APS Closing Nottingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You have to show up to the meeting where they elect them. How many people bother to do that? Not many. That's at least how it worked at both the schools I've been at. I have never once voted for a member of a PTA board and I'm going on my 8th school of having kids in an elementary school. I am grateful for what they do for the school but think they should stay in their lane and not represent their views as the whole community's views.

If you don’t go to meetings and don’t vote for them, then you can’t complain they aren’t listening to your views.

Is anyone reading what I'm writing? I am not complaining that they don't listen to my views. I'm saying they should stay out of this stuff and allow individuals to speak up and encourage people to do so. I am saying they should not claim to represent everyone.

but that's literally their role, to represent their communities and advocate for their needs.

I have been told that in Fairfax it is not common for PTAs to get involved in boundary discussions. It's seen as not their role. Because it really shouldn't be. I understand Nottingham isn't specifically a traditional boundary issue. But as a more general point...the reason why they wouldn't engage in this is there are obviously a lot of conflicting needs and viewpoints among any school community when boundaries come up. It's asinine to act like the PTA can represent one point of view and advocate for it on issues like this and they should stay out of it.

They can and should point out concerns. That's very appropriate. It is not appropriate to take one specific stance if you do not have a consensus, or even a majority of membership in agreement. It appears that, in this case, CCPTA leadership (1) may not have even bothered to seek the input of its members; (2) did not receive input from its members or not enough of them; (3) determined that there was too much varying opinion and took it upon themselves to take a position of their choosing.

On any front, this was a poor performance on the part of CCPTA and it makes the whole organization look bad. The rationale, the graph, and questionable financial analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to the point the CCPTA Prez made in her board comment? She said there isn't funding to renovate schools for several years, so APS's plan would close Nottingham and then leave it empty for years. Is this true???

No.

Prove it. It is true.

Questionable analysis. See comment chain on the topic on AEM and on Arlington County Matters FB pages. I don't know that it's appropriate to copy and paste others' comments from there to here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You know that the more engaged communities and more representative PTAs are from wealthier schools, right?
You know what a struggle it is to get anyone to a PTA meeting, let alone volunteer to be an officer is, especially at our Title 1 schools, right?
So then, you know that any PTA board at schools with a bare-bones, low membership PTA is representing the entire school based on the voices of a handful of people, right?

Even the wealthier schools, the PTA leadership is representing a small slice and not everyone in their community feels one way.

Then they should go to the pta meetings and speak up.

Sometimes people do and it doesn’t matter. I was at McKinley during their whole battle to keep their school. It is not a comfortable environment to sit in a room with a small group of the most A+++ type obnoxious personalities (many who you will see tomorrow in the hallway) and disagree with their point of view and oh by the way even if you do speak up they move forward with their position anyway.

Waste of time. People are better off speaking to School Board members directly and engaging directly with APS.

Ok so what you're saying is that you were in the minority and the McKinley PTA went with the majority view in your school community. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not supposed to pander to the minority or to you specifically. One person doesn't get to dictate the PTA position. You are free to vocalize your individual views yourself, which is sounds like you did. What's the issue then?

Self-interested people put themselves in the position to dominate the PTA. Isn't this obvious? I was at McKinley at that time. The Madison Manor and Dominion Hills neighborhoods dominated the PTA because...self-interest. They were the walkable ones who freaked out when McKinley was going to become ATS and they were the ones on the potential block to not go to Cardinal. Dominion Hills was originally suggested to go to Ashlawn and Madison Manor really could have easily gone to Tuckahoe. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods were not the majority of that school.

I always thought the ATS move made sense and thought the things our PTA was saying were bonkers/misleading at times and knew lots of people who felt that way.

again this just gets back to you didn't agree with the majority position on your PTA. Take that up with your PTA.

I did at the time. Raised specific concerns with things I saw very politely. Was ultimately ignored. So yes I did bother to get involved but over time when this is how people get treated they stop bothering. And yes for most people, it is hard to go in a room and speak up to people who are very passionate, convinced they are right, and not at all open minded or interested in changing their mind. So those who are less impacted BUT STILL HAVE AN OPINION just shut up and go away. That does not mean it's the minority view. To me, this is a problem. According to many of you, it's how it's all supposed to work. Yay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You know that the more engaged communities and more representative PTAs are from wealthier schools, right?
You know what a struggle it is to get anyone to a PTA meeting, let alone volunteer to be an officer is, especially at our Title 1 schools, right?
So then, you know that any PTA board at schools with a bare-bones, low membership PTA is representing the entire school based on the voices of a handful of people, right?

