Agree STEAM may be where the world is going, but why label neighborhood schools as STEAM. We already have lots of STEAM - and dare I say it, technology / iPads. Doesn't seem like much will change, so just call them neighborhood schools and don't try to obfuscate reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This idea that all neighborhood schools willl be STEAM seems like such a gimmick.

I don't know if it is a gimmick as much as a realistic view of where the world is going.

"Where the world is going"? Even if someone were to concede that STEM majors are all more marketable than any others -- and that's not the case because certain letters are significantly more in demand -- that doesn't mean that the social sciences and the humanities are worthless.

I hear a lot of people who don't work in a STEM field insisting that those are the only jobs that will be around when our kids graduate. I don't agree, and I haven't heard anything persuasive to the contrary. Not that there won't be a demand for some STEM fields, just that not all STEM majors are created equal and that lots of other fields will still be hiring. I think there will be more overlap between disciplines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

I attended one of the visioning sessions for Drew and I'd be hard pressed to say anything definitive came out of it, STEAM or otherwise, except some random words written down on oversized sheets of paper. There was barely any guidance for what the session was supposed to achieve. I'm not objecting and I don't know whether the broader community will or won't. But the community engagement piece was of questionable utility based on my first-hand experience and, based on that and what I've seen from APS elsewhere, I'm not sure my cynical view is unjustified.

Interesting, I just thought STEAM seemed an odd choice since Hoffman-Boston is STEM (or STEAM?) and they are right next to each other.

Their current strategy proposal is to move toward "STEAM" being the default for all neighborhood schools. Drew will be a neighborhood school, not an option school, so it seems to be the first step in this strategy.

This idea that all neighborhood schools willl be STEAM seems like such a gimmick.

I don't know if it is a gimmick as much as a realistic view of where the world is going.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

I attended one of the visioning sessions for Drew and I'd be hard pressed to say anything definitive came out of it, STEAM or otherwise, except some random words written down on oversized sheets of paper. There was barely any guidance for what the session was supposed to achieve. I'm not objecting and I don't know whether the broader community will or won't. But the community engagement piece was of questionable utility based on my first-hand experience and, based on that and what I've seen from APS elsewhere, I'm not sure my cynical view is unjustified.

Interesting, I just thought STEAM seemed an odd choice since Hoffman-Boston is STEM (or STEAM?) and they are right next to each other.

Their current strategy proposal is to move toward "STEAM" being the default for all neighborhood schools. Drew will be a neighborhood school, not an option school, so it seems to be the first step in this strategy.

This idea that all neighborhood schools willl be STEAM seems like such a gimmick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

I attended one of the visioning sessions for Drew and I'd be hard pressed to say anything definitive came out of it, STEAM or otherwise, except some random words written down on oversized sheets of paper. There was barely any guidance for what the session was supposed to achieve. I'm not objecting and I don't know whether the broader community will or won't. But the community engagement piece was of questionable utility based on my first-hand experience and, based on that and what I've seen from APS elsewhere, I'm not sure my cynical view is unjustified.

Interesting, I just thought STEAM seemed an odd choice since Hoffman-Boston is STEM (or STEAM?) and they are right next to each other.

Their current strategy proposal is to move toward "STEAM" being the default for all neighborhood schools. Drew will be a neighborhood school, not an option school, so it seems to be the first step in this strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

I attended one of the visioning sessions for Drew and I'd be hard pressed to say anything definitive came out of it, STEAM or otherwise, except some random words written down on oversized sheets of paper. There was barely any guidance for what the session was supposed to achieve. I'm not objecting and I don't know whether the broader community will or won't. But the community engagement piece was of questionable utility based on my first-hand experience and, based on that and what I've seen from APS elsewhere, I'm not sure my cynical view is unjustified.

Interesting, I just thought STEAM seemed an odd choice since Hoffman-Boston is STEM (or STEAM?) and they are right next to each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Wait, you're saying APS public engagement is just a show and transparency is a myth?

Gosh, that's hard to be believe . . . .

