APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP who corrected me on Montessori 2/3: thank you for info. We also are afraid of efforts, direct or inadvertent, to strangle Montessori. Killing it in the crib of Henry would be very convenient (although not painless in that there would still be a few hundred kids to redirect).
Still, the school boards before O'Grady joined were amazingly ignorant of the program - I don't mean they were insufficient cheerleaders, I mean they seemed to know nothing. And yet the program is one of the most successful in closing skills gap, diversity, etc. Also the oldest. Now, we wonder why there is a sudden registration issue dramatically under-filling slots? And why in the plan for Henry is it being capped at 400-something with no growth. Every other school, and especially choices, are expected to be 700ish and grow with school growth. If APS doesn't intend to try to kill it, they should know they are raising fears unnecessarily.

I'm that PP. I'm also a Montessori parent though frankly I"m just not very involved (no PTA, don't go to many Montessori-centric events). But, I don't know about some of the above. I did go to the Montessori meeting last winter at Henry and I left with the understanding that Montessori in fact will be growing just like all the other elementaries. They certainly aren't taking those trailers away anytime soon. Seems much more likely that APS just bungled process and numbers vs. any type of master plan.

All that said, the plans for use of the Career Center site are nuts and I do expect Montessori to move again within 5-8 years to make room for whatever the HS program will eventually be.

The concerns and sympathy are unwarranted. Montessori doesn't even really WANT the Henry building. They just wanted their own space and the moment O'Grady took her oath of office she began scheming for a new Montessori space. Or at least tried with the Ed Center debacle. Don't be fooled by Montessori or by O'Grady for an instant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

NP. I see no instructional purpose for ATS. That said, I would support its continuation if it continued to take-on more FRL students. And rather than relying on VPI for that, ALL choice programs (Campbell, HB Woodlawn, ATS) should have 30% seat set-asides for FRL students. Montessori persistently claims its poverty and impoverished students; but they have struggled to even meet the 2/3 "low income" requirement of Montessori - let alone enrolling a lot of students who actually qualify for FRL.

If we're not going to adequately address the disparity problem through boundaries, then yes, keep all the option programs and make sure they all enroll at least 30% FRL students. That will at least help the schools where the concentrations of affordable housing are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

Whattaboutism knows no bounds, huh? I have a problem with HB, but they aren't responsible if kids don't apply. I suspect their new location will result in a better sampling of diversity. As for ATS, get with the times. They have 26.3% of students receiving fr/l benefits, which is within 5 percentage points of the countywide average.

It would appear that when Montessori is disaggregated from Drew, it will have fewer than 10% of qualifying students, perhaps fewer. And since the only way to get into ES is to be in the Pre-K program, which requires a fee from ALL, I know the reason. There is a literal economic barrier to the program that does not exist an any of the other option programs. Fix it and I will shut up.

NP I agree. The Montessori tuition scale needs to be entirely revamped. The "tuition bands" need to be narrower in range and increases greater, especially as you approach and exceed the $200K households. Why should a $300K household pay the same tuition as a $200K household (I don't have the scale memorized, just citing numbers as an example - but the income levels don't go high enough on the current scale) We should be doing everything we can to expand preschool to the most economically disadvantaged students, who are most likely to be the students starting out behind.

While ATS' number has gone up, let's keep in mind that includes the VPI programs. It's not like all those FRL kids are dispersed throughout all the grade levels at that rate. But it is indeed an improvement, assuming those kids continue on through 5th grade. And it's an example as to why the VPI classes need to be located in all of the option schools AND those option schools need to be located where those families are likely to choose to stay on through their elementary years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the damage is done with the Pike plan.
Yes, it should have been tossed with the street car. The trolley was the Lynch pin. Once it was removed the whole thing should have been trashed.
Also- lets be real about transfer of development rights. It’s not a real thing. I mean - it’s real, but it’s done with legislative swipe of a pen. It’s can be undone just as quickly.

Exactly. Instead of bussing, another way to break up poverty is to allow some of the Barcroft parcel for example, to be sold and gentrify, while placing AH on lee highway. The western pike is simply saturated at this point.

I think it's too late for Barcroft Apartments - isn't that deal with the devil already sealed and delivered? But if there is any way possible at all, I absolutely agree and will help advocate that the agreement be altered and only restrict half of the complex to eternal poverty. AND somehow include a similar 'mandate' that the half being displaced be re-constructed along Lee Highway - on the north side of the road would be truly genius; but just at a redeveloped Lee Community Center would suffice.

