Disappointment - Cont'd Part3

[macy]

^as it was related to me (from a very credible source of information) the contracts were terminated because of the "uncertainty in the 204 district".

[lacy]

archwinsome said:

doctorwho said:

It's not available now when I just tried

Watch it come back without the video feed of the Jan 22 meeting.

I was thinking the very same thing! LOL!!!

[refbasics]

macy said:

I've been trying to access the ipsd website all day. Is it just me or has it been inaccessible since this morning?

-------------
i have not been able to acces IPSD all day, either. i could access hi school and ES web, tho.

it's as tho 'they' don't want us to get info off the site??

.. dum, dee, dum, dum, daaaaa! ;D

thank goodness i already saved a lot of stuff!

[refbasics]

lacy said:

archwinsome said:

Watch it come back without the video feed of the Jan 22 meeting.

I was thinking the very same thing! LOL!!!

-----------
the 1.22 meeting was just on TV (Mon 2.18 about 5 pm).. i caught the tail end!

[EagleDad]

I just got back from a meeting of the White Eagle homeowners. There were about 150 present it was standing room only. Needless to say there was not a lot of support for the Administration proposal.

I would break it down into 2 camps - ~60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

I was in the minority - the group who has accepted they are going to Waubonsie and are concerned with 3/4 lowest perfming schools and the lowest achievment scores in the district.

There's a big petition coming out of White Eagle voicing the concerns of academic balance in the proposal.

There was even a documented call for a Clow<->Gombert swap in there. Yep, you read that right. It took me just as much by suprise. It was point 2 (after the obvious McCarty<->Owen swap). Can't figure that one out myself, but it was there. The logic given was that NV should have 1 title 1 (lowest 4) school.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

eagledad said:

I just got back from a meeting of the White Eagle homeowners. There were about 150 present it was standing room only. Needless to say there was not a lot of support for the Administration proposal.

I would break it down into 2 camps - ~60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

I was in the minority - the group who has accepted they are going to Waubonsie and are concerned with 3/4 lowest perfming schools and the lowest achievment scores in the district.

There's a big petition coming out of White Eagle voicing the concerns of academic balance in the proposal.

There was even a documented call for a Clow<->Gombert swap in there. Yep, you read that right. It took me just as much by suprise. It was point 2 (after the obvious McCarty<->Owen swap). Can't figure that one out myself, but it was there. The logic given was that NV should have 1 title 1 (lowest 4) school.

Interesting that this board had a poll and most people thought schools shouldn't be moved around to sacrifice distance for achievement gap. They obviously don't represent the thoughts of the community on a whole. But it is interesting how now achievement gap is so important to a community when you are going to a different school......

Everyone has an issue. Bridges, achievement gap, distance. My head is spinning. I guess WE can't argue they are going..it only makes sense. I was beginning to respect them for moving on and accepting things. Guess I was wrong. I can understand their concerns. It's just I don't see how the board is going to solve everyone's problems when everyone's problems are so different. Fix their distance, fix their gap, fix their split.....not seeing this as possible.

[d204mom]

eagledad said:

60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

Did you hear any legit reasons? I was thinking about this, and if the district violated any of the "FAQs" distributed prior to the referendum, is that grounds? "Implied" but not stated?

I just got the sense from talking to D203 folks that if their board went ahead and issued bond premiums that there would be legal recourse because it was stated in the FAQs but not on the referendum. They could just be naive!

[steckmom]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

eagledad said:

I just got back from a meeting of the White Eagle homeowners. There were about 150 present it was standing room only. Needless to say there was not a lot of support for the Administration proposal.

I would break it down into 2 camps - ~60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

I was in the minority - the group who has accepted they are going to Waubonsie and are concerned with 3/4 lowest perfming schools and the lowest achievment scores in the district.

There's a big petition coming out of White Eagle voicing the concerns of academic balance in the proposal.

There was even a documented call for a Clow<->Gombert swap in there. Yep, you read that right. It took me just as much by suprise. It was point 2 (after the obvious McCarty<->Owen swap). Can't figure that one out myself, but it was there. The logic given was that NV should have 1 title 1 (lowest 4) school.

Interesting that this board had a poll and most people thought schools shouldn't be moved around to sacrifice distance for achievement gap. They obviously don't represent the thoughts of the community on a whole. But it is interesting how now achievement gap is so important to a community when you are going to a different school......

Everyone has an issue. Bridges, achievement gap, distance. My head is spinning. I guess WE can't argue they are going..it only makes sense. I was beginning to respect them for moving on and accepting things. Guess I was wrong. I can understand their concerns. It's just I don't see how the board is going to solve everyone's problems when everyone's problems are so different. Fix their distance, fix their gap, fix their split.....not seeing this as possible.

