Boundaries with MS-North

[rew]

warriorpride said:

I don't see a "wrong" location - I don't even see a "best" location - some disagreed that BB was selected - some will disagree with any location. There are pros & cons to any location.

I disagree, WP. I think if we look at the sites, each from of our own perspespective, then I would agree we will never have a best/worst. But if you look at it from a district wide perspective, with defined criteria, like

xxx cost / hazards / access/ miles traveled etc

site A - + + + score 2
Site B + - - + score 0
Site C + - - - score -2

you could come up with rankings

[warriorpride]

rew said:

warriorpride said:

I don't see a "wrong" location - I don't even see a "best" location - some disagreed that BB was selected - some will disagree with any location. There are pros & cons to any location.

I disagree, WP. I think if we look at the sites, each from of our own perspespective, then I would agree we will never have a best/worst. But if you look at it from a district wide perspective, with defined criteria, like

xxx cost / hazards / access/ miles traveled etc

site A - + + + score 2
Site B + - - + score 0
Site C + - - - score -2

you could come up with rankings

What is the value of your proposed excercise? If I worked hard enough, I could probably come up with numbers to justify my preferred outcome - it's pretty easy to lie with numbers.

You wouldn't even be able to get an agreement on the list, let alone how they should be weighted. My rankings would be different than yours, which would potentially be different from each corner of 204. As I've said before, this cannot be done by parents in a purely objective way.

The SD is going to pick the site - they've probably heard every possible argument for and against each site. I'm sure whatever they are doing is the best they can, given the circumstances.

I've come to the conclusion that whatever site is selected & whatever boundaries are chosen, the sun will still rise the next morning, and my kids will be fine. I will also support the 09 ref, regardless of the final outcome. I guess I wish more people had this mindset.

[d204mom]

Attacking any and all that have a problem with the North site isn't valuable either in my opinion.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

rew said:

I disagree, WP. I think if we look at the sites, each from of our own perspespective, then I would agree we will never have a best/worst. But if you look at it from a district wide perspective, with defined criteria, like

xxx cost / hazards / access/ miles traveled etc

site A - + + + score 2
Site B + - - + score 0
Site C + - - - score -2

you could come up with rankings

What is the value in your proposed excercise? If I worked hard enough, I could probably come up with numbers to justify my preferred outcome - it's pretty easy to lie with numbers.

You wouldn't even be able to get angreement on the list, let alone how they should be weighted. My rankings would be different than yours, which would potentially be different from each corner of 204. As I've said before, this cannot be done by parents in a purely objective way.

The SD is going to pick the site - they've probably heard every possible argument for and against each site. I'm sure whatever they are doing is the best they can, given the circumstances.

I've come to the conclusion that whatever site is selected & whatever boundaries are chosen, the sun will still rise the next morning, and my kids will be fine. I will also support the 09 ref, regardless of the final outcome. I guess I wish more people had this mindset.

All due respect WP - your options include staying where you are, or getting a new HS closer to home. I guess if those were my options I would be of that mindset also- wait, let me thing,in fact I was - with BB, and would be with say MACOM as WVHS - my current school ( just like you)- would be the likely scenario with a potential to go to a school even closer NV as my second best case scenario.

Again, if the site was in Bolingbrook / or Plainfield and your area looked destined to go there, and you still had this mindset - then that would be different, and there is no way you can tell whether it would or would not be because that is not one of the potential options.

I believe many more people would have this mindset if your options were facing them.

Again, show me how the site occurs without giving multiple areas their worst option - and I will be there at the head of the parade waving the flag.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

Attacking any and all that have a problem with the North site isn't valuable either in my opinion.

Neither is attacking the integrity of SB members

ETA: sorry if anyones views my posts as attacking - I view them more as balancing opinions, as this forum has far from a balance of people from across the entire SD

[d204mom]

I think anyone that thinks that the sb is "just doing the best they can under the circumstances" is kidding themselves. The sb members have proven over and over that they look out for their areas first, the rest of the district second. Sometimes they overplay their hand and lose. Sometimes they don't have any cards. Face it, Jeannette overplayed her hand at boundary time by insisting on 6. 6 was unreasonable and the rest of the board undercut her and picked the final option. Glawe, Stephens, Tyle, and Metzger were happy for their subdivisions. Majority rules. Some cry but adopt the boundary anyway.

