Disappointment

[sleeplessinnpvl]

rew said:

We have 24 hrs to give feedback on the boundary proposal,is there any agreement on what should be changed and how?

Find a proposal and work on it (wow, I like giving orders and not doing any of the work!) that you can present to the board. I think it's fair to say that district wide, there is opposition to splits at ES and MS. Let's minimize them more. And let's work on the distance issues for Owen and Watts. Not everyone is going to win on everything. But if just one of the bad things can be eliminated for some, that is an improvement.

[slp]

rew said:

We have 24 hrs to give feedback on the boundary proposal,is there any agreement on what should be changed and how?

Rew,

I like the plan you referenced earlier. Are you submitting it to the board?

[anteater]

lacy said:

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?

IIRC, the bridge was funded either in full or part with private $'s from the developer (Macom). And it's not a question of whether the bridge will be used, but whether it constitutes a reliable, safe path to NV on every school day. The answer appears to be no, so bus transporation would still be required. Still, this is kind of a moot point because taking the bridge into account results in a relatively small number of students being within 1.5 miles.

[slp]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

rew said:

We have 24 hrs to give feedback on the boundary proposal,is there any agreement on what should be changed and how?

Find a proposal and work on it (wow, I like giving orders and not doing any of the work!) that you can present to the board. I think it's fair to say that district wide, there is opposition to splits at ES and MS. Let's minimize them more. And let's work on the distance issues for Owen and Watts. Not everyone is going to win on everything. But if just one of the bad things can be eliminated for some, that is an improvement.

Sleepless,

I agree with your sentiments and goals in a revamping of this process.

I would urge the board to ease up on the changes to some and implement changes to others who are geographically positioned to accept a change as well.

Again, do not split a middle school of a community who is already changing high schools. One or the other, NOT both.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

lacy said:

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?

Why won't the bridge be utililized? There will be tons of people using it for the library, Frontier Park etc. Just from a safety standpoint, the school doesn't want it used for school. "Safety is an issue" said the DAsh. "The district is responsible for providing transportation for those students, even if they use the bridge to walk to school." If that comment can be verified, then this issue is moot. I'm sure the last thing this admin wants is for them to be accused of disregarding the safety of the children.

[Arch]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

lacy said:

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?

Why won't the bridge be utililized? There will be tons of people using it for the library, Frontier Park etc. Just from a safety standpoint, the school doesn't want it used for school. "Safety is an issue" said the DAsh. "The district is responsible for providing transportation for those students, even if they use the bridge to walk to school." If that comment can be verified, then this issue is moot. I'm sure the last thing this admin wants is for them to be accused of disregarding the safety of the children.

You know what, if safety was a real issue, we wouldn't be buying MWGEN.

[momof156graders]

ogden said:

momof156graders said:

As someone from tallgrass, it's both. I can see NVHS from my upstairs windows, it's not right for my kids to spend over 10 hours a week - the 2nd longest commute in the district when I can see NVHS. We are the closest elementary to NVHS, and Scullen is the closest middle school. It is the school we belong at. You would be upset too. The middle school split is like a slap in the face. Pull us out of the school so close, but keep those north , south, and east of us all there! We are now the dreaded island.

I do not understand the island argument. Both WE north of Fry and Peterson South of Fry are going to WV, along with FRY. The SB opted to send West part of NV to WV. The only other choice was taking the North part such as Welch. Somebody has to be moved from NV. I do not see Fry having any more rights to NV than anyone else, especially since Fry already knew it was leaving NV.

---

By island I mean our little box on the map of Fry is the only elementary school from Scullen going to WVHS. It is irrelevant that WE will be there. They will attend a different middle school, and are in a different neighborhood. Our kids won't meet until high school. Peterson south of Fry (Tamarack) is slated to go to NVHS. That is why we are an island.
As for knowing we were being moved from NVHS - that is not true. All original boundary proposals 2 years ago had us at NVHS. When all the politics got involved during BB we were moved there. The rest of the district that has walkers gets to remain as walkers. Welch does have a portion of there area that are walkers, and I agree they should stay. I just ask that the same criteria be applied in all areas. Welch area goes all the way up to 79th street. The majority of our subdivision would be walkers to NVHS. I just ask for the same consideration because of our proximity.

[rew]

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?

Sleepless, what do you think of this?

