Disappointment

[twhl]

The board really made the decision that they thought they had heard from just about every community in the last go-round and they had a good feel for where people were," KB said. "Rather than open that up again, they wanted to take the emotion and neighborhood versus neighborhood attitude away.

That worked.

"There is so much population around Neuqua that we just had to move at least 2½ elementary (schools) out of there," KB said.

Got an idea - build the schools around the population. A novel approach.

[rew]

momof156graders said:

rew said:

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.

What does this comment mean. Do you oppose any/all of the proposed changes?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

You can't eliminate all the bad stuff, just minimize it more. I would say that we really need to call the board on the number of McCArty bussers. rew's plan stems on McCarty (and some of Steck???) going to MV, does it not? I feel the board just thinks that since some are walkers, they all stay. Same with Welch. But the board has shown that ES splits are OK with Petersen, Gombert etc. so why can't they be OK with McCArty and Steck? We need to call them on that.

[lacy]

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.

WE is not every bit as close to NV as TG - and you know it. WE extends all the way to 83rd. My house is 1 mile from NVHS - how far is your's?

I'm guessing you'd have to walk an awfully long way to use the bridge to go to Kentaco. It might make for some good exercise though.

[lacy]

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.

I think they would have to take more people west of 59 and south of 95th for me to be happy with the current plan. This would be in addition to fixing the very screwed up middle school plan - so middle school alone would not suffice.

If they can't do that, then they should go across the middle part of the district and pull out Springbrook or Welch or Clow or some other combination. This would be more consistent with what they did in the northern part of the district. Then there really would be a north, central, and south. This would also make for a much cleaner middle school situation.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

I feel that the board is going to be hesitant to try and move people out of an existing school. (Hence, the avoidance of the bridge issue). They may be more open to switching things around at the ES and MS level as most people would tolerate that in order to stay at their current school. So I think rew's plan keeps the south intact with some middle school changes is good. Welch was going to Scullen as a split MS, now they would be going to Still as a split MS. No big deal. So I think the south as a whole would be OK with this. Can't speak for everyone though. In the north, you are doing some revamping. But I think that the argument to pull bussers from Steck/McCarty holds since you are not asking them to go a horrible distance and they are closer to MV than Owen/Watts. This was the decision clencher two years ago when they were deciding between SB and Fry for BB. Why aren't they considering this for the north? It sure makes more sense for McC and Steck to go north than the far away guys, just like it made sense to send Fry to BB because they were closer than SB.

Lacy, we all agree sacrificing Owen so McC and Steck can stay close is a poor decision. Why would pulling SB or Clow so Fry can stay a better solution for the south? It just adds another school like Owen into the south and further messes up the plan. Sacrificing distance should not take precedence over middle school splits. But if you can fix the splits and decrease distances also, then that is a great plan. rew's plan fixes some splits in the south and minimizes distance for some in the north. If the numbers work, I think it's a great plan.

[WeBe204]

lacy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

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.

I think they would have to take more people west of 59 and south of 95th for me to be happy with the current plan. This would be in addition to fixing the very screwed up middle school plan - so middle school alone would not suffice.

If they can't do that, then they should go across the middle part of the district and pull out Springbrook or Welch or Clow or some other combination. This would be more consistent with what they did in the northern part of the district. Then there really would be a north, central, and south. This would also make for a much cleaner middle school situation.

A cleaner middle school situation could also be created by letting go of NVHS and doing what I thought the admin will do. That was make all of west of 59 part of WVHS. Again, the other 2/3rds of the Pet split I am sure would be dead silent on that option I am sure I would be too in their shoes.

[confused]

sushi said:

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???

I was being sarcastic because I do believe we need a third high school and I do believe that splits are not good for kids. Some people move around a lot and their kids are o.k. and they would say kids are resilient. Of course they're o.k., but I choose not to move - I want my kids to grow up in the same neighborhood and build on friendships and relationships and build and build into high school. I think it gives them a sense of security and I think it's ideal and should be the standard. There are options available to the district with no splits, yet they choose not to take them.

"Kids are resilient" is a way to diminish something that's important to someone else. We try to make choices for our families based on things that are of value to us. So when these communities are facing these splits and it's not what they wanted for their families, it doesn't matter whether someone else thinks their kids will be o.k. or not.

[Arch]

Splits based on geography shouldn't be off the table.

How many MW kids from Buttonwood walk to Lehigh station to to play? I would guess, 0
How many kids from owen east walk to owen west to play Magic cards? I would guess again, 0

Having far and away areas at the same ES should not mean that you have to preserve the original bad decision all the way through HS.

[justvote]

I agree that the Fry community should pick the battles that they could possibly win. Let's face it, the bridge argument became mitigated when the Administration stated in no uncertain terms that the bridge does not make any student within the Fry community a walker (in the eyes of the District). I have alot of compassion for your community, and I understand that you want to go to the closest school, but unfortunately the lousy location of the new school prohibits that from happening.

