|
|
Post by rural on Feb 15, 2008 9:09:02 GMT -6
Here is what I'm disappointed in:
Instead of a magnet or fine arts school, which would require no athletic fields or all the acreage we are buying, we are building a full third HS I'm pretty sure we don't actually need. I believe we need to address the overcrowding in our schools, but I think a smaller scaled plan was in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolverine on Feb 15, 2008 9:09:04 GMT -6
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? Watts gets WV and Gold.... Let me think..... OK. ;D Hill looks under utilized - unless of course the three MW satellites feed into there. Scullen looks like it may be overcrowded in the future as SW corner builds out. Are the academic splits close? My bottom line still remains, 1). use this opportunity to redraw ES boundaries, especially satellite areas; 2). Make sure no one goes to third farthest HS; 3). Minimize splits, but this doesn't trump geography; 4). Balance academics as a tie breaker |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 15, 2008 9:09:21 GMT -6
Rew: Make no one go to the farthest school, without exception, and I am on board.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 15, 2008 9:09:45 GMT -6
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. our proposal had MV and WV < 75 kids apart and NV under 4000 -- and no ES going to the furthest HS - and a GAP over a full point smaller than the SD's -- |
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Feb 15, 2008 9:11:28 GMT -6
But riddle me this, Gatormom, why is there a memo at the end of the boundary proposal directed to ONE subdivision?! Probably the same reason the average bus times for each area was included, to answer questions and comments that the district recieved. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 15, 2008 9:11:29 GMT -6
Rew: Make no one go to the farthest school, without exception, and I am on board. Me too ! |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 15, 2008 9:12:14 GMT -6
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. The SB clearly cant follow their own criteria whether its for the boundaries or other issues so I challenge your statement. They haven't adhered to operational goals they established for themselves in 2006 so why should they now. I don't believe everything they do has a motive attached, but many things appear to, which you can not deny. The unexplainable and illogical says it all - even if the new boundaries have given you everything you could have ever hoped for. The problem is what parts do you believe and what do you doubt - and that is the true dilemma. Blind faith has gone by the wayside. So do you doubt none of it, or all of it or just some? |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Feb 15, 2008 9:14:15 GMT -6
Sushi, I typically appreciate you pragmatic posts. However, I would like to take issue with the above comments. I think it be-littles the Peterson situation. I do not believe anyone split WE or TG in half. I also do not believe anyone split WE or FRY ES into thirds. And by thirds I mean one of those thirds is about 10%. I also believe no one in TG or WE have asked that small 10% to drive to a Still middle school when you have one next to your subdivision (crone) or drive by one scullen. I too, think that Petersen has every right to be upset. As does TG. Therefore, the command to "get over it" didn't sit well with me either. There are many, many things about this entire proposal that stink. The northern site (Far removed from the population density), environmental concerns about the site, issuing bonds above the referendum amount, unresolved and unknown legal fees at BB, increased transportation costs, and on and on. 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. TOO many are unhappy with this proposal for it to move forward. Sushi is right that no plan will appease everyone, but this one is too harsh to too few. I agree that Welch should be moved to Still; they are geographically positioned to do so and WE, TG, and Petersen should not be the areas who are asked to make the most changes. I know you did not intentionally leave out WE, but lets not forget WE is being asked to leave their current HS, Leave their current MS, and enter a split MS. I think this is as raw as it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 15, 2008 9:16:24 GMT -6
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?! Lacy, I think the memo being handed out was very crass, IMO. However, it was directed at ONE subdivision because all the complaints came from ONE subdivision. This bridge thing just won't go away. Look at Today's Sun. You are really questioning the board on this one w/o having all your facts. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to question the board. But your area's fixation on this issue is just going to inflame the ire of the board when you try and make them look foolish. Soon they will have a real grudge against you. Again, I see conceeding the bridge to the board and focusing on the split middle schools a better option. In negotiations, both sides have to give. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 15, 2008 9:18:51 GMT -6
I agree that the satellites have to get cleaned up, I must admit, I don't know the district well enough to redraw ES boundaries and ADK will alter some enrollments??
It is a nasty web once you start weaving...
but again it boils down to how many would be "fer it" and how many would be "again it"
I agree with slpls, we need to have a consensus if we expect to "sell" it to the SB. I don't know where the agreement lies?
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Feb 15, 2008 9:20:37 GMT -6
Here is what I'm disappointed in: Instead of a magnet or fine arts school, which would require no athletic fields or all the acreage we are buying, we are building a full third HS I'm pretty sure we don't actually need. I believe we need to address the overcrowding in our schools, but I think a smaller scaled plan was in order. Rural, I wish that would happen as well. But you know those parents up there w/no football field would be upset. When I was growing up, we had one high school in our district. We needed more space so a far away school was created. But it was just a satellite of the same school. It used our main campus's athletics and even travelled quite far to attend some classes at our school. In four or five years, it was no longer needed and it was sold to another school to use for their purposes. But if you called MV a satellite school,it would have to be a satellite to WV. And now, we don't have a "new WV". So that is why we need a third school with a third athletic field etc. Besides, we are so big, we need to give our kids a chance to play sports. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Feb 15, 2008 9:22:52 GMT -6
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?! Lacy, I think the memo being handed out was very crass, IMO. However, it was directed at ONE subdivision because all the complaints came from ONE subdivision. This bridge thing just won't go away. Look at Today's Sun. You are really questioning the board on this one w/o having all your facts. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to question the board. But your area's fixation on this issue is just going to inflame the ire of the board when you try and make them look foolish. Soon they will have a real grudge against you. Again, I see conceeding the bridge to the board and focusing on the split middle schools a better option. In negotiations, both sides have to give. What's foolish is spending taxpayer dollars on something that won't be utilized. And I am hearing that the memo was inaccurate - which just adds to the outrage. Why should we "concede" to the board if they are wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Feb 15, 2008 9:23:41 GMT -6
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?! Lacy, I think the memo being handed out was very crass, IMO. However, it was directed at ONE subdivision because all the complaints came from ONE subdivision. This bridge thing just won't go away. Look at Today's Sun. You are really questioning the board on this one w/o having all your facts. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to question the board. But your area's fixation on this issue is just going to inflame the ire of the board when you try and make them look foolish. Soon they will have a real grudge against you. Again, I see conceeding the bridge to the board and focusing on the split middle schools a better option. In negotiations, both sides have to give. If I may be so bold , I would also suggest that you (TG) conceed the bridge idea . So long as the site for the 3rd high school is at AME, I think the SB and admin. will have TG going to WVHS , bridge or no bridge. I fear that continuing to bark up that tree will only hurt TG. Just my opinion. I would focus on making WV the best it can be AND eliminating Middle school splits for those communities already being asked to change high schools. No intention to speak for anyone here, but just wanted to throw out my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Feb 15, 2008 9:24:24 GMT -6
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. I hope you don't get banned for calling me "lame". If the kids will be OK, then what are we talking about??? What is not in their best interest? Also, twhl, I have been through this with my child and speak from experience when I say the kids are resilient. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 15, 2008 9:24:47 GMT -6
We have 24 hrs to give feedback on the boundary proposal,is there any agreement on what should be changed and how?
|
|
