Middle College HS at Boren followup: District letter; SSCC president’s explanation

For those with a stake in Middle College High School having to leave South Seattle Community College after 17 years, and being given a temporary new spot at the Boren Building campus on Delridge – also the temporary home of the new K-5 STEM at Boren elementary – it’s been a busy weekend. We broke the news on Friday and discussions have ensued both in WSB comments and on the K-5 STEM Yahoo! group, as well as in the MCHS community, among other places. We followed up today with SSCC president Gary Oertli, and while we have a few other people to contact, we are publishing the first draft of our followup because the district has just shared the letter it sent to K-5 STEM families, both announcing the campus-sharing and seeking to alleviate concerns about how much contact there might be between the two schools’ populations:

The letter is from Aurora Lora, West Seattle executive director of schools for SPS:

Dear Boren K-5 STEM Families: I am writing to let you know about a new program that will be co-located on the Boren campus next year.

For more than 20 years, Seattle Public Schools has operated a Middle College High School program at South Seattle Community College. The college recently informed us that they have received two large grants and need to re-occupy the space currently used by Middle College students. We have been looking for a new South Seattle location, and have decided to relocate the program to portables at Boren.

The Middle College High School program is a college prep and dropout prevention program aimed at students who have the ability to go to college but because of life circumstances don’t always see a postsecondary education as an option. A major goal of middle college is to prepare students academically for college.

The Middle College program is small and will use up to four classrooms in the portables, which will be located in a different area of the Boren campus than the K-5 STEM program. The portables are on the northeast corner of the campus and will be accessed from Juneau Street. The building spaces that STEM will occupy extend from the south end of the main building to the west half of the center classroom wing. They will be separated by unoccupied space that includes the east half of the center classroom wing and the entire north classroom wing.

Middle College students will be able to enter the north classroom wing through an exterior door at the east end to use the restrooms in that wing. Walls will be built inside the building to separate the STEM space from the unoccupied space. A security system will alert us to unauthorized exit from the STEM side to the unoccupied side, and there will be no ability to enter the STEM side from the unoccupied side without a key.

The K-5 STEM playground area located to south of the building, is enclosed on all sides and will only be accessible from inside the building. There will also be a fenced-in play area in the courtyard between the gym building and the south classroom wing.

Although we will keep these two programs physically separate, our hope is that we will be able to establish a mentoring relationship between our Middle College and K-5 STEM elementary students for interested families. This would be similar to the tutoring program that has been created – in conjunction with Seattle University — between students at our Northgate Mall Middle College and nearby Northgate Elementary School.

We appreciate the support of our K-5 STEM families and, as always, we welcome your questions and suggestions.

Aurora Lora, Executive Director West Seattle Region

Meantime, we spoke with SSCC president Gary Oertli this afternoon, to find out more about the contention that the MCHS move involved a request for rent payment. He acknowledged that rent was discussed; Oertli says that when he started as college president, he discovered there was no written lease for MCHS, and so one was put into place. The possibility of rent, he says, was discussed between SSCC and outgoing SPS interim superintendent Dr. Susan Enfield, but he says she said SPS couldn’t afford it, and the discussion ended there.

Regarding next year, though, Oertli reiterates that MCHS was asked to leave NOT because of any monetary issue, but because the college needs the space: “We are slammed with the need for space.” (According to a May memo from MCHS staff to SPS leadership, the high school uses “two large classrooms, a computer lab and a two-room office space” at SSCC, though that is less space, the memo says, than the program used to have, when its student body numbered more than 100 – currently, it’s 70.)

Oertli says they have not decided which programs are going into the space that MCHS currently uses, but they have received major grants that “had a domino effect” on current space utilization, so they are “doing a major space review” right now. Though state funding for community colleges has been slashed in recent years, Oertli notes that this past year alone, SSCC “worked hard to get 12 million dollars in grants … and with that, come the people you hire.” He says there is no chance SSCC could reconsider the decision to take back the space.

One of the people we are checking with this afternoon is West Seattle’s school-board director Marty McLaren. We haven’t spoken with her since she answered our inquiry with the comments published in our Friday morning story, but messages on the K-5 STEM Yahoo! discussion board quote her as telling parents in that community that she and fellow first-term School Board member Sharon Peaslee are seeking a meeting with SPS administrators about the situation.

