Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

These numbers aren't the original APS proposal. Glebe is one of four elemtary schools in APS that is over capacity even with the COVID decrease in enrollment. APS wasn't proposing to move any kids out, only busing many more kids to Glebe.

APS may have designated part of the Glebe zone as walkable to Cardinal, but APS wasn't going to move any kids there. Cardinal was already full in the APS plan. Those kids were staying at Glebe and have stayed at Glebe. The question was whether Glebe was going to pick up a chunk of McKinley (keeping all of their existing students and despite already being overcrowded) so Nottingham students could attend Cardinal, leaving Nottingham significantly over enrolled.

So the way the process works is APS puts out an original proposal and then always tweaks it. It's a starting point, not the end point. Cardinal was not full in the initial APS plan. It was only pretty near full by the end when APS went with the option of putting nearly all of McKinley at Cardinal (minus the 3 planning units that went to Ashlawn plus and the one Tuckahoe unit that got the option to attend). There could have been plenty of room in a sensible world to move some of those Glebe kids to Cardinal and move Madison Manor to Tuckahoe instead of Cardinal. That probably would have made a lot of sense in terms of continuing to bus kids that were already bused and maximize walks and even out enrollment.

BUT....the point is people FREAK OUT at the first proposal that yes, might affect their school or them personally negatively. So yes, the Glebe parents freaked out and the Ashlawn parents freaked out and some of the former McKinley parents freaked out. Oh and the Tuckahoe and Nottingham parents freaked out with threats they would be option schools once left under enrolled.

It's a lot of self-involved freaking out.

Thanks to trusty Waze:

Pentagon City to Discovery - 18 min
Pentagon City to Nottingham - 17 min
Pentagon City to Tuckahoe - 16 min
Pentagon City to ATS (current location) 16 min

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

Key is shrinking their K classes because they moved to a smaller building. It was planned with the move so they fit in the mew space.

Gotcha, thank you! I’m not sure how I feel about option schools but it’s kind of a shame to shrink an immersion program - and Spanish in particular- if it’s working/wanted.

New poster and I agree. My kids are at Claremont, and we were told the kindergarten classes were shrunk from 6 to 4 due to over crowding. I'm skeptical because its not like immersion programs suddenly become overcrowded. Few kids transfer in because you ahve to be proficient in Spanish to join as years progress. The school had been overcrowded for a long while. What made this current year the year to suddenly drop two whole kindergarten classes? Why move Key to a smaller building? There are long wait lists ever year. This past year I've heard the only kids who got spots were siblings of kids already at the school. Maybe due toe the pandemic neighborhood schools hard more capacity to absorb kids who would have preferred going to immersion this year, but APS hasn't been transparent about it AT ALL.

The people on the waitlists are all native English speakers. If you don’t have the right balance of English and Spanish speakers enrolling, the waitlist is irrelevant.

They have abandoned ithat model of 50-50, they should accept more people off the waitlist and not just keep it at capacity. Every option school should be at least as crowded as the most overcapacity neighborhood school.

50-50 refers to the split between Spanish and English instruction during the school day. Not the class demographics.

^ but I agree with you that option schools should be over capacity if neighborhood schools are over. The option schools should be used to equalize capacity to the extent possible.

To better help balance, it would seem to make sense to move an option School to the areas where there are under capacity schools with overlapping walk zones. E.g. discovery, tuckahoe, Nottingham

Why would that make sense when it is so far from families in places like the Pentagon City neighborhoods?

It takes 5 mins to get from Nottingham/tuckahoe to ATS.

Also, there's no reason ATS (or any other option school) needs to continue to exist. If you choose an option school you get what you get in terms of location.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

Key is shrinking their K classes because they moved to a smaller building. It was planned with the move so they fit in the mew space.

Gotcha, thank you! I’m not sure how I feel about option schools but it’s kind of a shame to shrink an immersion program - and Spanish in particular- if it’s working/wanted.