Even the wealthier schools, the PTA leadership is representing a small slice and not everyone in their community feels one way.

Then they should go to the pta meetings and speak up.

Sometimes people do and it doesn’t matter. I was at McKinley during their whole battle to keep their school. It is not a comfortable environment to sit in a room with a small group of the most A+++ type obnoxious personalities (many who you will see tomorrow in the hallway) and disagree with their point of view and oh by the way even if you do speak up they move forward with their position anyway.

Waste of time. People are better off speaking to School Board members directly and engaging directly with APS.

Ok so what you're saying is that you were in the minority and the McKinley PTA went with the majority view in your school community. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not supposed to pander to the minority or to you specifically. One person doesn't get to dictate the PTA position. You are free to vocalize your individual views yourself, which is sounds like you did. What's the issue then?

Self-interested people put themselves in the position to dominate the PTA. Isn't this obvious? I was at McKinley at that time. The Madison Manor and Dominion Hills neighborhoods dominated the PTA because...self-interest. They were the walkable ones who freaked out when McKinley was going to become ATS and they were the ones on the potential block to not go to Cardinal. Dominion Hills was originally suggested to go to Ashlawn and Madison Manor really could have easily gone to Tuckahoe. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods were not the majority of that school.

I always thought the ATS move made sense and thought the things our PTA was saying were bonkers/misleading at times and knew lots of people who felt that way.

again this just gets back to you didn't agree with the majority position on your PTA. Take that up with your PTA.

I did at the time. Raised specific concerns with things I saw very politely. Was ultimately ignored. So yes I did bother to get involved but over time when this is how people get treated they stop bothering. And yes for most people, it is hard to go in a room and speak up to people who are very passionate, convinced they are right, and not at all open minded or interested in changing their mind. So those who are less impacted BUT STILL HAVE AN OPINION just shut up and go away. That does not mean it's the minority view. To me, this is a problem. According to many of you, it's how it's all supposed to work. Yay.

You are free to go speak at the SB meetings and highlight the fact that your PTA's position does not reflect everyone's, and if so, only represents a small fraction of the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You know that the more engaged communities and more representative PTAs are from wealthier schools, right?
You know what a struggle it is to get anyone to a PTA meeting, let alone volunteer to be an officer is, especially at our Title 1 schools, right?
So then, you know that any PTA board at schools with a bare-bones, low membership PTA is representing the entire school based on the voices of a handful of people, right?

Even the wealthier schools, the PTA leadership is representing a small slice and not everyone in their community feels one way.

Then they should go to the pta meetings and speak up.

Sometimes people do and it doesn’t matter. I was at McKinley during their whole battle to keep their school. It is not a comfortable environment to sit in a room with a small group of the most A+++ type obnoxious personalities (many who you will see tomorrow in the hallway) and disagree with their point of view and oh by the way even if you do speak up they move forward with their position anyway.

Waste of time. People are better off speaking to School Board members directly and engaging directly with APS.

Ok so what you're saying is that you were in the minority and the McKinley PTA went with the majority view in your school community. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not supposed to pander to the minority or to you specifically. One person doesn't get to dictate the PTA position. You are free to vocalize your individual views yourself, which is sounds like you did. What's the issue then?

Self-interested people put themselves in the position to dominate the PTA. Isn't this obvious? I was at McKinley at that time. The Madison Manor and Dominion Hills neighborhoods dominated the PTA because...self-interest. They were the walkable ones who freaked out when McKinley was going to become ATS and they were the ones on the potential block to not go to Cardinal. Dominion Hills was originally suggested to go to Ashlawn and Madison Manor really could have easily gone to Tuckahoe. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods were not the majority of that school.

I always thought the ATS move made sense and thought the things our PTA was saying were bonkers/misleading at times and knew lots of people who felt that way.

again this just gets back to you didn't agree with the majority position on your PTA. Take that up with your PTA.

I did at the time. Raised specific concerns with things I saw very politely. Was ultimately ignored. So yes I did bother to get involved but over time when this is how people get treated they stop bothering. And yes for most people, it is hard to go in a room and speak up to people who are very passionate, convinced they are right, and not at all open minded or interested in changing their mind. So those who are less impacted BUT STILL HAVE AN OPINION just shut up and go away. That does not mean it's the minority view. To me, this is a problem. According to many of you, it's how it's all supposed to work. Yay.

You are free to go speak at the SB meetings and highlight the fact that your PTA's position does not reflect everyone's, and if so, only represents a small fraction of the community.