Also, anyone that thinks the sb can make a rational decision and remove their ego from the situation is kidding themselves.

In June, Metzger stated that we can and will pay 33 Mil for the property. Now "what was possible this summer is no longer possible." That's crap - construction costs rose over those 3 months, but not like they are saying now. Metzger is a sore loser. We could have broken ground already.

They also have personal issues with Lehman and therefore cannot negotiate a deal.

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

Attacking any and all that have a problem with the North site isn't valuable either in my opinion.

Neither is attacking the integrity of SB members

Every person on the planet has biases. We are all human. Some work had to see past it and some work hard at hiding it.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

Attacking any and all that have a problem with the North site isn't valuable either in my opinion.

Neither is attacking the integrity of SB members

ETA: sorry if anyones views my posts as attacking - I view them more as balancing opinions, as this forum has far from a balance of people from across the entire SD

FWIW: I never see your posts as attacking, or any more than stating your opinion, which is why I am here, and why any of us should be here - to hear what others think and why.

[d204mom]

d204mom said:

warriorpride said:

Neither is attacking the integrity of SB members

Every person on the planet has biases. We are all human. Some work had to see past it and some work hard at hiding it.

Daeschner is in charge of negotiations. Howie orchestrated the negotiations to his liking. You'll notice Longwood got a pretty good deal - they were going to the closest school.

Why shouldn't Daeschner put the school up North? I'm sure that while driving by that site every day on the way to work he thinks "Now that is a perfectly good site for a high school."

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

warriorpride said:

Neither is attacking the integrity of SB members

Every person on the planet has biases. We are all human. Some work had to see past it and some work hard at hiding it.

so it's OK for you to be the "attacker", but not the "attackee"?

are your biases better or more right than mine or the SB members?

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

Every person on the planet has biases. We are all human. Some work had to see past it and some work hard at hiding it.

so it's OK for you to be the "attacker", but not the "attackee"?

are your biases better or more right than mine or the SB members?

Attack the SB members, yes, I think they deserve it. Many people on this board and in the community feel the same about the school board. Mike Skarr was here for a long time and is normally very "PC." When he goes on the attack, we should all know that something is very, very wrong.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

warriorpride said:

so it's OK for you to be the "attacker", but not the "attackee"?

are your biases better or more right than mine or the SB members?

Attack the SB members, yes, I think they deserve it. Many people on this board and in the community feel the same about the school board. Mike Skarr was here for a long time and is normally very "PC." When he goes on the attack, we should all know that something is very, very wrong.

thanks, but I prefer to form my own opinions

[momto4]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

I am not claiming to speak for any specific area - doesn't pretty much everyone want the darn school built & opened soon?

anyone who wanted the school - yes I would agree. For those who did not want the school - I am not seeing how they could want it built and open soon ?

I think there are those who wanted the school, but not at BB and were willing to vote it down with the hopes that the district would come back with a different site, different boundaries, different something. Which is kind of ironic now that we look back. It passed and we are probably still going to get a different site and different boundaries. If we had known the different site and different boundaries at the time, we likely would have seen a different outcome in the referendum as far as which areas voted for and against.

[d204mom]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

Attack the SB members, yes, I think they deserve it. Many people on this board and in the community feel the same about the school board. Mike Skarr was here for a long time and is normally very "PC." When he goes on the attack, we should all know that something is very, very wrong.

thanks, but I prefer to form my own opinions

To answer your earlier post, no, I don't think my biases are better or worse than yours or Metzger's or Daeschner's. But earlier you said that trying to come up with an objective way to rank the sites was not productive.

So therefore I guess we are stuck with the school board and admin's biases. Even if I form my own opinion, if there is no objectivity possible on the site selection, then it doesn't matter.

[warriorpride]

d204mom said:

warriorpride said:

thanks, but I prefer to form my own opinions

To answer your earlier post, no, I don't think my biases are better or worse than yours or Metzger's or Daeschner's. But earlier you said that trying to come up with an objective way to rank the sites was not productive.

So therefore I guess we are stuck with the school board and admin's biases. Even if I form my own opinion, if there is no objectivity possible on the site selection, then it doesn't matter.

That's pretty much true of the decisions made by any elected official.