63 Replies to "Middle College HS at Boren followup: District letter; SSCC president's explanation"

  • evergreen June 18, 2012 (3:23 pm)

    Well, the discussion is starting to move in the right direction. There should have been transparency and open communication with the STEM community from the start. Out of respect for the families that took a chance on this program, there should have been a conversation with us about the rationale for this move and planned measures to ensure safety. The district bungled it, and now we have lost some degree of trust towards those in charge. Personally, I am feeling much less enthusiastic about my child’s enrollment at STEM. Who knows how many other surprises we will experience from SPS in the next year.

  • Jack June 18, 2012 (3:51 pm)

    Ongoing thank you to the WSB for getting this information out.
    This situation sounds terrible for the Middle College kids as well as the K-STEM families. It seems like all the security involved in keeping the two separate will not foster an open learning community. The Denny building already feels run down without the addition of locks and security systems.

  • w. sea interested June 18, 2012 (4:06 pm)

    Thank you WSB for the info. I am glad to have more logistical details, but I am still not ok with the populations being co-housed. We’ll see what more plans they have to comfort STEM families.

  • neighbor June 18, 2012 (4:24 pm)

    What?! no electric fence?

  • curious June 18, 2012 (6:10 pm)

    So this move is temporary? Does this remove Boren as an option/temporary home for schools needing a rebuild, like Arbor Heights?

    I can only hope that SPS has some plan for this in the future, that we’re unaware of.

    • WSB June 18, 2012 (6:23 pm)

      Curious, in our followup on the previous story (linked in this one), we asked the school district, which said, yes, this is a temporary home for MCHS. As it is supposed to be a temporary home for K-5 STEM. Boren is supposed to remain temporary/emergency housing.

  • evergreen June 18, 2012 (6:23 pm)

    …and another thank you to WSB for reporting on STEM, in addition to a multitude of neighborhood stories. Not only do you keep all of us informed and build community, but you provide a place where all sides of an issue can be heard. What an invaluable service to everyone in WS!

  • a West Seattle Light June 18, 2012 (6:25 pm)

    Middle College students used to eat at the SSCC cafeteria. SPS provided vouchers each day for each student to buy lunch. I am wondering if are going to share the cafeteria at Boren with the STEM students in this new arrangement. If not, how exactly they will feed the MCHS students?
    I would be interested to know where the existing cafeteria is physically located in relation to this plan. The last time I was in that building, it seemed like it was located close to where Aurora Lora indicates the division/unoccupied space will be.

  • silverback June 18, 2012 (6:43 pm)

    The cafeteria is at the Southeast corner of the school.

  • Brian M. June 18, 2012 (7:20 pm)

    That’s really too bad. I bet the SSCC campus provided plenty of inspiration to the MCHS students to continue their education.

  • Nichole June 18, 2012 (7:21 pm)

    I’m sorry but I’ve somehow missed how the middle college students are a threat to safety? What exactly is the cohousing concern here?

  • Oliver June 18, 2012 (9:56 pm)

    As detailed in the comments to the Friday report, the concern is with co-locating any high school age kids with preschool and elementary school kids. The safety concerns are present whether the teenagers are from Sealth, WS High or anywhere else.

    Keep in mind, this decision was made public to K5STEM families only thanks to this blog, today’s letter to K5STEM was an after thought and is the first official information we have on the plans for keeping the populations separate. It’s easy to assume the worst when the there is a complete lack of transparency and feeling that we were deceived.

  • LE June 18, 2012 (11:29 pm)

    IMO, the primary concern is that SPS staff thought that random teenagers would be “mentors”, merely by breathing or something.

  • Brontosaurus June 19, 2012 (12:27 am)

    @Nichole…Seriously? You can’t figure out the “threat to safety” when 16-20 year-olds are co-located with 3-11 year olds? Think about it.

  • Nichole June 19, 2012 (6:15 am)

    I guess I believe in multigenerational learning. I have a teen…he is awesome with preschool and elementary age kids. I agree the district should have told you before you decided to sign up for stem but maybe take a deep breath and give the teens a chance. Sounds like stem is an alternative learning program. Middle college alterative leaning program. Maybe these kids won’t be that different despite the age gap.

  • Nichole June 19, 2012 (7:00 am)

    That said after reading about middle college high on line I don’t see how this program will work being moved away from a community college. it appears that the biggest piece to its success is immersing the students in community college life and showing them the path to education by droping them in it.