Now, what can we do about Columbia Hills and the other AHC properties at the western border?

I also agree re. the Pikes Plan. It was predicated on a streetcar and the economic development that would ensue. The streetcar was eliminated. The economic development slowed, stalled, disappeared. The Pike no longer (economically) supports the affordable housing component of the plan and it needs to be revisited - and by a group of people with a diversity of perspectives this time, not all the affordable housing advocates and developers like the first time.

A good first step is probably to vote for John Vihstadt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

I did! I got a lovely reply from Reid Goldstein. It was a very long and thoughtful response.

Thank you for doing so. Reid is the only truly sympathetic ear on this issue.

Yeah, Reid’s a sympathetic ear in private but then will vote along with the other board members in favor of north Arlington each and every time. Look at the high school and middle school rezoning votes. Both increased poverty at south schools. I’d rather know who is working against me than someone supposedly on “our” side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

NP. I see no instructional purpose for ATS. That said, I would support its continuation if it continued to take-on more FRL students. And rather than relying on VPI for that, ALL choice programs (Campbell, HB Woodlawn, ATS) should have 30% seat set-asides for FRL students. Montessori persistently claims its poverty and impoverished students; but they have struggled to even meet the 2/3 "low income" requirement of Montessori - let alone enrolling a lot of students who actually qualify for FRL.

If we're not going to adequately address the disparity problem through boundaries, then yes, keep all the option programs and make sure they all enroll at least 30% FRL students. That will at least help the schools where the concentrations of affordable housing are.

Your claim about montesorri being largely wealthy doesn't seem to hold o in light of the calculations posted on the previous page in this thread, which indicate it's probably close to 30% farms. Do you have better figures? As teacher says, show your work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

I did! I got a lovely reply from Reid Goldstein. It was a very long and thoughtful response.

Thank you for doing so. Reid is the only truly sympathetic ear on this issue.

Yeah, Reid’s a sympathetic ear in private but then will vote along with the other board members in favor of north Arlington each and every time. Look at the high school and middle school rezoning votes. Both increased poverty at south schools. I’d rather know who is working against me than someone supposedly on “our” side.

He is literally all you’ve got. He is the only one asking the hard questions. He is the only one who cares about demographics. BK will
Also listen to reason, but until NVD is booted, it’s gonna be hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP who corrected me on Montessori 2/3: thank you for info. We also are afraid of efforts, direct or inadvertent, to strangle Montessori. Killing it in the crib of Henry would be very convenient (although not painless in that there would still be a few hundred kids to redirect).
Still, the school boards before O'Grady joined were amazingly ignorant of the program - I don't mean they were insufficient cheerleaders, I mean they seemed to know nothing. And yet the program is one of the most successful in closing skills gap, diversity, etc. Also the oldest. Now, we wonder why there is a sudden registration issue dramatically under-filling slots? And why in the plan for Henry is it being capped at 400-something with no growth. Every other school, and especially choices, are expected to be 700ish and grow with school growth. If APS doesn't intend to try to kill it, they should know they are raising fears unnecessarily.

I'm that PP. I'm also a Montessori parent though frankly I"m just not very involved (no PTA, don't go to many Montessori-centric events). But, I don't know about some of the above. I did go to the Montessori meeting last winter at Henry and I left with the understanding that Montessori in fact will be growing just like all the other elementaries. They certainly aren't taking those trailers away anytime soon. Seems much more likely that APS just bungled process and numbers vs. any type of master plan.

All that said, the plans for use of the Career Center site are nuts and I do expect Montessori to move again within 5-8 years to make room for whatever the HS program will eventually be.

The concerns and sympathy are unwarranted. Montessori doesn't even really WANT the Henry building. They just wanted their own space and the moment O'Grady took her oath of office she began scheming for a new Montessori space. Or at least tried with the Ed Center debacle. Don't be fooled by Montessori or by O'Grady for an instant.

What did Montessori think was going to happen when they started pushing for their own space? Montessori getting its own space = taking over a neighborhood school. Don't tell me you thought you'd get the new Fleet building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

NP. I see no instructional purpose for ATS. That said, I would support its continuation if it continued to take-on more FRL students. And rather than relying on VPI for that, ALL choice programs (Campbell, HB Woodlawn, ATS) should have 30% seat set-asides for FRL students. Montessori persistently claims its poverty and impoverished students; but they have struggled to even meet the 2/3 "low income" requirement of Montessori - let alone enrolling a lot of students who actually qualify for FRL.