I don't agree that moving Welch is the answer. Well over half of the community are real walkers (no bus service is offered). They are truly "across the street from Neuqua". I'm sorry, but saying that TG is across the street from NV is a major stretch.

Come together as a community and work on minimizing the MS splits in your area. I know it's not what you ultimately want, but it just might be a battle that you can win.

One more thing. I have talked with friends from the TG community and there are those families that are fine with going to Waubonsie. One stated that she truly did not care where her daughters went to high school, and that she was tired of the "vocal people" giving her community a bad name. I know it's anecdotal, but I do wonder how many others feel as she does.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

brad204 said:

lacy said:

I think they would have to take more people west of 59 and south of 95th for me to be happy with the current plan. This would be in addition to fixing the very screwed up middle school plan - so middle school alone would not suffice.

If they can't do that, then they should go across the middle part of the district and pull out Springbrook or Welch or Clow or some other combination. This would be more consistent with what they did in the northern part of the district. Then there really would be a north, central, and south. This would also make for a much cleaner middle school situation.

A cleaner middle school situation could also be created by letting go of NVHS and doing what I thought the admin will do. That was make all of west of 59 part of WVHS. Again, the other 2/3rds of the Pet split I am sure would be dead silent on that option I am sure I would be too in their shoes.

Brad, You're right, I don't know what their thoughts are on this. That makes it hard for Ashwood Park to be united with anyone. You are truly alone and sad, that's for sure.

[sushi]

Lacy, it is not about me and you and where our houses are. The WE ATTENDANCE area butts up to 95th just like TG. By the way, Kentaco is on the west side (aka - Taco Bell) no bridge necessary.

[rew]

Slplss, In the changes I actually, hauled all of McCarty for Owen and Gombert (numbers work) And all of Steck for May Watts (actually Steck is larger number, probably not as clean).

I don't like splitting ESs especially small numbers off, and I don't think moving walkers is the worst thing in the world, espoecially walkers crossing a busy intersection like Eola and Ogden.

My point again though is if McCarty was upset with this move than the SB is faced with "do we p off McCty to make Owen/Gombert happy".

Wheras if McCarty is OK with this, then it's a win win and the change can happen.

That is why I am asking, who's happy and who's not with each proposed change?

[lacy]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I feel that the board is going to be hesitant to try and move people out of an existing school. (Hence, the avoidance of the bridge issue). They may be more open to switching things around at the ES and MS level as most people would tolerate that in order to stay at their current school. So I think rew's plan keeps the south intact with some middle school changes is good. Welch was going to Scullen as a split MS, now they would be going to Still as a split MS. No big deal. So I think the south as a whole would be OK with this. Can't speak for everyone though. In the north, you are doing some revamping. But I think that the argument to pull bussers from Steck/McCarty holds since you are not asking them to go a horrible distance and they are closer to MV than Owen/Watts. This was the decision clencher two years ago when they were deciding between SB and Fry for BB. Why aren't they considering this for the north? It sure makes more sense for McC and Steck to go north than the far away guys, just like it made sense to send Fry to BB because they were closer than SB.

Lacy, we all agree sacrificing Owen so McC and Steck can stay close is a poor decision. Why would pulling SB or Clow so Fry can stay a better solution for the south? It just adds another school like Owen into the south and further messes up the plan.

Because if south of 95th isn't south - then I don't know what "south" is.

Furthermore, they basically just took Fry - and that's not O.K. - it smacks of politics. So try as you might, I don't think you're going to get people to just "roll over" down here.

Either take more of the area south of 95th and west of 59 - or go across the "central" part of the district - which makes much more sense.

Springbrook is probably not any farther than Fry and we know the northern part of Welch is closer. That's because the bus route will take us up 59 - and you know it will. In addition, parents will not want new drivers going the back way trying to make a left on Montgomery or over the train tracks at the 3 way stop on Normantown - we've been over this. It's simply not safe.

And I don't believe such a change would "add another school" to the south - not sure how you arrived at that one.

And I hope they can do something about Petersen - but that "something" better not be reuniting all of them at NVHS. Then you would have Fry being the only area south of 95th being moved.

and if you think people are mad now.....

[confused]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

You can't eliminate all the bad stuff, just minimize it more. I would say that we really need to call the board on the number of McCArty bussers. rew's plan stems on McCarty (and some of Steck???) going to MV, does it not? I feel the board just thinks that since some are walkers, they all stay. Same with Welch. But the board has shown that ES splits are OK with Petersen, Gombert etc. so why can't they be OK with McCArty and Steck? We need to call them on that.

I agree. I also want to know why they're making Owen and Watts drive so far because they have to keep the "walking" neighborhoods at WV, but they don't apply that same logic when it comes to Fry. By that same logic, Springbrook should be going to Waubonsie instead of Fry. So if they're going to apply moving Fry to WV because they're closer to WV than SB (even though they're also closer to NV than SB) - apply the same logic to McCarty &/or Steck. They're both closer to MV than Owen & Watts.