Disappointment

[EagleDad]

Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've posted anything on the board. Over the past month I've written many letters, and heeding Lincoln's advice - I've burned all of them. As many of you know I changed my nickname on the discussion board to WarriorDad after the AME site selection and I have been getting excited and becoming hopeful and proud about being welcomed into Waubonsie by all of the great families from there that I've met and know well.

Until now.

When I see this proposal made by the Administration I can't help but be ashamed of our district, especially after all that we have been through. This proposal as made, and if rubber stamped, will shatter the future of our district irrevocably.

One of the biggest issues I have is in justifying the recommendation on lies. I am sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who says that the average commute from Steck, an elementary area that surrounds WVHS to WVHS is 29 minutes is being purposely deceitful - nothing less. To list that at the same time next to average commutes of 30 and 35 minutes for Cowlishaw/Watts and Owen respectively to MWGen is to outright disregard their very valid concerns and dismiss the new burden they would have to carry. I can not stand by and not call it out for what it is. It is a carefully crafted impossibility, created by our administrators to misrepresent reality. It is indefensible. I place total responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. I do not want to hear the excuse that "Laidlaw provided the data". Kathy put it on district letterhead and sent it to every family in the district. She bears the resposibilioty for recognizing the ridiculousness that it contains. Until now, I have held her in the highest respect, but now I question her competence.

I am very disappointed in this.

I see a 3-way split of Peterson that does not make one iota of sense to me. Likewise the selective split of a small portion of Cowlishaw and Gombert have made no sense to me no matter how long I stare at them. Why are we doing this to those communities? What is the gain?

I am very disappointed in this.

I have had a lot exchanges with our school board president. During one, when discussing the AME site, he described the negatives of the Hamman or Macom as:

"That will make its reputation suffer even more (and it's already incorrectly and inaccurately maligned) and probably make it a permanent ugly stepchild. That's bad for the district, having a permanent albatross. It affects everyone negatively and would weigh everyone down"

Now I see before me a "New Waubonsie" which has has an ISAT achievement score of 88.1 - even lower than today, and this is before accounting for the low-mobility areas of Gombert that are being removed. This will very likely pull the ISAT scores into the 87.X range.

Congratulations - you just tied an anchor on the albatross and solidified the ugly duckling status. To go on about the need to remove this stigma one month in justifying the desired site selections and then to announce and support boundaries the next month that magnify thids very mis-perception is to be two-faced.

I am very disappointed in this.

Then at the very end of the proposal, I see the "Bridge Memo". I have to ask myself, was this so very important a point to be made that you had to deliver it in this vehicle? It was entirely inappropriate to single out this one issue and one subdivision while trying to unify the district. You might as well have just left a page blank and put 24-point font saying: "Oh yeah, and also... screw you Tallgrass!!!" at the end. I also place responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. It was unneeded and it served no good. This information is valuable - it should have been provided in another vehicle.

I am very disappointed in this.

Until I see our district stop giving misleading data, realistically consider the huge commute of some (Owen, Watts, Cowlishaw), address achievement imbalance rather than magnify it, and stop maliciously splitting subdivisions, I can not be a proud new Warrior. We will of course go where they tell us, but I can not support launching these new schools under these criteria. I will not support any referendum or current board member if this gets rubber stamped as proposed.

So, for now, I am changing my name back to EagleDad I had such high hopes of being a great New Warrior, but I can not carry that name with Pride now.

I hope they give me back reason to be proud of our district and schools some day.

For now I am just embarrassed and disappointed.

- EagleDad

[steckmom]

I hear you, EagleDad, and agree. Well said.

[slp]

I too agree and feel the same way EagleDad.

Perhaps this is a way to unite the district. NONE of us should settle for ANY of us taking it for the 'team' if a more reasonable alternative is available.

[twhl]

Eagledad - although being only a recent participant (last 4 weeks) this site has allowed me to become more informed than I could have hoped for. What I believe you are calling for and what is so gravely needed is for the District parents to receive unedited, timely, accurate and pertinent information - on all related topics that influence the 3rd high school and all other aspects of the Districts performance. I agree as well, inclusion of such a cynical memo was uncalled for other than to slight those who may have mentioned the "bridge" in the past. There are so many other factors. It clearly should have been left out as it truly has no relevance there.

The District, and that means us all, need to hold those who are ultimately attempting to implement this "plan" together accountable. From the handling of Brach Brodie, to the blatant use of executive session, to the millions of dollars in waste, to establishing the criteria and then disregarding it to determine boundaries, to forcing all input to be submitted electronically and for dragging their collective feet. The District voters have all but lost all control and ability to leverage any of those who hold data, information from us for the sole purpose of supporting alternative or potentially conflicting "plans" for our children. If it smells like it, if it looks like it, it probably is it. You say it kindly when you say disappointed.