If we're not going to adequately address the disparity problem through boundaries, then yes, keep all the option programs and make sure they all enroll at least 30% FRL students. That will at least help the schools where the concentrations of affordable housing are.

Your claim about montesorri being largely wealthy doesn't seem to hold o in light of the calculations posted on the previous page in this thread, which indicate it's probably close to 30% farms. Do you have better figures? As teacher says, show your work

You're talking to two different posters at least. How many students will be enrolled as Montessori at Henry? Because the building capacity is over 600. I assumed the program would be filling the school, no? Were there not enough applicants? There are 706 current Drew students. If only 251 are actual Drew residents, wouldn't the other 455 move to Henry? There would be space for 100 or more additional kids. Are there no new kids joining the program? I had assumed the program would grow, and that new families joining would be coming from private Montessori and not be low income, resulting in a very low fr/l rate. What's going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

NP. I see no instructional purpose for ATS. That said, I would support its continuation if it continued to take-on more FRL students. And rather than relying on VPI for that, ALL choice programs (Campbell, HB Woodlawn, ATS) should have 30% seat set-asides for FRL students. Montessori persistently claims its poverty and impoverished students; but they have struggled to even meet the 2/3 "low income" requirement of Montessori - let alone enrolling a lot of students who actually qualify for FRL.

If we're not going to adequately address the disparity problem through boundaries, then yes, keep all the option programs and make sure they all enroll at least 30% FRL students. That will at least help the schools where the concentrations of affordable housing are.

Your claim about montesorri being largely wealthy doesn't seem to hold o in light of the calculations posted on the previous page in this thread, which indicate it's probably close to 30% farms. Do you have better figures? As teacher says, show your work

You're talking to two different posters at least. How many students will be enrolled as Montessori at Henry? Because the building capacity is over 600. I assumed the program would be filling the school, no? Were there not enough applicants? There are 706 current Drew students. If only 251 are actual Drew residents, wouldn't the other 455 move to Henry? There would be space for 100 or more additional kids. Are there no new kids joining the program? I had assumed the program would grow, and that new families joining would be coming from private Montessori and not be low income, resulting in a very low fr/l rate. What's going on?

I am skeptical the program will grow at the elementary level. I think it's more likely they will move preschoolers there to fill the building. There are several satellite classrooms not currently at Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

I did! I got a lovely reply from Reid Goldstein. It was a very long and thoughtful response.

Thank you for doing so. Reid is the only truly sympathetic ear on this issue.

Yeah, Reid’s a sympathetic ear in private but then will vote along with the other board members in favor of north Arlington each and every time. Look at the high school and middle school rezoning votes. Both increased poverty at south schools. I’d rather know who is working against me than someone supposedly on “our” side.

He is literally all you’ve got. He is the only one asking the hard questions. He is the only one who cares about demographics. BK will
Also listen to reason, but until NVD is booted, it’s gonna be hard.

BK listen to reason????? She's the one who definitely will say what she thinks you want to hear. She has zero interest in, and has done zero to support diversity or even acknowledge there are significant (negative) differences between schools. At least Nancy and Tannia speak honestly. I agree that Reid caves in votes - but he did cast the sole vote in favor of option 3 for the high school debacle. I never understood why he then didn't vote against the final scenario that was adopted since his vote wasn't needed for passage. Nevertheless, he made his statement - literally, and a long one it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To PP who corrected me on Montessori 2/3: thank you for info. We also are afraid of efforts, direct or inadvertent, to strangle Montessori. Killing it in the crib of Henry would be very convenient (although not painless in that there would still be a few hundred kids to redirect).
Still, the school boards before O'Grady joined were amazingly ignorant of the program - I don't mean they were insufficient cheerleaders, I mean they seemed to know nothing. And yet the program is one of the most successful in closing skills gap, diversity, etc. Also the oldest. Now, we wonder why there is a sudden registration issue dramatically under-filling slots? And why in the plan for Henry is it being capped at 400-something with no growth. Every other school, and especially choices, are expected to be 700ish and grow with school growth. If APS doesn't intend to try to kill it, they should know they are raising fears unnecessarily.

I'm that PP. I'm also a Montessori parent though frankly I"m just not very involved (no PTA, don't go to many Montessori-centric events). But, I don't know about some of the above. I did go to the Montessori meeting last winter at Henry and I left with the understanding that Montessori in fact will be growing just like all the other elementaries. They certainly aren't taking those trailers away anytime soon. Seems much more likely that APS just bungled process and numbers vs. any type of master plan.

