Disappointment - Cont'd Part3

[fence]

I mean, isn't this really the point? I swear they published the new boundaries just to make everyone lose focus.

WHAT are we going to do with 750 extra students in WVHS in 2009-2010? WHAT? Is this seriously how we're going to transition? We're going to cram our poor community albatross full of 4 years of students and just walk away? Just let them all stew for 2 years until things sort themselves out?

Then we're going to open a shell of a HS, and let a few Fr/Soph rattle around in it without any amenities or teams or a freaking gym?

WHERE do I sign? What a genious idea. What a brilliant plan. No wonder the SB probably laughs everytime they hear people quibbling about boundaries. They don't have to answer any of this stuff when we're all nice and distracted.

There are big time issues that they need to address before we even start talking about boundaries, but like usual, they throw it out there and we go after it like a dog with a bone.

doctorwho said:

proschool said:

Yep. That's the plan. My solution was to place all WV freshmen at the Metea Valley building for the first year and maybe even the second year . Then MV would be like a freshman center that serves two high schools. It also keeps the WV freshmen from being totally outnumbered in a crowded school where they would be the only freshmen in the district dealing with upperclassmen at all.

I've brought this up before but it hasn't been too popular.

can we make the experience for those at MV any crappier - with any less sense of community ?

That's why I would be against this -- it has everything stacked against it already- then some trying to put the final nail in- make it the lowest performing on top of the commute/ half finished when it opens/ no varsity sports/ distance/EPA type issues ( real or perceived) - now we'll moe temporary students there as well.

Heck can we put the county juvenile detention center there as well ?

It was supposed to be an EQUAL high school experience for the kids that go there -now it seems that anything anyone else sees as in the way - should be sent there

[rew]

I agree fence, what about focusing on how the SD/SBs incompetence has wasted two years and a minimum of $25,500,000, by their own estimates?

[fence]

So how does that saying go? If you're already in a hole, quit digging? Can't we just stop for a second and evaluate what is going on here? Why can't they sit down with us, just like 203 did with their concerned residents, and get resolution to questions on the cost/environment/opening date so that people are informed and satisfied, and THEN discuss who will attend the school?

[moo]

lacy said:

This is all so transparent. Especially with all the new "posters" who came on board in the last few hours. It would be kinda funny if it wasn't such a serious issue.).

You can disparage "new posters" if you want. I felt the need to address some very incorrect information that was posted here. Aside from that, I'm not new to the district, the schools or the district "shuffle". We've been here for more than 20 years. My children have attended four of the grade schools, three of the middle schools and I have had kids graduate from both of the high schools. (and I think both of the schools are terrific)

This is an emotional issue for many people and for many reasons. I happen to think my neighborhood has a right to be upset about being placed at the new school. That doesn't mean that I don't respect what other people/neighborhoods are going through.

What I really don't like about this proposal is that it feels like they are ramming it down our throats.

The "creative accounting" that went into determining travel times. I haven't seen it posted here, but I was told that the district has a contract with Laidlaw (for the next 3 years) that determines the price of gas to be $2.00 a gallon. So my question for the school board is... "what happens then?" when the SB is looking to make some budget cuts in the next few years.. what happens to all of the extra, partially full buses that they put on these routes to make the travel times look shorter?

[concerned]

fence said:

I mean, isn't this really the point? I swear they published the new boundaries just to make everyone lose focus.

WHAT are we going to do with 750 extra students in WVHS in 2009-2010? WHAT? Is this seriously how we're going to transition? We're going to cram our poor community albatross full of 4 years of students and just walk away? Just let them all stew for 2 years until things sort themselves out?

Then we're going to open a shell of a HS, and let a few Fr/Soph rattle around in it without any amenities or teams or a freaking gym?

WHERE do I sign? What a genious idea. What a brilliant plan. No wonder the SB probably laughs everytime they hear people quibbling about boundaries. They don't have to answer any of this stuff when we're all nice and distracted.

There are big time issues that they need to address before we even start talking about boundaries, but like usual, they throw it out there and we go after it like a dog with a bone.

This is a great post and I couln't agree with you more. There are more important issues that should be tackled. I really feel for those kids attending MV. I know I would not send my child there, due to the fact that there would be no sports, music, ect. I also am a little upset that my child has been sitting in a crowded middle school and with the opening of a 3rd HS, still be in the same situation.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

You make a good point that there are issues that need to be addressed before the boundaries. Let's assure us the new site is safe. Maybe give us some facts about the costs of BB that we can believe. Then let's put out the data regarding transportation times and costs. It seems that they are rushing to get boundaries and glossing over other things. There are a lot of issues they will need to address in the future I'm afraid they just want to cross another thing off their already long "to-do" list.

[rew]

No, I think it is much more devious than that. I think they want to distract us and get us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't band together and ask them the hard questions.

They are playing us all against each other.

[concerned]

That is why I think it is wrong to be doing the boundaries now. This is a rush job and I am afraid they are not going to do it right. This site is sooo wrong for the district.

[concerned]

rew said:

No, I think it is much more devious than that. I think they want to distract us and get us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't band together and ask them the hard questions.

They are playing us all against each other.

Amen!!! Amen!!!! Wish we could all pull together and do what is right for this district. Can't help feel we are making a big mistake.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

rew said:

No, I think it is much more devious than that. I think they want to distract us and get us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't band together and ask them the hard questions.

They are playing us all against each other.

That's a scary thought. Hey, it's working too. That's even scarier.

[Arch]

"Let's you and him fight"

One of the oldest tricks in the book.

[lacy]

rew said:

No, I think it is much more devious than that. I think they want to distract us and get us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't band together and ask them the hard questions.

They are playing us all against each other.

I've been thinking this all along.

This is the second boundary fiasco over land we don't even own.

[concerned]

Lets not be fooled again!!!

[rew]

That's why I think they split the site/boundary discussion, even though, IMO, the boundary was ready on 1/22.

They figured the site change would cause confusion, but not anger, since a lot of people thought they might not be affected, or at best only suspected they woiuld be affected.

If they had released them both, then IMO you would have seen a lot more opposition to the site. It would have grabbed people's attention, got the emotions going.

They are playing a very smart game of chess...and guess who are the pawns?

[rew]

Or think of it this way...they release site and boundary recs, people are mad. Now instead of 70% positive feedback from supporters of the north site, they have 70% detractors.

So they postpone the boundary announcement just in time to get everyone squabbling and they close on the land while people are still bickering...no Phase II results, no appraisals, no answers.

They haven't given us a shred of additional info that poeple have asked for and it has been very close to a month now since the site vote.

ETA - I also think it is very purposeful that they are NOT having the meeting tonight in one of the auditoriums. They DON"T WANT to accomodate speakers, community involvment, resident input??

But what are we focused on? Boundaries that don't take effect until 2009 and after a majority of the board may be replaced.