Disappointment

[sushi]

I think Peterson is taking more for the team because it is the new kid and Ashwood is largely undeveloped. It is really unfortunate that every issue cannot be addressed. We all know this. There is NO perfect solution. Yes, some neighborhoods are "changing" many times while others not at all. Unfortunate, but I don't see how to make one happy without p***ing off another. I do not for a moment believe the SB is trying to get back at Macom. To me, splitting geographically is a more fair solution. Brad, the kids will really be OK.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

I might have missed this - but where is your part of Gombert going?

My part is going to Waubonsie, and yes it has been stated before that is where my area is going.

Does it make it any better for our kids? Many of our children have known each other since K and they are being split to go to different schools.

Sorry, I am having a hard time feeling the pain of WE and Fry not getting to go to the same MS and having to deal with split MSs. I will also go on record as stating, I would rather see Petersen's split dealt with than ours. We will get over it. I think the Petersen split is not good for those kids.

I don't like any of the splits - and there were better plans submitted. But with the SB trying to shove their agenda down our throats, this is what we get.

[gatormom]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

My part is going to Waubonsie, and yes it has been stated before that is where my area is going.

Does it make it any better for our kids? Many of our children have known each other since K and they are being split to go to different schools.

Sorry, I am having a hard time feeling the pain of WE and Fry not getting to go to the same MS and having to deal with split MSs. I will also go on record as stating, I would rather see Petersen's split dealt with than ours. We will get over it. I think the Petersen split is not good for those kids.

I don't like any of the splits - and there were better plans submitted. But with the SB trying to shove their agenda down our throats, this is what we get.

I don't buy the "SB agenda" stuff. Not into conspiracies. I really think with the criteria set forth, this is what we get. I still have hopes that some of the most troublesome, for me, things on this proposal are dealt with.

[lacy]

sushi said:

I think Peterson is taking more for the team because it is the new kid and Ashwood is largely undeveloped. It is really unfortunate that every issue cannot be addressed. We all know this. There is NO perfect solution. Yes, some neighborhoods are "changing" many times while others not at all. Unfortunate, but I don't see how to make one happy without p***ing off another. I do not for a moment believe the SB is trying to get back at Macom. To me, splitting geographically is a more fair solution. Brad, the kids will really be OK.

I think saying the kids will be O.K. is kinda lame.

Of course the kids will be O.K. - they would adapt to almost anything - even if it wasn't in their best interest - so that's not the point.

The SB and the district should do right by the entire district. Instead, they are creating a mess when they didn't have to.

[rew]

These are the ideas I see being thrown around...

Send Chesapeake Landings to Hill w Cowlishaw

Send Gombert to WV, send Owen to WV, send McCarty to MV.

Send Steck to MV and send MW to WV. Send MW to Gold and And McCarty to a northern MS.

Send Peterson (no split ES) and White Eagle to Scullen, send Welch to Still, (Welch and Old Wheatland are split).

If you did all these changes:

MV:
Hill - Brookdale, Cowlishaw, Longwood
Granger - Brooks, Young, MCarty

WV:
Gold - Steck, MW, GT (Steck is split)
Still - Owen, Gombert, Welch (Welch is split)
Scullen - White Eagle, Fry, Peterson (Peterson is split)

NV
Crone - Graham, Kendall, Patterson
Gregory - SB, Clow, Builta


I AM NOT proposing this, but this is what I am hearing from various factions... what are the criticisms of this plan?

In other words who would be in favor and who would be opposed to such moves?
If you have MW pushing for the Steck/MW switch and Steck opposing it than I see it goign nowhere, but if Steck doen't mind and MW wants it then I see a chance of it happening.

If Welch opposes moving to Still, but WE, Pet, and Fry support it then I see a chance of it happening.

That's why I am asking, who's for the changes and who's against?

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

I don't like any of the splits - and there were better plans submitted. But with the SB trying to shove their agenda down our throats, this is what we get.

I don't buy the "SB agenda" stuff. Not into conspiracies. I really think with the criteria set forth, this is what we get. I still have hopes that some of the most troublesome, for me, things on this proposal are dealt with.

