APS/SA boundary redrawing - meeting tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even though he wasn't able to stop it. Did he support it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was once. She has yet to vote in a way that actually supports or helps SED. She does not speak in favor of such proposals. She always recites the "all our schools are good" mantra. She "understands" when a parent doesn't want to send their kid to certain neighborhood schools. She asks for additional scenarios that favor the status quo (high school boundary option D, I think 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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

The question wasn’t about growth, it wasn’t about private kid admits, it was about what Montessori expected to happen when they began pushing for their own space.

Oh, and throwing Nauck under the bus, especially considering the segregationist history down there, really isn’t a good look for Montessori parents right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

The question wasn’t about growth, it wasn’t about private kid admits, it was about what Montessori expected to happen when they began pushing for their own space.

Oh, and throwing Nauck under the bus, especially considering the segregationist history down there, really isn’t a good look for Montessori parents right now.

DP but nothing the PP said is throwing Nauck under the bus. You may think you’re being helpful with this whole treat Nauck with kid gloves attitude. It has been a common theme on this thread and the Drew thread. You are ignoring the fact that they have their own wants and needs and probably don’t want others piping up on their behalf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

The question wasn’t about growth, it wasn’t about private kid admits, it was about what Montessori expected to happen when they began pushing for their own space.

Oh, and throwing Nauck under the bus, especially considering the segregationist history down there, really isn’t a good look for Montessori parents right now.

DP but nothing the PP said is throwing Nauck under the bus. You may think you’re being helpful with this whole treat Nauck with kid gloves attitude. It has been a common theme on this thread and the Drew thread. You are ignoring the fact that they have their own wants and needs and probably don’t want others piping up on their behalf.

So we’re still dodging the question of what Montessori expected for their own space. I wouldn’t have thought it was such a loaded question.

[Anonymous]

Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

The question wasn’t about growth, it wasn’t about private kid admits, it was about what Montessori expected to happen when they began pushing for their own space.

Oh, and throwing Nauck under the bus, especially considering the segregationist history down there, really isn’t a good look for Montessori parents right now.

DP but nothing the PP said is throwing Nauck under the bus. You may think you’re being helpful with this whole treat Nauck with kid gloves attitude. It has been a common theme on this thread and the Drew thread. You are ignoring the fact that they have their own wants and needs and probably don’t want others piping up on their behalf.

So we’re still dodging the question of what Montessori expected for their own space. I wouldn’t have thought it was such a loaded question.

I have no idea what they “expected” as I’m not a Montessori or a Drew parent. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant either, as they now have the Henry building and this thread is about boundary changes for the neighborhood schools. I was just pointing out that unless you are either you probably shouldn’t process to know, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 think montesorri was actually surprised when they got the Henry building. Keep in mind, the Nauck CA has been trying to reclaim the Drew building for at least 15 years. their kids are all adults now, of course. I don't think we should feel sorry for the program or anything, but we're talking about a chain of events here with several moving pieces, including an organized effort to push them out of Drew. And, it may be too good to be true. The program is not growing, despite having the Henry building to itself. No one outside of the APS montessori preschool classrooms was given a spot in the elementary program; the preschoolers are guaranteed admission. A lot of the enmity on here towards montessori seems to be the perception that "private" montessori kids are the bulk of the students. Nope. Not one has been given admission to Drew in 2 years, and there is no indication any will for the foreseeable future. Then there's the fact that in a few years, the Henry building will be torn down to build the high school, at which point montessori will lose its building and at least at the moment, no one can say where they will go, though everyone "expects" that the program won't simply dissolve.

The question wasn’t about growth, it wasn’t about private kid admits, it was about what Montessori expected to happen when they began pushing for their own space.

Oh, and throwing Nauck under the bus, especially considering the segregationist history down there, really isn’t a good look for Montessori parents right now.

DP but nothing the PP said is throwing Nauck under the bus. You may think you’re being helpful with this whole treat Nauck with kid gloves attitude. It has been a common theme on this thread and the Drew thread. You are ignoring the fact that they have their own wants and needs and probably don’t want others piping up on their behalf.

So we’re still dodging the question of what Montessori expected for their own space. I wouldn’t have thought it was such a loaded question.

I have no idea what they “expected” as I’m not a Montessori or a Drew parent. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant either, as they now have the Henry building and this thread is about boundary changes for the neighborhood schools. I was just pointing out that unless you are either you probably shouldn’t process to know, either.

I’m not presuming to know anything, that’s why I asked the question. And I’m not the one who dragged the whole “killing Montessori” allegations into a discussion of the boundary process, so if you have an issue with the direction this discussion is taking, take it up with that poster.

Or not, because I suspect you’re sitting pretty with this new map.

[Anonymous]

Given how this debate is going, I hope no one in the potential Career Center high school zone will have the balls to ask the rest of the county to help advocate for them on that issue after telling those same people to sit down and shut up with their advocacy for Drew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given how this debate is going, I hope no one in the potential Career Center high school zone will have the balls to ask the rest of the county to help advocate for them on that issue after telling those same people to sit down and shut up with their advocacy for Drew.

It's going nowhere. There isn't going to be a 4th HS there, not one that is equivalent to the other comprehensive HS. That ship sailed away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

Nauck's civic association asked for a neighborhood school decades before it happened. The only reason it actually happened is because Montesssori wanted out, too, and made the deal go through. I think we can probably all agree that having two different schools in one building, with competing interests, was never a good idea. The way the separation of the two schools/PTAs has been handled is not great, especially in light of the fact that one school's PTA is going to have a much tougher time with advocacy and fundraising moving forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given how this debate is going, I hope no one in the potential Career Center high school zone will have the balls to ask the rest of the county to help advocate for them on that issue after telling those same people to sit down and shut up with their advocacy for Drew.

It's going nowhere. There isn't going to be a 4th HS there, not one that is equivalent to the other comprehensive HS. That ship sailed away.

Oh, there's going to be a high school there, it's just a question of whether it will be neighborhood or option. Since I'm not supposed to advocate for anyone by my own kids anymore, let's have it be neighborhood, that's what's best for my kids. They probably won't want to travel that far for an option program and making it neighborhood will make it easier for us to get overcrowding relief at our own neighborhood high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew wanted Montessori out. I don’t know why someone on here is interested in rewriting history.
Nauck wanted a neighborhood school and now they shall have it.

Exactly. But how dare we point this out.

Nauck's civic association asked for a neighborhood school decades before it happened. The only reason it actually happened is because Montesssori wanted out, too, and made the deal go through. I think we can probably all agree that having two different schools in one building, with competing interests, was never a good idea. The way the separation of the two schools/PTAs has been handled is not great, especially in light of the fact that one school's PTA is going to have a much tougher time with advocacy and fundraising moving forward.

Drew’s PTA is gonna have problems in the future no matter what. This year, next year ... whenever.