Drew Model Elementary: proposed boundaries (s/o from APS/SA thread specific to Drew)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to be poor. But there is a reason people move or live in different places. Poor people don’t have that luxury. Others do. Berating people for not being poor or for not wanting to go to school with poor people sounds good on paper yet it is a losing proposition. It’s as old as time. Very few people stay in a poor neighborhood or school when they have other choices. The boundaries should have been done county wide. Period. Call APS out about that. Once again terrible planning puts South Arlington in an untenable situation with no good solution.

+1 But there certainly are better solutions than the one they've proposed so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to be poor. But there is a reason people move or live in different places. Poor people don’t have that luxury. Others do. Berating people for not being poor or for not wanting to go to school with poor people sounds good on paper yet it is a losing proposition. It’s as old as time. Very few people stay in a poor neighborhood or school when they have other choices. The boundaries should have been done county wide. Period. Call APS out about that. Once again terrible planning puts South Arlington in an untenable situation with no good solution.

+1 But there certainly are better solutions than the one they've proposed so far.

Agreed. There are limitations to what APS can do in this process. But it seems like they started working in the Oakridge/Fleet/Hoffman Boston side and got that all squared away, and then used Drew to mop up what was left. Given that the needs at Drew are so much greater than at those schools, it seems like it would have been more equitable to have started by doing the best they could for Drew and then making the best of what was left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

So you're not a parent there and have no personal knowledge, but you're going to sling some mud anyway about what you think must be happening. Let me guess, you're a Henry parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Anyone with access to google can see that the Montessori program has split off to form their own PTA. They can also google to see the difficulty the graded program PTA is having recruiting volunteers. Anyone following the process knows Drew’s new boundaries haven’t been set yet to allow the PTA to recruit from future Drew families.

Obviously the Montessori families are free to do this, but they can’t claim it isn’t a sign of how they regard the graded program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Anyone with access to google can see that the Montessori program has split off to form their own PTA. They can also google to see the difficulty the graded program PTA is having recruiting volunteers. Anyone following the process knows Drew’s new boundaries haven’t been set yet to allow the PTA to recruit from future Drew families.

Obviously the Montessori families are free to do this, but they can’t claim it isn’t a sign of how they regard the graded program.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Anyone with access to google can see that the Montessori program has split off to form their own PTA. They can also google to see the difficulty the graded program PTA is having recruiting volunteers. Anyone following the process knows Drew’s new boundaries haven’t been set yet to allow the PTA to recruit from future Drew families.

Obviously the Montessori families are free to do this, but they can’t claim it isn’t a sign of how they regard the graded program.

+1

Fine, can we get back on topic, which is that APS has made a joke of its own process by creating an island over 2 miles from the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Fortunately, I believe Drew did get all of its PTA leadership positions filled - disputing many peoples' claims that low-income parents don't get involved. But it isn't unusual at other schools for the same handful of people to be doing everything, too.

It's not just one person grinding the axe. I'm one of the commenters regarding the "PTA abandonment" issue (there was a second person, too). But it was not me asserting anything about the Montessori FRL stats. I don't know why you think it's just rumor and mudslinging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Fortunately, I believe Drew did get all of its PTA leadership positions filled - disputing many peoples' claims that low-income parents don't get involved. But it isn't unusual at other schools for the same handful of people to be doing everything, too.

It's not just one person grinding the axe. I'm one of the commenters regarding the "PTA abandonment" issue (there was a second person, too). But it was not me asserting anything about the Montessori FRL stats. I don't know why you think it's just rumor and mudslinging.

Are you a parent in the graded program? Do you actually know or is this just what you've heard? If the answers are no and yes, well, that's why someone suggested this tale is probably a lot of bs and rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Fortunately, I believe Drew did get all of its PTA leadership positions filled - disputing many peoples' claims that low-income parents don't get involved. But it isn't unusual at other schools for the same handful of people to be doing everything, too.