  • Ivan Weiss June 19, 2012 (7:21 am)

    The entire purpose of MCHS was so that at-risk students would be ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS! Not on a campus with K-5 kids!

    Let them find room for portables at SSCC. Oertli and Enfield should both be ashamed of themselves. I find their rationalizations unconvincing, and unacceptable. If we can put astronauts on the moon, we can keep these students on a college campus.

    Ivan Weiss

  • WSMama3 June 19, 2012 (8:05 am)

    Nichole – do you have kids in grade school? If so – please nominate their school to house high schoolers and you will soon realize you are in the minority thinking that high school students and elementary school students should share the same campus.

  • Public School Advocate June 19, 2012 (8:53 am)

    While I can certainly understand the K-5 STEM community being blindsided by this decision to co-house MCHS at Boren, there are a few things that should be included in the discussion:

    1) In many smaller communities across the country, K-12 students share a campus. Even Seattle had a K-12 program until recently.

    2) Many preschool or early learning programs are co-housed on high school campuses and/or college campuses.

    3) It was initially recommended that the K-STEM program wait to open until the 2013-14 school year, yet there were many individuals/groups in the community that advocated for it’s opening earlier in the name of “capacity management”. Clearly, when a new program is forced to “rush” to open, logistical issues do arise. The clearest sign to the district would have been for no one of enroll until everything was a bit more fleshed out.

  • nichole June 19, 2012 (9:06 am)

    Yes, I have children in Elementary, Middle School and one headed to high school in the fall…guess what they all live in the same house with out harm as well.

  • WSMama3 June 19, 2012 (10:24 am)

    Family is a different story. Would you let your elementary kid hang our with strange high schoolers alone? I would not. We can agree to disagree here.

  • evergreen June 19, 2012 (1:56 pm)

    Public School Advocate — STEM is not being opened in 2012 b/c of community outcries. Rather, it is b/c there is grant money available for this year only in opening a new school. If it is not used in 2012, the money is lost to the district. You can read about it on Marty McLaren’s blog.

  • Tony June 19, 2012 (2:28 pm)

    Evergreen- the other reason STEM opened @ Boren this year was to keep their certificate of occupancy valid. If building is unoccupied for 2 years, they lose the C of O. THEN when they want to use the Boren building again, they have to reapply and bring building up to modern codes @ the cost of a cool million or two. But yes, the money to open new STEM, computers, etc all come from funds other than SSD budget and were set to expire after this year. The next step will be to reopen Fairmount Park ( after renewing C of O, modernizing) and move STEM there. This hinges on levy passing in the fall.

  • HMC Rich June 19, 2012 (3:14 pm)

    Well, the left hand now knows what the right hand is doing, belatedly.

    SPS, you need to get your act together. Obviously this is a time of change for our school district with a new superintendent etc. Please learn from these mistakes. .

    I am not happy with this arrangement at all.

  • Jawat June 19, 2012 (8:13 pm)

    Has it been announced that STEM will end up being permanently housed at Fairmount Park elementary? Or is that Plan A, if the levy passes? I wonder if there is a plan B that hasn’t been announced either. It would be nice to know where the school will go after the Boren building.

  • evergreen June 19, 2012 (10:38 pm)

    Thank you, Tony

  • WSMama3 June 20, 2012 (7:12 am)

    No – it has not been announced where STEM will be. No plan A, B or C. Just speculation at this time.

  • Norman June 20, 2012 (8:57 am)

    I for one am disappointed that some news outlets censer some comments. That in its self just shook my faith in any thing posted on the web. The SPSD didn’t lie they just didn’t tell us. If one of my kids did that I would have to explain what trust means along with deception.

  • Tony June 20, 2012 (9:05 am)

    From what I hear, Board is looking @ proposal to reopen Fairmount for STEM’s permanent home tomorrow night.

  • anette June 20, 2012 (11:09 am)

    “Would you let your elementary kid hang our with strange high schoolers alone? I would not.”

    First of all, nobody is letting any kid hang out with strangers alone. Stop the hysterics.

    Second of all, one day your elementary kid will be a highschooler and you may not appreciate your kid being looked down upon as some evil threat to society because of his/her age.

    And thirdly, kids often live up to (or down to, in this case) the expectations placed upon them. What message are we sending our budding adults when they are treated as potential threats because of their biological age and their life situations?

    This maybe a bone headed move on the school district’s part but let’s not make monsters out of the children attending the Middle HS College program.