When some SB members try to create Option 6 during the last boundary proposal - which had kids bused all over the place to accomplish some social engineering goal, and then when they announce that they want to create a "new WVHS", I don't think we're talking conspiracies.

It is rather, reality.

As I've said many times, I would send my kid anywhere if the process was fair, logical, etc. But this absolutely does not seem to be the case. They seem to continually single my area out - and I (and many others - it's no minority) are really tired of it.

[WeBe204]

sushi said:

I think Peterson is taking more for the team because it is the new kid and Ashwood is largely undeveloped. It is really unfortunate that every issue cannot be addressed. We all know this. There is NO perfect solution. Yes, some neighborhoods are "changing" many times while others not at all. Unfortunate, but I don't see how to make one happy without p***ing off another. I do not for a moment believe the SB is trying to get back at Macom. To me, splitting geographically is a more fair solution. Brad, the kids will really be OK.

(I did not bring up Macom. Although, I know that is a perception as well). I am talking about creating a community.

Yes, the kids will be fine in time. Although, it was heart warming to hear the story of the day when the letters were handed out and all the Wheatland kids (yup that is what they call them) turned to the one of the Ashwoods (yup that is what they call them) and said, "Stilly". Yeah, right in the front of the parent. It was a proud moment.

Peterson is all about unity and it will continue. (sarcasm) I sometimes wonder why they do not just put it on wheels and roll it back to the corner of 59 and 103rd.

[twhl]

Agree with Lacy. Dont tell me how my kids are going to react. You have no clue. Wish you couldve seen them already this week. Good thing they wont have to put up with anything next Monday. Wish we had Tuesday off too. I went to a split Jr High many years ago and lost many friends because of it. I survived but will never know what could has come of them. Did I lose some life long friends, and maybe even a girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse? Guess Ill never know. Glad youre ok with that Sushi, many are not.

[gatormom]

lacy said:

gatormom said:

I don't buy the "SB agenda" stuff. Not into conspiracies. I really think with the criteria set forth, this is what we get. I still have hopes that some of the most troublesome, for me, things on this proposal are dealt with.

When some SB members try to create Option 6 during the last boundary proposal - which had kids bused all over the place to accomplish some social engineering goal, and then when they announce that they want to create a "new WVHS", I don't think we're talking conspiracies.

It is rather, reality.

As I've said many times, I would send my kid anywhere if the process was fair, logical, etc. But this absolutely does not seem to be the case. They seem to continually single my area out - and I (and many others - it's no minority) are really tired of it.

So your area is being singled out? What about Watts and Owen, furthest HS assignments in the district, Petersen split in thirds, Gombert split in half; is that all part of the plan to "get TG"?

I don't get it. There are a lot of things wrong with this plan but the idea it is picking on any one area is bit hard to grasp when so many are unhappy.

I guess the district has to just step on a lot of toes to "get" TG.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

rew said:

These are the ideas I see being thrown around...

Send Chesapeake Landings to Hill w Cowlishaw

Send Gombert to WV, send Owen to WV, send McCarty to MV.

Send Steck to MV and send MW to WV. Send MW to Gold and And McCarty to a northern MS.

Send Peterson (no split ES) and White Eagle to Scullen, send Welch to Still, (Welch and Old Wheatland are split).

If you did all these changes:

MV:
Hill - Brookdale, Cowlishaw, Longwood
Granger - Brooks, Young, MCarty

WV:
Gold - Steck, MW, GT (Steck is split)
Still - Owen, Gombert, Welch (Welch is split)
Scullen - White Eagle, Fry, Peterson (Peterson is split)

NV
Crone - Graham, Kendall, Patterson
Gregory - SB, Clow, Builta


I AM NOT proposing this, but this is what I am hearing from various factions... what are the criticisms of this plan?

In other words who would be in favor and who would be opposed to such moves?
If you have MW pushing for the Steck/MW switch and Steck opposing it than I see it goign nowhere, but if Steck doen't mind and MW wants it then I see a chance of it happening.

