takes up...in addition to all the construction vehicles.

I'd rather have trailers on the site of my current school than being bused 30+ min each way to another school. Arlington isn't very big, but it takes time to get across the county during morning and afternoon rush hours, even more so if you are using public transportation.

[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.

DP. sigh. you really are exasperating.
You're fine with this proposal because the park and trailers won't be your park and school. Fine for others.
Trailers cost money, too. And that many temporary trailers would be ridiculous - and deep down, I'm really going to try to believe that you know it.

[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.

Folks, parents don't get to decide these things. All parents aren't going to agree, anyway.
It's APS' job to manage buildings and programs. You don't have to like how they do it. Your individual preferences don't have to be accommodated. It isn't about what "we" want. It's about what APS needs and APS gets to manage it.

Yes, but the APS board answers ultimately to their constituents, and there are consequences for not following the will of the people that vote for you.

Really? Just who has been voted out because they didn't follow the will of the people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all the discussion about whether or not Nottingham is appropriate for swing space is really missing the point of why APS is proposing closing it. APS is proposing closing Nottingham b/c it is underenrolled- as are the surrounding schools. The last month APS published enrollment statistics was February. Nottingham had 382 students with a capacity of 513. Tuckahoe had 429 students with a capacity of 545. (I'm intentionally leaving preschool out of this conversation). Discovery 493 students with a capacity of 630. Cardinal 701 with a capacity of 732. Close Nottingham and 281 of those students are easily absorbed. Going slightly futher- Jamestown had 437 with a capacity of 597. Shift the discovery boundary to move units back to Jamestown- and the rest of Nottingham goes to discovery.
The swing space is to say that APS is going to continue to own it rather than sell or give it to the county to use as parkland/ a community center etc.
Closing one of those schools is good fiscal management- operating buildings and schools way under capacity is not prudent. Honestly, you can make the case for closing Tuckahoe too- (not closing both Nottingham and Tuckahoe- but one of them).

Perhaps. But they chose Nottingham because its walk zone overlaps with two other walk zones - Tuckahoe and Discovery.
That's why it makes sense it's 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:

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.

DP. sigh. you really are exasperating.
You're fine with this proposal because the park and trailers won't be your park and school. Fine for others.
Trailers cost money, too. And that many temporary trailers would be ridiculous - and deep down, I'm really going to try to believe that you know it.

You’re fine with the proposal to close Nottingham because it isn’t your school.

Trailers will be infinitely cheaper than building out a new swing space in an office building or converting a non-school space.

If it was my school, I’d be totally fine with it for a year. Deep down, I’m really going to try to believe that you know it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all the discussion about whether or not Nottingham is appropriate for swing space is really missing the point of why APS is proposing closing it. APS is proposing closing Nottingham b/c it is underenrolled- as are the surrounding schools. The last month APS published enrollment statistics was February. Nottingham had 382 students with a capacity of 513. Tuckahoe had 429 students with a capacity of 545. (I'm intentionally leaving preschool out of this conversation). Discovery 493 students with a capacity of 630. Cardinal 701 with a capacity of 732. Close Nottingham and 281 of those students are easily absorbed. Going slightly futher- Jamestown had 437 with a capacity of 597. Shift the discovery boundary to move units back to Jamestown- and the rest of Nottingham goes to discovery.
The swing space is to say that APS is going to continue to own it rather than sell or give it to the county to use as parkland/ a community center etc.
Closing one of those schools is good fiscal management- operating buildings and schools way under capacity is not prudent. Honestly, you can make the case for closing Tuckahoe too- (not closing both Nottingham and Tuckahoe- but one of them).

Perhaps. But they chose Nottingham because its walk zone overlaps with two other walk zones - Tuckahoe and Discovery.
That's why it makes sense it's Nottingham.

You can make the case for closing either school, but note this school-closing proposal was very specifically framed as a “swing space” proposal consistent with the SB’s earlier direction and not a school closing proposal.

There was and is a long-running plan, here. It’s fair to ask questions about what it is. Contrary to the authoritarians running around in this thread, APS is a government organization and has certain responsibilities to the public in carrying out its duties. Doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t do unpopular things, but they need to be responsive if they want to be consistent with the law and, I don’t know, not be fired en masse by an enraged electorate putting 5 Audrey Clements on the Board.

[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:

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.