New poster and I agree. My kids are at Claremont, and we were told the kindergarten classes were shrunk from 6 to 4 due to over crowding. I'm skeptical because its not like immersion programs suddenly become overcrowded. Few kids transfer in because you ahve to be proficient in Spanish to join as years progress. The school had been overcrowded for a long while. What made this current year the year to suddenly drop two whole kindergarten classes? Why move Key to a smaller building? There are long wait lists ever year. This past year I've heard the only kids who got spots were siblings of kids already at the school. Maybe due toe the pandemic neighborhood schools hard more capacity to absorb kids who would have preferred going to immersion this year, but APS hasn't been transparent about it AT ALL.

The people on the waitlists are all native English speakers. If you don’t have the right balance of English and Spanish speakers enrolling, the waitlist is irrelevant.

They have abandoned ithat model of 50-50, they should accept more people off the waitlist and not just keep it at capacity. Every option school should be at least as crowded as the most overcapacity neighborhood school.

50-50 refers to the split between Spanish and English instruction during the school day. Not the class demographics.

^ but I agree with you that option schools should be over capacity if neighborhood schools are over. The option schools should be used to equalize capacity to the extent possible.

To better help balance, it would seem to make sense to move an option School to the areas where there are under capacity schools with overlapping walk zones. E.g. discovery, tuckahoe, Nottingham

Why would that make sense when it is so far from families in places like the Pentagon City neighborhoods?

It takes 5 mins to get from Nottingham/tuckahoe to ATS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

These numbers aren't the original APS proposal. Glebe is one of four elemtary schools in APS that is over capacity even with the COVID decrease in enrollment. APS wasn't proposing to move any kids out, only busing many more kids to Glebe.

APS may have designated part of the Glebe zone as walkable to Cardinal, but APS wasn't going to move any kids there. Cardinal was already full in the APS plan. Those kids were staying at Glebe and have stayed at Glebe. The question was whether Glebe was going to pick up a chunk of McKinley (keeping all of their existing students and despite already being overcrowded) so Nottingham students could attend Cardinal, leaving Nottingham significantly over enrolled.

*Nottingham under enrolled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

These numbers aren't the original APS proposal. Glebe is one of four elemtary schools in APS that is over capacity even with the COVID decrease in enrollment. APS wasn't proposing to move any kids out, only busing many more kids to Glebe.

APS may have designated part of the Glebe zone as walkable to Cardinal, but APS wasn't going to move any kids there. Cardinal was already full in the APS plan. Those kids were staying at Glebe and have stayed at Glebe. The question was whether Glebe was going to pick up a chunk of McKinley (keeping all of their existing students and despite already being overcrowded) so Nottingham students could attend Cardinal, leaving Nottingham significantly over enrolled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

Those numbers are the second iteration after APS realized their mistake and walked back their proposal somewhat. The initial version from APS was worse. It never made it into school board slides, but was DCUM fodder.

So some terrible first proposal that APS circulated widely but then buried which pre-dated their stated public engagement time window? When the entire process and everything having to do with is exhaustively laid out on their website.

https://www.apsva.us/engage/fall2020elementaryboundaries/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

Those numbers are the second iteration after APS realized their mistake and walked back their proposal somewhat. The initial version from APS was worse. It never made it into school board slides, but was DCUM fodder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

They need to hire competent staff and make the boundary changes with NO public input. Honestly, it's ridiculous how the loudest/whiniest people get listened to in this county. Make the moves that MAKE SENSE not the moves that result in the least amount of crying at a school board meeting.

What happens also is mainly the people within the school community who perceive they are negatively impacted by a proposal pay attention and freak out. So those people are represented by the school PTAs (which they dominate) as "the community" when often really it's just one neighborhood or block of planning units that doesn't want to get moved somewhere. Their voice takes on a very outsized part of the conversation and they are taken seriously. It's a ridiculous process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

It would be one thing if APS made sensible recommendations. Their proposals often border on nuts. The last round proposed moving Glebe from 110% capacity to 145% capacity while Nottingham and Discovery were below 90%. At Glebe this would have meant classes in hallways and covering the small basketball court with more trailers. It was a ridiculous proposal. If a school community sits quietly by then the have to deal with the consequences of APS not having one shred of common sense.