I did email APS planning staff. No, I'm not going to go stand publicly and call out my PTA president and cronies who live in my neighborhood and my children are in school with their children. Thanks for your advice though.

I think the defensive response to this is pretty fascinating. As if it's so shocking that small group of people hijack the PTA and do whatever the F they feel like. This is not uncommon.

[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:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You know that the more engaged communities and more representative PTAs are from wealthier schools, right?
You know what a struggle it is to get anyone to a PTA meeting, let alone volunteer to be an officer is, especially at our Title 1 schools, right?
So then, you know that any PTA board at schools with a bare-bones, low membership PTA is representing the entire school based on the voices of a handful of people, right?

Even the wealthier schools, the PTA leadership is representing a small slice and not everyone in their community feels one way.

Then they should go to the pta meetings and speak up.

Sometimes people do and it doesn’t matter. I was at McKinley during their whole battle to keep their school. It is not a comfortable environment to sit in a room with a small group of the most A+++ type obnoxious personalities (many who you will see tomorrow in the hallway) and disagree with their point of view and oh by the way even if you do speak up they move forward with their position anyway.

Waste of time. People are better off speaking to School Board members directly and engaging directly with APS.

Ok so what you're saying is that you were in the minority and the McKinley PTA went with the majority view in your school community. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not supposed to pander to the minority or to you specifically. One person doesn't get to dictate the PTA position. You are free to vocalize your individual views yourself, which is sounds like you did. What's the issue then?

Self-interested people put themselves in the position to dominate the PTA. Isn't this obvious? I was at McKinley at that time. The Madison Manor and Dominion Hills neighborhoods dominated the PTA because...self-interest. They were the walkable ones who freaked out when McKinley was going to become ATS and they were the ones on the potential block to not go to Cardinal. Dominion Hills was originally suggested to go to Ashlawn and Madison Manor really could have easily gone to Tuckahoe. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods were not the majority of that school.

I always thought the ATS move made sense and thought the things our PTA was saying were bonkers/misleading at times and knew lots of people who felt that way.

again this just gets back to you didn't agree with the majority position on your PTA. Take that up with your PTA.

I did at the time. Raised specific concerns with things I saw very politely. Was ultimately ignored. So yes I did bother to get involved but over time when this is how people get treated they stop bothering. And yes for most people, it is hard to go in a room and speak up to people who are very passionate, convinced they are right, and not at all open minded or interested in changing their mind. So those who are less impacted BUT STILL HAVE AN OPINION just shut up and go away. That does not mean it's the minority view. To me, this is a problem. According to many of you, it's how it's all supposed to work. Yay.

You are free to go speak at the SB meetings and highlight the fact that your PTA's position does not reflect everyone's, and if so, only represents a small fraction of the community.

I did email APS planning staff. No, I'm not going to go stand publicly and call out my PTA president and cronies who live in my neighborhood and my children are in school with their children. Thanks for your advice though.

I think the defensive response to this is pretty fascinating. As if it's so shocking that small group of people hijack the PTA and do whatever the F they feel like. This is not uncommon.

You’re treating the PTA like it’s some kind of neighborhood mafia and you’ll face consequences for speaking out. This isn’t Big Little Lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Montessori is not planning on using Nottingham as a swing space.

[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:These PTA groups do not speak for people. It's so annoying to me. It's half a dozen self-interested types who then make it seem as if they represent a collective view. It's BS. I've been at two N Arl elementary schools and it's the same thing.

PTAs should stick to what they are for...supporting teachers and finding ways to do more for our kids. Stay out of advocacy and lobbying the school board. We are all perfectly capable of speaking up for ourselves individually and it also annoys me that the School Board and APS actually treat these PTAs with outsized importance. Why do they get a bigger seat at the table than any of the rest of us?

You know your school’s PTA membership elects the PTA board right?

You know that the more engaged communities and more representative PTAs are from wealthier schools, right?
You know what a struggle it is to get anyone to a PTA meeting, let alone volunteer to be an officer is, especially at our Title 1 schools, right?
So then, you know that any PTA board at schools with a bare-bones, low membership PTA is representing the entire school based on the voices of a handful of people, right?

Even the wealthier schools, the PTA leadership is representing a small slice and not everyone in their community feels one way.

Then they should go to the pta meetings and speak up.

Sometimes people do and it doesn’t matter. I was at McKinley during their whole battle to keep their school. It is not a comfortable environment to sit in a room with a small group of the most A+++ type obnoxious personalities (many who you will see tomorrow in the hallway) and disagree with their point of view and oh by the way even if you do speak up they move forward with their position anyway.