  • WSMama3 June 20, 2012 (11:53 am)

    Please read the comments from STEM parents. Obviously we will all have teenagers at some point. Obviously we still have concerns that Elementary School Students should not be co-housed with High School Students.

    I am so not hysterical. I am a parent who has concerns about the way we were told this information, and the implications that is has for STEM kids AND Middle College High kids.

    Feel free to come to the Board meeting today – I think you will hear that we as a STEM community think this is rotten for the MC kids, not that we think they are “evil” or a “threat” or that they are “monsters”. These are all your words – not ours.

  • WSMama3 June 20, 2012 (12:09 pm)


    John – I am really interested in the Fairmount park potential – but I don’t see it on the agenda. Do you have any other information? I noticed today the roof is being worked on.

  • anette June 20, 2012 (12:10 pm)

    i correct myself, these are not children attending the MHSC program but soon to be adults.

    still. i ask, what is their future if threatening is how see their presence?

  • anette June 20, 2012 (12:22 pm)

    if your concern is the way the situation evolved then why did you ask
    “Would you let your elementary kid hang out with strange high schoolers alone? I would not.”
    you wonder how i came to my conclusions well one posters statement ‘all the security involved in keeping the two separate’ and somebody else expressing concern about the two diff. groups eating lunch together. and you labeling higherschoolers as strange.
    what are the assumptions and concerns behind these statements and questions?

  • frank June 20, 2012 (12:42 pm)

    This just in-” Enrolled STEM student had a Middle College student/ Grad for a babysitter”. He seems to be doing fine!!
    If this is a go-lets make it work to the best of everyone’s potential.Do agree-MCHS seems to be getting the short end of the stick here.Really-no room for them to be near any college focused groups? Bad planning on district but lets try not to think the worst. Could they at least attend a class or two up at SSCC?

  • WSMama3 June 20, 2012 (12:57 pm)

    “Strange” as in not family or not known to me – ie: strangers.

    My kid has has times at school where he is not supervised. I do not feel comfortable as a parent with high schoolers at the same campus with my elementary school kid. That is my bottom line.

    It took 3 days for STEM parents to get any notification about how the groups might or will be kept apart. Notice I am not saying I think that teenagers are evil.

    And yes Frank – MC kids are really getting the short end of the stick here. I agree 100%.

  • anette June 20, 2012 (1:44 pm)

    then what are you saying when you can’t allow your child to come into contact w/ a demographically older student in a school learning environment?
    anyways, we needn’t quibble, changing a school from a k-5 into a k-12 of sorts with no parent input or notification is unacceptable.
    Moving high school kids out of the environment of their future and into an elementary school? May we please not get any more asinine than this.

  • WSMama3 June 20, 2012 (2:12 pm)

    I didn’t say that either.

  • neighbor June 20, 2012 (4:32 pm)

    I agree anette.

    And as to the question of STEM getting “first dibs” on Fairmount Park after $10M in improvements to bring it to code: again the Cooper community is left with bread crumbs?

    The whole “free” money argument re: STEM is smoke. Capital funds could be used to start ANY new program (for furniture, library collection etc.) It’s not really free nor without “cons”. I do not appreciate that the Ed Reform (former) leadership in this district would invest in the latest fad instead of rebuilding neighborhood schools.

  • Tony June 20, 2012 (6:48 pm)

    Last number I had heard was $6 million to reopen Fairmount Park. And whoever goes there, STEM or otherwise, the building has to be brought to current codes. The schools are overcrowded, we need classrooms and seats. Would anyone be happier if STEM stayed @ Boren?? That’s not happening because SSD wants building for emergencies. As to money’s to start STEM, those were funds OTHER than Capital, BEX, BTA. I think your statement that Capital $ could be used to start STEM is incorrect. Capital is for improvements to open buildings/new buildings. I apologize in advance if I’m misinformed. It’s an alphabet soup of confusion with constant moving goal posts. Bottom line is we need additional classrooms. I think we can all agree on that.

  • LE June 20, 2012 (6:52 pm)

    There is a big difference between saying that child will “come into contact” with a teen, or share the lunch room with teens, or be tutored by a teen, versus saying that a child will be “mentored” by a teen. Mentoring is a real word, and it means someone who has achieved success guides a less experienced person on the path to sharing those same successes.

