Frequently Asked Questions
We’ll update this section as questions arise
Doesn't this just impact the turf softball field?
That is the same field as the elementary school playground. The Board’s messaging has consistently referred to the space as simply “the softball field” without acknowledging that it doubles as the only playfield at Cassingham. There is no grass field.
The Superintendent and COO have explained that the open space would be sufficiently diminished at Cassingham that the kids would need to use the football field during recess.
Are you proposing to put the new school at the Montrose or Maryland campus?
No. All of our elementary schools deserve outdoor space.
Expansion on the Cassingham campus may be the best option, but only in a way that retains or replaces the outdoor space for our students.
Aren't there other places for kids to play?
The Cassingham playground field is used heavily by elementary kids after school and on weekends, just like at the other two elementary schools. There would be no place on-campus available to kids, as the football field is in constant use by the school and rented to leagues. The closest open space would be the playground at Montrose, which is a 15-20+ minute walk across Main from Cassingham.
Central Bexley is unique in that it does not have a city park.
How is this related to the proposed turf installation at Montrose and Maryland ?
The removal of the outdoor space at Cassingham and the installation of turf at Montrose and Maryland are all part of the same proposed Phase 1 Facilities Plan.
The turf plan shows two things:
First, the District has not meaningfully involved or listened to feedback from parents, including those at Montrose who overwhelmingly do not want artificial turf.
Second, although misguided, the District believes outdoor fields at our other two elementary schools are important and worth millions of dollars in further investment - while at the same time taking away the outdoor field at Cassingham.
Don’t we need more space for more students?
Not now. In April 2024, the District commissioned and released an enrollment projection that anticipates no growth through 2034. The Board has acknowledged that crowding is not a motivating concern.