Waste of time. People are better off speaking to School Board members directly and engaging directly with APS.

Ok so what you're saying is that you were in the minority and the McKinley PTA went with the majority view in your school community. That's exactly what they are supposed to do. They are not supposed to pander to the minority or to you specifically. One person doesn't get to dictate the PTA position. You are free to vocalize your individual views yourself, which is sounds like you did. What's the issue then?

Self-interested people put themselves in the position to dominate the PTA. Isn't this obvious? I was at McKinley at that time. The Madison Manor and Dominion Hills neighborhoods dominated the PTA because...self-interest. They were the walkable ones who freaked out when McKinley was going to become ATS and they were the ones on the potential block to not go to Cardinal. Dominion Hills was originally suggested to go to Ashlawn and Madison Manor really could have easily gone to Tuckahoe. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods were not the majority of that school.

I always thought the ATS move made sense and thought the things our PTA was saying were bonkers/misleading at times and knew lots of people who felt that way.

again this just gets back to you didn't agree with the majority position on your PTA. Take that up with your PTA.

I did at the time. Raised specific concerns with things I saw very politely. Was ultimately ignored. So yes I did bother to get involved but over time when this is how people get treated they stop bothering. And yes for most people, it is hard to go in a room and speak up to people who are very passionate, convinced they are right, and not at all open minded or interested in changing their mind. So those who are less impacted BUT STILL HAVE AN OPINION just shut up and go away. That does not mean it's the minority view. To me, this is a problem. According to many of you, it's how it's all supposed to work. Yay.

You are free to go speak at the SB meetings and highlight the fact that your PTA's position does not reflect everyone's, and if so, only represents a small fraction of the community.

I did email APS planning staff. No, I'm not going to go stand publicly and call out my PTA president and cronies who live in my neighborhood and my children are in school with their children. Thanks for your advice though.

I think the defensive response to this is pretty fascinating. As if it's so shocking that small group of people hijack the PTA and do whatever the F they feel like. This is not uncommon.

No, it isn't. Nobody's arguing that it is. Just disagreeing on whether PTAs should engage despite low participation. The WAY a particular PTA is operating is a different matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Montessori is not planning on using Nottingham as a swing space.

Pretty sure they think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So apparently this was not a CCPTA position but just the Exec board. They don’t represent anyone but themselves, so their statement should be taken as such. This wasn’t put to a vote or even discussed prior to their statement.

It doesn’t matter. If they don’t make it a swing space, they’ll just move an option program there and close the school anyway.

That's what they said, they specifically stated it is the position of the exec board of the CCPTA. They did not represent it was more. I see nothing wrong with this.

Ugh. That’s deceptive. You hear them speak up as “the Executive Board” and you assume there’s been a vote of PTAs. Not—this is the opinion of 3 ladies from N Arl. I sure hope someone tells the Board that. More clearly thannCCPTA did. It’s underhanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So apparently this was not a CCPTA position but just the Exec board. They don’t represent anyone but themselves, so their statement should be taken as such. This wasn’t put to a vote or even discussed prior to their statement.

It doesn’t matter. If they don’t make it a swing space, they’ll just move an option program there and close the school anyway. [/

That's what they said, they specifically stated it is the position of the exec board of the CCPTA. They did not represent it was more. I see nothing wrong with this.

Ugh. That’s deceptive. You hear them speak up as “the Executive Board” and you assume there’s been a vote of PTAs. Not—this is the opinion of 3 ladies from N Arl. I sure hope someone tells the Board that. More clearly thannCCPTA did. It’s underhanded.

I’m pretty sure the board knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s for Montessori, and I think that’s all covered in the current CIP, because it’s part of the CC project. No?

They don’t have enough available funding before they hit their bond limit.

I believe the demolition of Henry is part of the CC project, and included in the cost? And so they need to move Montessori to a swing space to await the renovation of the old CC building. It’s “other” projects, like if an emergency HVAC or roof repair has to happen that isn’t in the current CIP, and that’s the concern. Isn’t this what the plan has always been, what changed was the swing space.

Renovating CC for Montessori is part of the project, yes. But the current Montessori building is not being demolished until the renovation is done and Montessori moves into it. THEN they will demolish the current Montessori building. Montessori does not need swing space. If swing space were available, however, perhaps using it for Montessori could facilitate getting the project done sooner because it could be done in two phases instead of three.

Okay, got it. But is it all “paid for” or so we need more bond capacity to do phases 2 and 3?