    • WSB June 20, 2012 (7:19 pm)

      For those following this topic, I’m at the school board meeting where, though this was not on the formal agenda, it was addressed both by several parents and by several board members, and a “public discussion” was promised. Story to come – the board meeting has just gone into recess at 7:16 pm after the controversial advertising-policy change was passed, with lots more on the agenda. P.S. I also got some information from the district pre-meeting re: the Fairmount Park question. Will include that, as the reason I asked was because of what it says re: FP in the “budget book” – TR

  • neighbor June 20, 2012 (8:39 pm)

    Uh, BEX and BTA ARE Capital funds…! Capital funds may be used for assets that are depreciable under GAAP rules. The question is “what is a good investment or use of these funds?” The district has demonstrated it can abuse these funds (remember Pottergate and capital fund investment in “trainings”?) We need additional or replacement classrooms for those that were erroneously taken away. I question whether throwing $$$ at the latest Ed Reform groupthink is wise.

  • neighbor June 20, 2012 (8:52 pm)

    The latest BEX IV scenario lists FP opening at $10.5M

  • Oliver June 20, 2012 (10:17 pm)

    Anette – I like the idea of a utopian world where there should not be concerns about teenagers crossing paths with elementary school children. But welcome to the real world – I was abused by a teenage boy when I was in elementary school. It happens and is not a risk I want to take with my own child crossing paths with 16-20 year olds that I do not know. Please don’t be so condescending. Any person with access to “mentor” a child also has access to “groom” a child _ I take that possibility, no matter how remote, very seriously. I have every right and reason to be “hysterical”, though I think our response is quite rational and that of responsible parents.

  • anette June 21, 2012 (8:57 am)

    where/when did mentoring come into the conversation? of course, the parent(s) need to know any person who is to mentor a child.

    The whole situation is lousy. The school district is really messing up. again!

    If this particular situation does pan out I just hope that the MC kids are welcomed with compassion and not suspicion.

  • evergreen June 21, 2012 (9:47 am)

    I agree, the situation is lousy for everyone involved.

  • anette June 21, 2012 (11:16 am)

    I am not trying to be condescending, my apologizes for that impression.
    I am, though, questioning the assumptions and tone behind some of the voiced concerns b/c these lead to deeper social issues in that; How have we come to a point so far that we view our youth with such suspicions?
    The way I see it the problem is two fold: one-the stem parents were completely blindsided. not acceptable. Complain loudly and often to school district. Two-MC students are being shafted. Who thinks up and articulates these ideas? We need to be asking the district to justify, in numbers and common sense, the rational behind this decision.
    As soon as i leave here i am contacting the school board.
    We all need to do this. Also maybe we could shift the focus from how best to insure the elementary kids safety(whatever that means…) to, how rotten of a deal the MC students are getting. Help stop the pre-college kids from being relocated in an elementary school.

    Let’s truly make this about the kids, all of the kids.

  • WSMama3 June 21, 2012 (1:13 pm)

    Aurora Lora’s letter to MCH parents (not to STEM) last week said “mentoring”.

    Take a listen to the STEM parents at the SPS Board meeting – ALL of us say that MCH students need and deserve better while also saying that SPS messed up, while also saying that STEM elementary school kids should not be co-housed for all the reasons listed in the past 3 comment sections about this and the reasons listed above.

    I’d be careful reading “tone” into comments on a blog. Especially when STEM parents have been nothing but advocating for the best interest of both STEM AND MCH students.

    • WSB June 21, 2012 (1:16 pm)

      Speaking of the meeting, the video is available via the Seattle Channel – I will be adding the links to our story as soon as I finish crashing out something else. I had videotaped two speakers but my angle was not ideal and my battery died after that, so I decided to just link to SC’s coverage instead, for those who missed the meeting in person or on TV – TR

  • Public School Advocate June 21, 2012 (6:04 pm)

    Yes, I know there were other reasons that precipitated STEM being opened earlier than originally planned e.g. maintaining occupancy status at Boren and “new” monies that came available to start a program (Capital Levy Funds that must be exhausted before you go out and ask voters for a new levy). Yet, at the same time there were very vocal individuals and groups within the community that advocated for STEM to open in the name of “capacity management”.
    The district put on a nice dog and pony show to “sell” STEM and the lure of an alternative math program (e.g. Singapore Math) was enough get many on the bandwagon. Members of FACMAC (Capacity Management Advisory Committee) advocated for this too as a way to prevent redrawing of boundaries that would be needed if it was a neighborhood school.
    Yet, what capacity management issues did it solve? None. How many kids from Schmitz Park will be going to STEM? Maybe 10. Instead, STEM is being used as a way for parents to avoid sending their kids to their neighborhood school. It looked really nice and pretty with all the resources and attention that they’d be receiving, yet now add the controversial uniform policy and high school age kids sharing the same campus; for some their ‘ol neighborhood school doesn’t look so bad anymore.
    So while the outcry from the STEM community over being co-housed with MCHS is justified on many levels, it really comes down to hastily throwing a program together without proper planning. For that, I lay blame on the district and all the families that jumped prematurely on that bandwagon.