Keep in mind that the poll on this site wasn't exactly fair. Bus around or ignore achievement gap? Not exactly an "either or" situation.

But you're right that it suddenly becomes a factor when your kids are the ones going to the lower performing schools.

[bob]

d204mom said:

eagledad said:

60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

Did you hear any legit reasons? I was thinking about this, and if the district violated any of the "FAQs" distributed prior to the referendum, is that grounds? "Implied" but not stated?

I just got the sense from talking to D203 folks that if their board went ahead and issued bond premiums that there would be legal recourse because it was stated in the FAQs but not on the referendum. They could just be naive!

I want bond premiums banned. Need a state law.

[gatormom]

eagledad said:

I just got back from a meeting of the White Eagle homeowners. There were about 150 present it was standing room only. Needless to say there was not a lot of support for the Administration proposal.

I would break it down into 2 camps - ~60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

I was in the minority - the group who has accepted they are going to Waubonsie and are concerned with 3/4 lowest perfming schools and the lowest achievment scores in the district.

There's a big petition coming out of White Eagle voicing the concerns of academic balance in the proposal.

There was even a documented call for a Clow<->Gombert swap in there. Yep, you read that right. It took me just as much by suprise. It was point 2 (after the obvious McCarty<->Owen swap). Can't figure that one out myself, but it was there. The logic given was that NV should have 1 title 1 (lowest 4) school.

Geez, NV the place everyone wants to be and WE wants to make space for us. Thanks guys.

[EagleDad]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

It's just I don't see how the board is going to solve everyone's problems when everyone's problems are so different. Fix their distance, fix their gap, fix their split.....not seeing this as possible.

An Owen<->McCarty swap fixes distance, gap, and 2 splits.

[EagleDad]

gatormom said:

eagledad said:

I just got back from a meeting of the White Eagle homeowners. There were about 150 present it was standing room only. Needless to say there was not a lot of support for the Administration proposal.

I would break it down into 2 camps - ~60% who want to charge the board with pitchforks and throw out the whole referendum and third high school.

I was in the minority - the group who has accepted they are going to Waubonsie and are concerned with 3/4 lowest perfming schools and the lowest achievment scores in the district.

There's a big petition coming out of White Eagle voicing the concerns of academic balance in the proposal.

There was even a documented call for a Clow<->Gombert swap in there. Yep, you read that right. It took me just as much by suprise. It was point 2 (after the obvious McCarty<->Owen swap). Can't figure that one out myself, but it was there. The logic given was that NV should have 1 title 1 (lowest 4) school.

Geez, NV the place everyone wants to be and WE wants to make space for us. Thanks guys.

Please don't shoot the messenger - and don't judge the whole area by just a few.

[d204mom]

gatormom said:

Geez, NV the place everyone wants to be and WE wants to make space for us. Thanks guys.

I don't think that's true at all. Owen, Watts, and Cowlishaw would be THRILLED to stay at WV.

Just because certain board members are trying to paint WV as "the school no one wants" to fit their agenda doesn't make it true.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Interesting that this board had a poll and most people thought schools shouldn't be moved around to sacrifice distance for achievement gap. They obviously don't represent the thoughts of the community on a whole. But it is interesting how now achievement gap is so important to a community when you are going to a different school......

Everyone has an issue. Bridges, achievement gap, distance. My head is spinning. I guess WE can't argue they are going..it only makes sense. I was beginning to respect them for moving on and accepting things. Guess I was wrong. I can understand their concerns. It's just I don't see how the board is going to solve everyone's problems when everyone's problems are so different. Fix their distance, fix their gap, fix their split.....not seeing this as possible.

Keep in mind that the poll on this site wasn't exactly fair. Bus around or ignore achievement gap? Not exactly an "either or" situation.

But you're right that it suddenly becomes a factor when your kids are the ones going to the lower performing schools.

If WE is that concerned - maybe they'd consider swapping their commute for ours - and they could go to MV and not be in the lowest performing school - and we'd gladly replace them at WVHS - it works to everyone's advantage ISAT score wise.

[EagleDad]

steckmom said:

But you're right that it suddenly becomes a factor when your kids are the ones going to the lower performing schools.

Especially when you're coming out of the highest performing school - a 94.

These were the most positive people - those seeking some tweaks to help achievement while helping out with some of the other problems.

I never thought I'd be the optimistic one. There were some seriously, and I mean seriously pissed folk there. And before anyone asks, no Bruce Glawe did not have the kahoonas to show.