All that said, the plans for use of the Career Center site are nuts and I do expect Montessori to move again within 5-8 years to make room for whatever the HS program will eventually be.

The concerns and sympathy are unwarranted. Montessori doesn't even really WANT the Henry building. They just wanted their own space and the moment O'Grady took her oath of office she began scheming for a new Montessori space. Or at least tried with the Ed Center debacle. Don't be fooled by Montessori or by O'Grady for an instant.

What did Montessori think was going to happen when they started pushing for their own space? Montessori getting its own space = taking over a neighborhood school. Don't tell me you thought you'd get the new Fleet building?

I'm not a Montessori parent. I'm certain they would not have refused the Fleet building if it had been designated choice. They knew they weren't getting the brand new school coming out of SAWG because that was designated in the charge as neighborhood. But they saw/hoped for the Henry building as temporary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime Arlington parent here who would love to see Montessori killed. After pre K it is subsidizing alternative ed for UMC parents. Not remotely addressing achievement gap. They dress themselves in Maria Montessori’s halo but spare us. That said, they are a bunch of tiger moms who have entrenched themselves in the AC/DC hypocrisy. They will niever die.

Look, if they would take a larger share of students who actually qualify for fr/l, I am fine with them continuing. I have a real problem with any "option" schoool that is not actually an option for the kids who are most disadvantaged and have the most to gain from a quality pre-K experience and an integrated ES. Don't kill it, fight to make it fair and equitable and accessible.

What about HB Woodlawn or ATS? They are hardly more diverse than Yorktown HS. Should they be eliminated as well? Both of those schools are option programs with a lower farms rate than the county average. Let's see how montessori compares as a standalone program next year before we get out the ax.

NP. I see no instructional purpose for ATS. That said, I would support its continuation if it continued to take-on more FRL students. And rather than relying on VPI for that, ALL choice programs (Campbell, HB Woodlawn, ATS) should have 30% seat set-asides for FRL students. Montessori persistently claims its poverty and impoverished students; but they have struggled to even meet the 2/3 "low income" requirement of Montessori - let alone enrolling a lot of students who actually qualify for FRL.

If we're not going to adequately address the disparity problem through boundaries, then yes, keep all the option programs and make sure they all enroll at least 30% FRL students. That will at least help the schools where the concentrations of affordable housing are.

Your claim about montesorri being largely wealthy doesn't seem to hold o in light of the calculations posted on the previous page in this thread, which indicate it's probably close to 30% farms. Do you have better figures? As teacher says, show your work

You're talking to two different posters at least. How many students will be enrolled as Montessori at Henry? Because the building capacity is over 600. I assumed the program would be filling the school, no? Were there not enough applicants? There are 706 current Drew students. If only 251 are actual Drew residents, wouldn't the other 455 move to Henry? There would be space for 100 or more additional kids. Are there no new kids joining the program? I had assumed the program would grow, and that new families joining would be coming from private Montessori and not be low income, resulting in a very low fr/l rate. What's going on?

The Henry building capacity is less than 500. Montessori will fill it comfortably day one. The trailers account for the additional capacity and could easily house preK classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AEM is a ridiculous bubble.
My family saw the writing on the wall and moved last year, but if we had stayed I’d be raising hell about those Henry PU’s. That area needs to be pushed to Drew. That boundary map is hilarious and predictable.
Arlington is so predictable.

You could actually be more effective having moved. Tell the SB why you moved. Tell them it matters!

I did! I got a lovely reply from Reid Goldstein. It was a very long and thoughtful response.

Thank you for doing so. Reid is the only truly sympathetic ear on this issue.

Yeah, Reid’s a sympathetic ear in private but then will vote along with the other board members in favor of north Arlington each and every time. Look at the high school and middle school rezoning votes. Both increased poverty at south schools. I’d rather know who is working against me than someone supposedly on “our” side.

He is literally all you’ve got. He is the only one asking the hard questions. He is the only one who cares about demographics. BK will
Also listen to reason, but until NVD is booted, it’s gonna be hard.

BK listen to reason????? She's the one who definitely will say what she thinks you want to hear. She has zero interest in, and has done zero to support diversity or even acknowledge there are significant (negative) differences between schools. At least Nancy and Tannia speak honestly. I agree that Reid caves in votes - but he did cast the sole vote in favor of option 3 for the high school debacle. I never understood why he then didn't vote against the final scenario that was adopted since his vote wasn't needed for passage. Nevertheless, he made his statement - literally, and a long one it was.

BK has sided with RG. I think it was over language. It was during the meeting Talento felt micro agressed.