If Welch opposes moving to Still, but WE, Pet, and Fry support it then I see a chance of it happening.

That's why I am asking, who's for the changes and who's against?

It all boils down to the numbers. Look at how well balanced their current proposal is. WV and MV are w/in 4 children of being exact. Neuqua is under 4000. I love the numbers. But I hate the rest of this. If the numbers are similar to these with your plan rew, then the board may consider it.

[doctorwho]

rew said:

These are the ideas I see being thrown around...

Send Chesapeake Landings to Hill w Cowlishaw

Send Gombert to WV, send Owen to WV, send McCarty to MV.

Send Steck to MV and send MW to WV. Send MW to Gold and And McCarty to a northern MS.

Send Peterson (no split ES) and White Eagle to Scullen, send Welch to Still, (Welch and Old Wheatland are split).

If you did all these changes:

MV:
Hill - Brookdale, Cowlishaw, Longwood
Granger - Brooks, Young, MCarty

WV:
Gold - Steck, MW, GT (Steck is split)
Still - Owen, Gombert, Welch (Welch is split)
Scullen - White Eagle, Fry, Peterson (Peterson is split)

NV
Crone - Graham, Kendall, Patterson
Gregory - SB, Clow, Builta


I AM NOT proposing this, but this is what I am hearing from various factions... what are the criticisms of this plan?

In other words who would be in favor and who would be opposed to such moves?
If you have MW pushing for the Steck/MW switch and Steck opposing it than I see it goign nowhere, but if Steck doen't mind and MW wants it then I see a chance of it happening.

If Welch opposes moving to Still, but WE, Pet, and Fry support it then I see a chance of it happening.

That's why I am asking, who's for the changes and who's against?

since we'd pass Still to get to New MS - maybe swap us and Gombert there - but really if it gets us to WV - either way is fine.

[Arch]

lacy said:

No they've just thrown some more gasoline on the fire with this convuluted boundary proposal.

So telling us to "get over it" won't work.

If they run out of fuel they can just dig down 3-6 feet...

[rew]

I'll try to punch the numbers...I was really looking to see what opposition there is here, because again if there's going to be strong oppostition that overwhelms those in favor, it's not worth considering.

Dr Who, I know you'll pass Still, but half of Gombert walks to Still, again just trying to minimize the changes

[Arch]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

I don't like any of the splits - and there were better plans submitted. But with the SB trying to shove their agenda down our throats, this is what we get.

I don't buy the "SB agenda" stuff. Not into conspiracies. I really think with the criteria set forth, this is what we get. I still have hopes that some of the most troublesome, for me, things on this proposal are dealt with.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Far too often the SB and Administration back-fill a 'conclusion' that was done out of order. They did not meet their criteria either, that much is certain. If you use EveryDay/Enron Math, maybe, but not in reality.

[lacy]

gatormom said:

lacy said:

When some SB members try to create Option 6 during the last boundary proposal - which had kids bused all over the place to accomplish some social engineering goal, and then when they announce that they want to create a "new WVHS", I don't think we're talking conspiracies.

It is rather, reality.

As I've said many times, I would send my kid anywhere if the process was fair, logical, etc. But this absolutely does not seem to be the case. They seem to continually single my area out - and I (and many others - it's no minority) are really tired of it.

So your area is being singled out? What about Watts and Owen, furthest HS assignments in the district, Petersen split in thirds, Gombert split in half; is that all part of the plan to "get TG"?

I don't get it. There are a lot of things wrong with this plan but the idea it is picking on any one area is bit hard to grasp when so many are unhappy.

I guess the district has to just step on a lot of toes to "get" TG.

Yes, there are alot of toes. I believe there are more students and parents in this area than any other in the district. And from what I'm seeing and hearing - they are not one bit happy.

I already said that many areas have every right to be unhappy. MW, Owen, etc., so please don't try to imply otherwise.

But riddle me this, Gatormom, why is there a memo at the end of the boundary proposal directed to ONE subdivision?!