I want to build concensus around something and not waste time supporting something that has no chance of happening

I am happy to have this picked apart...is there ANY part we can all agree should be done?

[momof156graders]

anteater said:

lacy said:

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?

IIRC, the bridge was funded either in full or part with private $'s from the developer (Macom). And it's not a question of whether the bridge will be used, but whether it constitutes a reliable, safe path to NV on every school day. The answer appears to be no, so bus transporation would still be required. Still, this is kind of a moot point because taking the bridge into account results in a relatively small number of students being within 1.5 miles.

The bridge was paid for by tax dollars.

[sushi]

momof156graders said:

ogden said:

I do not understand the island argument. Both WE north of Fry and Peterson South of Fry are going to WV, along with FRY. The SB opted to send West part of NV to WV. The only other choice was taking the North part such as Welch. Somebody has to be moved from NV. I do not see Fry having any more rights to NV than anyone else, especially since Fry already knew it was leaving NV.

---

By island I mean our little box on the map of Fry is the only elementary school from Scullen going to WVHS. It is irrelevant that WE will be there. They will attend a different middle school, and are in a different neighborhood. Our kids won't meet until high school. Peterson south of Fry (Tamarack) is slated to go to NVHS. That is why we are an island.
As for knowing we were being moved from NVHS - that is not true. All original boundary proposals 2 years ago had us at NVHS. When all the politics got involved during BB we were moved there. The rest of the district that has walkers gets to remain as walkers. Welch does have a portion of there area that are walkers, and I agree they should stay. I just ask that the same criteria be applied in all areas. Welch area goes all the way up to 79th street. The majority of our subdivision would be walkers to NVHS. I just ask for the same consideration because of our proximity.

I say again: WE attendance area is every bit as close to NV as TG. Now what? Bridge or no bridge, our kids won't walk anyway, except to Kentaco. Sleepless is right; forget going to NV; it's OVER.

[confused]

anteater said:

lacy said:

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?

IIRC, the bridge was funded either in full or part with private $'s from the developer (Macom). And it's not a question of whether the bridge will be used, but whether it constitutes a reliable, safe path to NV on every school day. The answer appears to be no, so bus transporation would still be required. Still, this is kind of a moot point because taking the bridge into account results in a relatively small number of students being within 1.5 miles.

Anteater - don't know where you're getting your info. The bridge was not funded by Macom - in fact, Macom fought it in court because they were worried it would obscure the view of their stripmall and adversely affect business.

The design was completely funded by the City of Naperville - the construction is being paid primarily by the state (about 80%) and the City (about 20%).

[confused]

sushi said:

lacy said:

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.

If kids are so resilient, than they would've been just fine going to overcrowded high schools. Why are we wasting all our money and time on this third high school? The kids will be fine. Oh, but wait, whenever it works in our favor, it's "for the kids."

[momof156graders]

sushi said:

momof156graders said:

---

By island I mean our little box on the map of Fry is the only elementary school from Scullen going to WVHS. It is irrelevant that WE will be there. They will attend a different middle school, and are in a different neighborhood. Our kids won't meet until high school. Peterson south of Fry (Tamarack) is slated to go to NVHS. That is why we are an island.
As for knowing we were being moved from NVHS - that is not true. All original boundary proposals 2 years ago had us at NVHS. When all the politics got involved during BB we were moved there. The rest of the district that has walkers gets to remain as walkers. Welch does have a portion of there area that are walkers, and I agree they should stay. I just ask that the same criteria be applied in all areas. Welch area goes all the way up to 79th street. The majority of our subdivision would be walkers to NVHS. I just ask for the same consideration because of our proximity.

I say again: WE attendance area is every bit as close to NV as TG. Now what? Bridge or no bridge, our kids won't walk anyway, except to Kentaco. Sleepless is right; forget going to NV; it's OVER.

How do you post a photo?

[momof156graders]

rew said:

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?

Sleepless, what do you think of this?

I want to build concensus around something and not waste time supporting something that has no chance of happening

I am happy to have this picked apart...is there ANY part we can all agree should be done?

Fry is 100% walkers to Scullen, and there are 3 splits.

[sushi]

Confused, I think we are past the debate over whether we need a new HS or not. The quality of education goes way down in an overcrowded situation; maybe not for the bright kids, but the mainstream are lost in the shuffle. It has nothing to do with being resilient. Where, oh where is Topher's horse???