[macy]

Eagledad, Steckmom, SLP, TWHL

Couldn't agree more with your comments.

I'm finding myself so angry lately at this situation I have nothing positive to say so I haven't been posting.

And Eagledad... I too hope that someday I'll be able to see thru the anger I feel right now and support this district again as I used to in a proud way. Somehow, I'm not very optimistic though.

This district has clearly sent me a message. It's one I've heard very loud and clear.

[hmmm]

eagledad said:

Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've posted anything on the board. Over the past month I've written many letters, and heeding Lincoln's advice - I've burned all of them. As many of you know I changed my nickname on the discussion board to WarriorDad after the AME site selection and I have been getting excited and becoming hopeful and proud about being welcomed into Waubonsie by all of the great families from there that I've met and know well.

Until now.

When I see this proposal made by the Administration I can't help but be ashamed of our district, especially after all that we have been through. This proposal as made, and if rubber stamped, will shatter the future of our district irrevocably.

One of the biggest issues I have is in justifying the recommendation on lies. I am sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who says that the average commute from Steck, an elementary area that surrounds WVHS to WVHS is 29 minutes is being purposely deceitful - nothing less. To list that at the same time next to average commutes of 30 and 35 minutes for Cowlishaw/Watts and Owen respectively to MWGen is to outright disregard their very valid concerns and dismiss the new burden they would have to carry. I can not stand by and not call it out for what it is. It is a carefully crafted impossibility, created by our administrators to misrepresent reality. It is indefensible. I place total responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. I do not want to hear the excuse that "Laidlaw provided the data". Kathy put it on district letterhead and sent it to every family in the district. She bears the resposibilioty for recognizing the ridiculousness that it contains. Until now, I have held her in the highest respect, but now I question her competence.

I am very disappointed in this.

I see a 3-way split of Peterson that does not make one iota of sense to me. Likewise the selective split of a small portion of Cowlishaw and Gombert have made no sense to me no matter how long I stare at them. Why are we doing this to those communities? What is the gain?

I am very disappointed in this.

I have had a lot exchanges with our school board president. During one, when discussing the AME site, he described the negatives of the Hamman or Macom as:

"That will make its reputation suffer even more (and it's already incorrectly and inaccurately maligned) and probably make it a permanent ugly stepchild. That's bad for the district, having a permanent albatross. It affects everyone negatively and would weigh everyone down"

Now I see before me a "New Waubonsie" which has has an ISAT achievement score of 88.1 - even lower than today, and this is before accounting for the low-mobility areas of Gombert that are being removed. This will very likely pull the ISAT scores into the 87.X range.

Congratulations - you just tied an anchor on the albatross and solidified the ugly duckling status. To go on about the need to remove this stigma one month in justifying the desired site selections and then to announce and support boundaries the next month that magnify thids very mis-perception is to be two-faced.

I am very disappointed in this.

Then at the very end of the proposal, I see the "Bridge Memo". I have to ask myself, was this so very important a point to be made that you had to deliver it in this vehicle? It was entirely inappropriate to single out this one issue and one subdivision while trying to unify the district. You might as well have just left a page blank and put 24-point font saying: "Oh yeah, and also... screw you Tallgrass!!!" at the end. I also place responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. It was unneeded and it served no good. This information is valuable - it should have been provided in another vehicle.

I am very disappointed in this.

Until I see our district stop giving misleading data, realistically consider the huge commute of some (Owen, Watts, Cowlishaw), address achievement imbalance rather than magnify it, and stop maliciously splitting subdivisions, I can not be a proud new Warrior. We will of course go where they tell us, but I can not support launching these new schools under these criteria. I will not support any referendum or current board member if this gets rubber stamped as proposed.

So, for now, I am changing my name back to EagleDad I had such high hopes of being a great New Warrior, but I can not carry that name with Pride now.

I hope they give me back reason to be proud of our district and schools some day.

For now I am just embarrassed and disappointed.

- EagleDad

I COMPLETELY agree with EVERYTHING you just said!

I never thought that I would be embarrassed to say that I am from District 204 but I am now.

We have entered a very sad phase for this district.

[thebeefeater]

Eagle Dad,

I don't get your numbers. I ran the analysis my self and go a number closer to 90 for WVHS. I assumed full build out of course with the full complement of ashwood students. I also was sure to pull half of Gombert out into MV. I don't understand how you can remove Longwood (the worst performing ES in the district), half of Gombert (the third worst performing ES in the district), all of Brookdale (5th worst performing ES in district) along with pieces of McCarty, replace them with WE and Fry and end up with a bigger achievement gap. Please help me understand.