It's not just one person grinding the axe. I'm one of the commenters regarding the "PTA abandonment" issue (there was a second person, too). But it was not me asserting anything about the Montessori FRL stats. I don't know why you think it's just rumor and mudslinging.

Are you a parent in the graded program? Do you actually know or is this just what you've heard? If the answers are no and yes, well, that's why someone suggested this tale is probably a lot of bs and rumor.

I "know" and have spoken with officers of each PTA. It is indeed possible to "no," not be a parent in the graded program and "yes," actually know. It's even possible to be "no," not a parent in the Montessori program and "yes," actually know. And I did say "I believe" because initially not all the PTA officer positions were filled; but I since heard in a meeting (sorry, don't recall the date, time, and location) that someone has filled the remaining position since the original meeting when the new president was elected. I even "actually know" that there were two candidates vying for the President position.

[Anonymous]

What happened to the $? Did the 2 PTAs split it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drew you can’t have it both ways. Either it’s your school or not. How is Montessori’s PTA shameful? Drew needs it’s own PTA. Drew needs to do some of the hard work. It’s starting to sound like a victim .

Not Drew, but if it used to be one common PTA, I can see hoping for a transition year where they start moving in their own directions but don't completely divorce from each other yet. That's effectively what happened when Discovery opened. Parents who knew they'd be going there started a Discovery PTA the year before it opened, but most of them who had been involved in the Nottingham PTA previously stayed involved in the Nottingham PTA as well that year, especially where an abrupt departure would have left a gap (e.g., a committee without a chair).

This. There was no need to rush to establish an independent PTA before boundaries for Drew were even drawn. "Divorcing" early did not help bridge neighborhood program Drew to a school-wide neighborhood Drew with the incoming communities from other schools. It did not give Drew PTA a chance to draw volunteers and leadership from the new parents who would be coming, which would help get those families invested in Drew as their new school and start building community from the beginning. Because obviously community needs to be built there since noone is coming willingly.

That's a really good point about Drew not even having its new boundaries yet for the transition. They basically have to fill a full school's worth of PTA positions with only half a school, is it any shock they're struggling to do that?

Not a Drew montessori parent. But it's pretty clear to me that some individual on here has an axe to grind with them, whether it's claiming they have a 10 percent farms rate (which was easily refuted in the other thread) or that they "abandoned" the graded program. As far as I can tell, it's just rumor and mudslinging and probably mostly BS. The bigger problem is that very poor schools have a very hard time fielding a PTA. Ask someone at Randolph. They have a PTA and my guess it is 4 people doing everything with no help at all.

Fortunately, I believe Drew did get all of its PTA leadership positions filled - disputing many peoples' claims that low-income parents don't get involved. But it isn't unusual at other schools for the same handful of people to be doing everything, too.

It's not just one person grinding the axe. I'm one of the commenters regarding the "PTA abandonment" issue (there was a second person, too). But it was not me asserting anything about the Montessori FRL stats. I don't know why you think it's just rumor and mudslinging.

Are you a parent in the graded program? Do you actually know or is this just what you've heard? If the answers are no and yes, well, that's why someone suggested this tale is probably a lot of bs and rumor.

I "know" and have spoken with officers of each PTA. It is indeed possible to "no," not be a parent in the graded program and "yes," actually know. It's even possible to be "no," not a parent in the Montessori program and "yes," actually know. And I did say "I believe" because initially not all the PTA officer positions were filled; but I since heard in a meeting (sorry, don't recall the date, time, and location) that someone has filled the remaining position since the original meeting when the new president was elected. I even "actually know" that there were two candidates vying for the President position.

Potential Drew parent here. Since you're in the know, I have a few questions that maybe you know the answers to.

Did the PTA for the entire school, before it split, have any graded program volunteers or officers? Or was the whole thing basically the montessori parents? if the latter, any sense of why that was?

Does either PTA have a web presence? The site linked to from the Drew aps page is possibly the worst I have seen, even by c. 1998 geocities standards.