  • Brontosaurus June 22, 2012 (12:21 am)


    Can you please close this thread? It has started to turn into a few people slamming the STEM community and completely misunderstanding our point of view.

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (8:39 am)

    I am curious, if the MCHS young adults, will have criminal history background checks? As any one over 13 needs to have to be in contact with younger children, (family excluded).

    • WSB June 22, 2012 (8:47 am)

      Not any more than students at K-12 schools have to have criminal-history background checks. Or my son and his 1200-plus schoolmates, who attend a high school co-located with a middle school.

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (9:04 am)

    high school and middle school is different. working and being in the presence of young children the law reads differently.

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (9:10 am)

    RCW 43.43.832
    (b) When authorizing individuals who will or may have unsupervised access to children who are in child day care, in early learning programs, or receiving early childhood learning education services in licensed or certified agencies, including but not limited to licensees, agency staff, interns, volunteers, contracted providers, and persons living on the premises who are sixteen years of age or older;

    (c) When contracting with any business or organization for activities that will or may have unsupervised access to children who are in child day care, in early learning programs, or receiving early childhood learning education services;

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (9:12 am)

    the term is will OR may

    sorry i was wrong about the age it changed from 13 to 16.

  • anette June 22, 2012 (9:34 am)

    pattilea, the rcw you site is not applicable. the high school students do not meet any of the criteria set forth.
    21st Century New Norm: All High School Students must now submit to a Background Check. wow! just wow!

  • Jawat June 22, 2012 (9:52 am)

    I guess I don’t understand why it is assumed the high school kids will have “unsupervised access” to the elementary kids. The Boren school was built to hold 800 students. There will be approximately 250 elementary kids, and 70 high schoolers. Surely there is a way to keep the two groups seperate.

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (10:24 am)

    I called SPS this morning to ask questions about if/and any contact with the students in a mentoring/tutoring way. After being switched to 6 different people. I asked IF* the students from middle college would have contact with students, would there be a criminal back ground check. The last woman I spoke with said yes, but would not give me her name. So I called back again and asked the question again, this time I was given the phone number to Cindy Nash, to get more information on what is a middle college. It is not running start, it is a separate program all together. She was a delight to speak with and shared tons of information about what the college is. She said many of the students have a life situation not in a criminal way. Some have to work full time to help their family or some have to be adult caregivers to their family. This program gives these students a chance to finish high school, and hopefully on to higher education. The draw back is that students are exempt from a criminal history background checks. However they do not accept students that have discipline problems in their student history, nor do they accept students that are sex offenders. IF indeed the students mentor/tutor, it is only after the students have taken class’ at Seattle University. And that for their protection also would not be left alone with the younger students.

    I am so glad I made this phone call, and received more information.

  • WSMama3 June 22, 2012 (11:12 am)

    Cindy Nash spoke at the Design Team meeting last night, as did one of the teachers at the school. I had heard and read about them – but truly the passion to educate and help these kids along is awesome.

    Also at the meeting was an SPS employee who spoke about the security measures (fence around the playground, walls, alarm system).

    I do think this can work, but the Design Team and community was pleased to hear from Aurora Lora last night that SPS is looking at other options (moving the portables to a different location being 1 option). I am MOST happy about this development since I hope that the Middle College High students will be able to be connected to the Community College.

    We were also told that there will be a meeting with interested community members soon.

    My take away – Middle College and the STEM parents are aligned here. We want what it best for the MCH students and the STEM kids.

    I will post if I hear any more details.

  • pattilea June 22, 2012 (11:18 am)

    I feel like I inserted my foot before I got the right info, my apologies.

  • WSMama3 June 22, 2012 (12:14 pm)

    No worries! You asked a question and thanks for getting more info to us all about it! :)

Sorry, comment time is over.