|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 20, 2008 16:54:23 GMT -6
I do not believe the boundaries are done. I believe the boundaries of now were set to create a path of least resistance. (if you can believe this was the path of least resistance ;D)
I think the boarder areas could still move either way and I believe the splits will always be used as a way to throttle up and down enrollment around the schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 17:00:53 GMT -6
I do not believe the boundaries are done. I believe the boundaries of now were set to create a path of least resistance. (if you can believe this was the path of least resistance ;D) I think the boarder areas could still move either way and I believe the splits will always be used as a way to throttle up and down enrollment around the schools. I agree, nothing is set in stone. All it takes is for strange enrollment numbers and they are shifting again. No crystal ball. I know some Oswego and Sugar Grove kids that move every year to a different school. ETA: We've been kind of lucky in dodging the bullet for boundaries. There were the Ashbury kindergartners for awhile and those south of 95th and east of Naper/Plainfield had to go to Builta for awhile and can now move back to Springbrook. And the Wheatland school shift. I'm probably missing others but it isn't unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 20, 2008 17:12:07 GMT -6
I do not believe the boundaries are done. I believe the boundaries of now were set to create a path of least resistance. (if you can believe this was the path of least resistance ;D) I think the boarder areas could still move either way and I believe the splits will always be used as a way to throttle up and down enrollment around the schools. border or broader? Big difference.  Not a spelling issue, we all type fast here, border as in contiguous communities or broader based on total community agreement? |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 20, 2008 17:44:23 GMT -6
I think ADK will change enrollment numbers, cause ES boundary changes that will result in MS/HS changes for some currently "unaffected" areas.
I would agree that "border areas" should be ready for possible shifts...Welch, Clow, Springbrook, McCTY, Steck, Gombert, Owen.
Whichever the schools, I can say one thing the shift will be northward.
|
|
we4
Junior
Girls Can't Do What?
Posts: 245
|
Post by we4 on Apr 20, 2008 18:26:56 GMT -6
Sleepless - I really want to hear your thoughts on this. If you have a good suggestion, I'm being sincere that it would be nice to have another way. I wish I knew that answer fryfox. I feel the pain on the 'slow down' thing myself sometimes. This is my opinion on the way the school board thinks. Disclaimer: I'm not saying it is right, and I am not saying I agree with it. I also don't know them that well to say this is true or not. I think they are like a parent whose children want to change some rules. In my house, whenever a rule is to be changed, my kids write a persuasive letter to me. I then hear that letter and decide if something will be changed. Sometimes I would like to change things, but it won't make anything better so I stick with what I had originally proposed. I think this is the case with the boundaries. They had to move 2.5 schools into WV, and it made the most sense to move them in a contiguous group. Also, IMO they could have moved Steck etc. and let Watts and Owen stay. People may think that is because of favoritism but I also think it has to do with the fact that these schools (Watts, Owen, Fry, WE, etc) were already pulled to move. In a twisted way, the board was trying to keep the 5A boundaries as much as possible. It was totally impossible to keep them 100% the same, so they did the minimal movement necessary. In the SB's eyes, Fry/WE voted to leave NV and go to another HS so they weren't seeing it as much different. Watts too. They voted, knowing they were leaving WV. AGain, just my opinion of why things went the way they did. It's my opinion that the SB is functioning as a parent and doing what they think is best for the district. They are not buddies with us like everyone would like for them to be. If a group of CFO's came in and wanted to talk and they listened to everyone and did what everyone wanted, we wouldn't have a school. This might be more possible in a smaller district but again, even districts like Oswego don't ask for parental input on the boundaries. Our SB listened (even if you don't think they did, they gave everyone multiple opportunities to voice concerns) and in the end, went ahead with what they thought was best for our residents. BTW: My children don't always like my decisions either.  As far as the rush, I can't explain that although it is clear they want to open this school by 2009. They don't see a problem. I hope they are right. Maybe there is pressure from someone else to get the school built. They have heard your pleas but again, feel that the risk of not opening in 2009 is greater than the risk of a huge payout. Again, I don't like the gamble with our money but at this point, all I can do is hope. As for suggestions, I have suggested to the board to have those coffees again, and I do like the individual members coming to the PTA meetings althought it doesn't seem like it was productive in Fry's case. I just think their hands are tied because of the lawsuits. And God forbid any more emails go around from anyone that can be used against them. So I'm afraid that avenue is shut. There has been a communication gap between us and the board and I don't know if it can be rectified anytime soon. Very nice post, Sleepless. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 20, 2008 18:46:11 GMT -6
Sleepless - I really want to hear your thoughts on this. If you have a good suggestion, I'm being sincere that it would be nice to have another way. I wish I knew that answer fryfox. I feel the pain on the 'slow down' thing myself sometimes. This is my opinion on the way the school board thinks. Disclaimer: I'm not saying it is right, and I am not saying I agree with it. I also don't know them that well to say this is true or not. I think they are like a parent whose children want to change some rules. In my house, whenever a rule is to be changed, my kids write a persuasive letter to me. I then hear that letter and decide if something will be changed. Sometimes I would like to change things, but it won't make anything better so I stick with what I had originally proposed. I think this is the case with the boundaries. They had to move 2.5 schools into WV, and it made the most sense to move them in a contiguous group. Also, IMO they could have moved Steck etc. and let Watts and Owen stay. People may think that