Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
This, this this. I live in the neighborhood.
I'm the poster whose kid was fine under an IEP way back when.
This exact post could have been been written then, when there was a different principal and different teachers. Which brings me back to my point: it's always been this way at Nottingham regardless of principal or teacher. The constant is the parent population. They are impossible to please and always have been.
If your kid was fine (if you're actually telling the truth), good for you. Many many kids were not. Not going to out my kid or the many others who were far from fine. The admin was and is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. Those who know, know.
The satisfied ones aren’t the vocal ones.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
This, this this. I live in the neighborhood.
I'm the poster whose kid was fine under an IEP way back when.
This exact post could have been been written then, when there was a different principal and different teachers. Which brings me back to my point: it's always been this way at Nottingham regardless of principal or teacher. The constant is the parent population. They are impossible to please and always have been.
If your kid was fine (if you're actually telling the truth), good for you. Many many kids were not. Not going to out my kid or the many others who were far from fine. The admin was and is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. Those who know, know.
The satisfied ones aren’t the vocal ones.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
This, this this. I live in the neighborhood.
I'm the poster whose kid was fine under an IEP way back when.
This exact post could have been been written then, when there was a different principal and different teachers. Which brings me back to my point: it's always been this way at Nottingham regardless of principal or teacher. The constant is the parent population. They are impossible to please and always have been.
If your kid was fine (if you're actually telling the truth), good for you. Many many kids were not. Not going to out my kid or the many others who were far from fine. The admin was and is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. Those who know, know.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
This, this this. I live in the neighborhood.
I'm the poster whose kid was fine under an IEP way back when.
This exact post could have been been written then, when there was a different principal and different teachers. Which brings me back to my point: it's always been this way at Nottingham regardless of principal or teacher. The constant is the parent population. They are impossible to please and always have been.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
This, this this. I live in the neighborhood.
Anonymous wrote:Schools with this type of demographic shouldn't have such high teacher turnover. When they do, it's usually a sign something is wrong with the admin.
Anonymous wrote:The Nottingham principal is notoriously bad for kids with IEPs. There is also a lot of teacher turnover.
Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by "fine?"