This is not accurate. From APS's initial presentations for Glebe posted October 2020:

2019-20 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 113% (including 4 existing relocatables 95%)
Estimated 2021-22 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 128% (including 4 existing relocatables 108%)
Estimated 2023-24 PreK-5 Capacity Utilization 122% (including 4 existing relocatables 103%)

The same presentation references that one planning unit already assigned to Glebe could be designated walkable to Reed (and eventually was designated as such) so that would have further alleviated pressure at Glebe and made sense from a transportation perspective. The process wasn't allowed to play out in any way that made sense. It was just immediate freak outs and APS shut the whole thing down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

Key is shrinking their K classes because they moved to a smaller building. It was planned with the move so they fit in the mew space.

Why can’t my neighborhood school shrink it’s K class. That’s a nice trick.

Well, have your school move to a smaller building and APS will need to adjust the boundaries. It wasn't arbitrary--the size of the building is smaller than the prior building.

They could have gotten the bigger McKinley building if they weren’t so busy trying not to move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

Key is shrinking their K classes because they moved to a smaller building. It was planned with the move so they fit in the mew space.

Why can’t my neighborhood school shrink it’s K class. That’s a nice trick.

Just to be clear, the K classes at option schools are always at maximum enrollment per APS numbers, unlike neighborhood schools which often have smaller class number based on the split of students. The decrease was from 6 K classes to 4 K classes. The actual class sizes are larger than ever given the class size increase that APS put through last year.

Anonymous wrote:I love all the...if people would just cooperate with boundary adjustments.

1. Pay attention when they do boundary adjustments that do not directly impact you and speak up and say the things you are saying and advocate for bigger-picture thinking. So few people do this. Which is why...

2. Wait until these changes affect your school. Because somehow in the history of these boundary changes (and I've been hanging around this stuff for too long due to the age of my kids), no school community behaves well. The loudest parents and in particular the PTAs are self-interested, loud, and atrociously obnoxious.

They need to hire competent staff and make the boundary changes with NO public input. Honestly, it's ridiculous how the loudest/whiniest people get listened to in this county. Make the moves that MAKE SENSE not the moves that result in the least amount of crying at a school board meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

Key is shrinking their K classes because they moved to a smaller building. It was planned with the move so they fit in the mew space.

Why can’t my neighborhood school shrink it’s K class. That’s a nice trick.

They can! Through boundary adjustments. Which is exactly what is being discussed here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. They're just not doing the boundary adjustment next near They're not saying they'll never need to do it. They're making the decision based on the information they have right now. Which why disrupt kids and families when the schools aren't full????

Are you saying none of the schools are over capacity? That’s not true.

It is true.

I think some of the option schools are still over the permanent building capacity. That's their own fault, though. They could just go to their neighborhood school instead if it was a dealbreaker.

Key and Claremont are being shrunk (going from 6 K classes to 4 starting this year). Key was also moved to a smaller building this year.

It seems like there is a demand for immersion at the elementary level (at least for native English speakers). Do they not have enough native Spanish speakers for the program? Are they shrinking it bc of attrition in MS / HS?

They are shrinking all the option programs that over capacity. When neighborhood school enrollment went up and those schools got too crowded, APS forced the option schools to add kindergarten spots to up their enrollment as well. It was the right call, but now they are allowing the option schools to go back down. Claremont is way over capacity, and the reduced number of kindergarten spots will help that. If there is demand for a 3rd Immersion program, they should offer that, not up over-enroll the 2 current schools. I think they should offer Immersion at all the under enrolled schools to see what happens. Ex: offer a Spanish speaking classroom at Drew or Discovery and see what happens.