DP. sigh. you really are exasperating.
You're fine with this proposal because the park and trailers won't be your park and school. Fine for others.
Trailers cost money, too. And that many temporary trailers would be ridiculous - and deep down, I'm really going to try to believe that you know it.

You’re fine with the proposal to close Nottingham because it isn’t your school.

Trailers will be infinitely cheaper than building out a new swing space in an office building or converting a non-school space.

If it was my school, I’d be totally fine with it for a year. Deep down, I’m really going to try to believe that you know it too.

But not more efficient than using an existing school that can be emptied without overcrowding nearby schools and is not expected to be essential capacity for the next several years. And those other options would take longer to put in place than using an existing operating elementary.

Sure, I'd be upset if it were my kids' school. However, since I'm a "southie," I'd be more concerned than if I were NES depending on which nearby school we'd be shifted to.
I'm fine with them using NES for swing space if it facilitates the renovations and updates needed for numerous other schools and NES isn't serving as critical capacity for the area (which it currently isn't). Do I think it's the best location for swing space? Only if you're swinging kids from somewhere up there, not for 22202, for example. But it's what we have. So, yes, I'm fine with APS making do with what it has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:all the discussion about whether or not Nottingham is appropriate for swing space is really missing the point of why APS is proposing closing it. APS is proposing closing Nottingham b/c it is underenrolled- as are the surrounding schools. The last month APS published enrollment statistics was February. Nottingham had 382 students with a capacity of 513. Tuckahoe had 429 students with a capacity of 545. (I'm intentionally leaving preschool out of this conversation). Discovery 493 students with a capacity of 630. Cardinal 701 with a capacity of 732. Close Nottingham and 281 of those students are easily absorbed. Going slightly futher- Jamestown had 437 with a capacity of 597. Shift the discovery boundary to move units back to Jamestown- and the rest of Nottingham goes to discovery.
The swing space is to say that APS is going to continue to own it rather than sell or give it to the county to use as parkland/ a community center etc.
Closing one of those schools is good fiscal management- operating buildings and schools way under capacity is not prudent. Honestly, you can make the case for closing Tuckahoe too- (not closing both Nottingham and Tuckahoe- but one of them).

+1 totally agree with this. The problem APS is primarily trying to solve probably isn't swing space per se, but dealing with 22207 underenrollment and waste of resources. At the same time, they probably don't want to lose the school altogether because those numbers might come back. Meanwhile, kids will go to perfectly great, similarly situated schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all the discussion about whether or not Nottingham is appropriate for swing space is really missing the point of why APS is proposing closing it. APS is proposing closing Nottingham b/c it is underenrolled- as are the surrounding schools. The last month APS published enrollment statistics was February. Nottingham had 382 students with a capacity of 513. Tuckahoe had 429 students with a capacity of 545. (I'm intentionally leaving preschool out of this conversation). Discovery 493 students with a capacity of 630. Cardinal 701 with a capacity of 732. Close Nottingham and 281 of those students are easily absorbed. Going slightly futher- Jamestown had 437 with a capacity of 597. Shift the discovery boundary to move units back to Jamestown- and the rest of Nottingham goes to discovery.
The swing space is to say that APS is going to continue to own it rather than sell or give it to the county to use as parkland/ a community center etc.
Closing one of those schools is good fiscal management- operating buildings and schools way under capacity is not prudent. Honestly, you can make the case for closing Tuckahoe too- (not closing both Nottingham and Tuckahoe- but one of them).

+1 totally agree with this. The problem APS is primarily trying to solve probably isn't swing space per se, but dealing with 22207 underenrollment and waste of resources. At the same time, they probably don't want to lose the school altogether because those numbers might come back. Meanwhile, kids will go to perfectly great, similarly situated schools.

+2 the school enrollment shifted. There was a need for capacity in the north 10-15 years ago and APS is also greatly limited by where there is land to put schools (thus Cardinal). So we end up with capacity where we don't need it now. They are smart to keep an unneeded building in use as swing space so they can do renovations at other schools rather than getting rid of it. Part of the crisis in capacity/lack of sites was the short sighted decision a few decades ago to give unneeded school sites to the county to use as rec centers. My kids were part of the early surge of students 15ish years ago. Now last one is going to college. When we and other empty nesters in N Arlington move/downsize, another wave of young families will come in and student populations in that part of the county will go up again. APS has to be able to adapt to the cycles.