. . . assuming you haven't watched a few rounds of this crap.

If APS administration were more competent, I almost wouldn't care. Stop wasting time pretending you give a shit about what parents and teachers think and just put the time into doing a good job of what you were going to do anyway. But Murphy, Chadwick, and Nattrass are horrible, and I don't want to sit back and let them their poo at students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

I attended one of the visioning sessions for Drew and I'd be hard pressed to say anything definitive came out of it, STEAM or otherwise, except some random words written down on oversized sheets of paper. There was barely any guidance for what the session was supposed to achieve. I'm not objecting and I don't know whether the broader community will or won't. But the community engagement piece was of questionable utility based on my first-hand experience and, based on that and what I've seen from APS elsewhere, I'm not sure my cynical view is unjustified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Or, the survey results putting STEM/arts at the top and the Drew visioning discussions were feeding into the strategy, since they both started before the strategy was first communicated. I did hear not many turned up to the Drew visioning discussions so if the community objects to a STEAM focus they should have voiced a preference for something else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

I think that is a wonderful idea. So glad to be zoned Wakefield. You guys were so desperate for WL, well you got it!

What do you mean by "so desperate for W-L"? W-L has been around since 1925 and all 3 schools were recently rebuilt.

Not the PP, but I suspect it means the people who were so adamant about not being rezoned, particularly the ones who said terrible things about Wakefield and the students there. Enjoy your mega-school, orange shirts. Start your campaign now to make sure it's not your kids with the 9:30 am lunch slot.

I usually try to rise above but, boy, the things that were said and implied during that process were tough to swallow. My kids don't even go there yet and I was upset.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I got an email tonight that the new program at Drew will be STEAM. It will be interesting to see how Drew changes when the boundary changes. Living in that neighborhood it has changed a lot even in the past 3 years. But very few UMC parents sends their kid to the traditional program at Drew.

I got the same email, and my first thought was that wow the Drew "visioning" process coincidentally resulted in the outcome the school board wanted, probably just like the new "instructional focus" for the high school will turn out to be....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

I think that is a wonderful idea. So glad to be zoned Wakefield. You guys were so desperate for WL, well you got it!

What do you mean by "so desperate for W-L"? W-L has been around since 1925 and all 3 schools were recently rebuilt.

Not the PP, but I suspect it means the people who were so adamant about not being rezoned, particularly the ones who said terrible things about Wakefield and the students there. Enjoy your mega-school, orange shirts. Start your campaign now to make sure it's not your kids with the 9:30 am lunch slot.

Exactly.
Enjoy your mega school. You've truly earned it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

I think that is a wonderful idea. So glad to be zoned Wakefield. You guys were so desperate for WL, well you got it!

What do you mean by "so desperate for W-L"? W-L has been around since 1925 and all 3 schools were recently rebuilt.

Not the PP, but I suspect it means the people who were so adamant about not being rezoned, particularly the ones who said terrible things about Wakefield and the students there. Enjoy your mega-school, orange shirts. Start your campaign now to make sure it's not your kids with the 9:30 am lunch slot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

I think that is a wonderful idea. So glad to be zoned Wakefield. You guys were so desperate for WL, well you got it!

What do you mean by "so desperate for W-L"? W-L has been around since 1925 and all 3 schools were recently rebuilt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that one of the options from last night's session would turn W-L into a 4,000 student school. Do people really want that? Seems weird to have 2 much smaller schools and 1 so large.

Yes, I was there and that is one of the options. If we use the Ed Center, the 1300 seats would either be a 9th grade academy for WL freshmen + an expansion of IB or county-wide "world languages" program + expansion of IB. Either scenario means 3500-4000 students would be located on the WL campus. Natress said that a 9th grade academy would mean WL graduating class size would increase to 800-900 students. Someone asked what that meant for access to activities, and she admitted it was a challenge that they had not worked out yet.

That seems unfair either way. Unfair to W-L having to be so large. Unfair to the other two schools if they create a special 9th grade academy just for W-L. I hope they go for one of the other two options.