As for the bus times... It was my understanding that the district is being efficient with you tax dollars by not throwing too many busses at schools close to HS while at the same time being respectful of those communites with longer commutes by placing more busses into those communities. i.e. MW busses have few stops while the Steck busses are milk runs.

As for the bridge memo. I couldn't agree more. What moron decided to include this random piece of information into the packet. I will never know.

As for the WV perception. I think it would behouve you to be supportive of WV and to not perpetuate these myths about the school being such a week school. I have always had a great deal of respect for the WE and Tall Grass brand names and I think the rest of the district does to. Your presence will go along way to correcting these myths. I think that WV will once again be viewed as the great school that it truely is. As fellow Warrior I look forward to righting the wrongs and fixing the perception.

[macy]

Beefeater,

Reread Eagledad's post. I did not read from it that he was the one with the perception problem, it was clear to me that the negative stereotype came from someone on the school board.

[thebeefeater]

macy said:

Beefeater,

Reread Eagledad's post. I did not read from it that he was the one with the perception problem, it was clear to me that the negative stereotype came from someone on the school board.

You are right. He does not have the perception problems, he is just perpetuating it. It is time we all stop talking negative about the school, weather or not we believe. Every time we mention it, we are furthing the image.

[rew]

I want to make a clarification since ED may have been quoting my achievement gap numbers I posted yesterday. They are not 100% accurate, but I would guess neither are anyone else's.

The fact is, and I've said this before, when you are splitting ESs it is impossible to guess what the halves or the fourths are going to score.

That is why achievement scores/gaps are really for general discussion purposes.

But anyway you crunch the numbers, WVHS comes out with the lowest score and I think that is where the concern lies.

I would also point out that the WVHS disappointment is just one of many that ED pointed out.

The fact that the district has wasted, by their own numbers $16M in two lost construction seasons and now an added $5M in hurry up costs, and a minimum $5M in BB legal costs is an outrage. And NO ONE is taking responsibility.

Add to that the fact that, IMO, they have decided that they need minimal input from the community and then applaud themselves for their new streamlined decision making.

It adds insult to injury.

I agree it is polite to say disappointment.

[concerned]

Eagledad that was very well written and I am in agreement with you. This administration has stopped focusing on educating children. They continuely put out false info to make it look the way the want. I too could except my role in the placement of WV if it wasn't so political and agenda driven. So much of what they put out there does not make any sense.

When I moved here 10yrs. ago I felt district 204 was a great district and now I feel this SB and administration is destroying a great district.

Now with all that said what as a community can we do about this? How can we stop this? There has to be something we all can do as a community to show our disappointment.

[Arch]

The shifts I spoke of should put it close to the middle with a total gap top to bottom of 3.7

[macy]

thebeefeater said:

macy said:

Beefeater,

Reread Eagledad's post. I did not read from it that he was the one with the perception problem, it was clear to me that the negative stereotype came from someone on the school board.

You are right. He does not have the perception problems, he is just perpetuating it. It is time we all stop talking negative about the school, weather or not we believe. Every time we mention it, we are furthing the image.

Beefeater,

I've NEVER said anything bad about Waubonsie but yet, others keep trying to put words in my mouth.

What do you want me to stop talking about?

People are critical of the situation we are faced with. How is that being interpreted as perpetuating the myth that Waubonsie is a lesser school?

Let me be clear, Waubonsie is a wonderful school. I'm not the one calling it the albatross of 204.

[gatormom]

macy said:

thebeefeater said:

You are right. He does not have the perception problems, he is just perpetuating it. It is time we all stop talking negative about the school, weather or not we believe. Every time we mention it, we are furthing the image.

Beefeater,

I've NEVER said anything bad about Waubonsie but yet, others keep trying to put words in my mouth.

What do you want me to stop talking about?

macy, beefeater was talking in general. No fingers pointed at you. No one putting words in your mouth.

[macy]

gatormom said:

macy said:

Beefeater,

I've NEVER said anything bad about Waubonsie but yet, others keep trying to put words in my mouth.

What do you want me to stop talking about?

macy, beefeater was talking in general. No fingers pointed at you. No one putting words in your mouth.

Gatormom,

I didn't take it personally and mean nothing nasty towards Beefeater. I just don't see how Eagledad or anyone else that criticizes the situation at hand is perpetuating a bad myth about Waubonsie?