is because of favoritism but I also think it has to do with the fact that these schools (Watts, Owen, Fry, WE, etc) were already pulled to move. In a twisted way, the board was trying to keep the 5A boundaries as much as possible. It was totally impossible to keep them 100% the same, so they did the minimal movement necessary. In the SB's eyes, Fry/WE voted to leave NV and go to another HS so they weren't seeing it as much different. Watts too. They voted, knowing they were leaving WV. AGain, just my opinion of why things went the way they did. It's my opinion that the SB is functioning as a parent and doing what they think is best for the district. They are not buddies with us like everyone would like for them to be. If a group of CFO's came in and wanted to talk and they listened to everyone and did what everyone wanted, we wouldn't have a school. This might be more possible in a smaller district but again, even districts like Oswego don't ask for parental input on the boundaries. Our SB listened (even if you don't think they did, they gave everyone multiple opportunities to voice concerns) and in the end, went ahead with what they thought was best for our residents. BTW: My children don't always like my decisions either. As far as the rush, I can't explain that although it is clear they want to open this school by 2009. They don't see a problem. I hope they are right. Maybe there is pressure from someone else to get the school built. They have heard your pleas but again, feel that the risk of not opening in 2009 is greater than the risk of a huge payout. Again, I don't like the gamble with our money but at this point, all I can do is hope. As for suggestions, I have suggested to the board to have those coffees again, and I do like the individual members coming to the PTA meetings althought it doesn't seem like it was productive in Fry's case. I just think their hands are tied because of the lawsuits. And God forbid any more emails go around from anyone that can be used against them. So I'm afraid that avenue is shut. There has been a communication gap between us and the board and I don't know if it can be rectified anytime soon. I wholeheartedly disagree with your post Sleepless. On one hand, many state that the vote in 06 based on boundaries and location was meaningless and that we voted simply on a third school. Now, if I'm reading your post correctly, you state that I voted YES in 06 to leave NVHS. You are wrong. It's not that simple! The school board and superintendent told us time and time again they needed to tell the voters where the school would be located and furthermore what the boundaries would be in order to pass the referendum. By the way, the community nor JHB can't blame ME for not voting in 2005 (before the boundaries were specified), I not only voted but worked towards passing the referendum in my neighborhood at the time. TG passed the 05 referendum. That's ONE thing you can't blame us for. ETA: Furthermore, if the referendum language was simply for a third high school, how is it a plausable to believe certain areas agreed to move out of their current high school assignments by voting YES? For example, Brookdale voted a resounding NO! Shouldn't that be interpreted as they wanted to stay at WVHS using the same logic? That is a ridiculous argument in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 19:01:59 GMT -6
Yes, I see where you are coming from macy. It's just my opinion that the SB may have felt they had to move on after the jury verdict and this was the best solution in their eyes. And many don't agree with that. Hence, the conflict.
You can't always be buddies with your kids but it doesn't mean you hate them. In order to have a stable running body, someone has to be in charge.
This whole thing is unfortunate and I continue to feel for all who are unhappy about this. I'm just trying to put out a thought to you that maybe the SB doesn't hate you all and wants revenge. Maybe they are just trying to painfully guide a family to the best of its abilities.
Sorry, I know that sounds really really corny. I'm getting indigestion just re-reading my post. I'll also add while I am in this analogy mode, that not all parents do a good job of raising their kids either. Judge them how you will. I guess we will find out how good a job they did after all the trials pan out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 20, 2008 19:15:53 GMT -6
Sometimes parents royally screw up their kid's lives too... while believing they are doing the 'right thing' and plowing forward while disregarding some very basic simple things.
The door swings both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 19:22:39 GMT -6
For example, Brookdale voted a resounding NO! Shouldn't that be interpreted as they wanted to stay at WVHS using the same logic? That is a ridiculous argument in my opinion. I don't think the SB sat down and evaluated every subdivisions yes vs no vote and 2nd guessed voter motivations. They said, OK, here is boundary 5A. These subdivisions are the movers. Let's start with them and see if we can make something work. Voter motivations are very tricky to evaluate. One can hypothesize about why people voted the way they did. But unless you had a fill-in-the-blank by your vote to explain why you voted this way, nothing can be proven. This is why I feel the n-fud case won't have any merit. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 20, 2008 19:27:59 GMT -6
For example, Brookdale voted a resounding NO! Shouldn't that be interpreted as they wanted to stay at WVHS using the same logic? That is a ridiculous argument in my opinion. I don't think the SB sat down and evaluated every subdivisions yes vs no vote and 2nd guessed voter motivations. They said, OK, here is boundary 5A. These subdivisions are the movers. Let's start with them and see if we can make something work. Voter motivations are very tricky to evaluate. One can hypothesize about why people voted the way they did. But unless you had a fill-in-the-blank by your vote to explain why you voted this way, nothing can be proven. This is why I feel the n-fud case won't have any merit. I was told by a school board member that they were trying to stay with the 5A boundaries as much as possible when figuring boundaries for Metea at AME. However, how will that play with the "bait and switch" portion of the nsfoc lawsuit? We either voted on boundaries and location or we did not. The legal argument will be the language on the ballot. It was only for a third high school according to the district. NSFOC will state they marketed and sold the boundaries and location to voters. If they are going to argue the referendum language was only a third high school, why are they trying to stick with 5A? The "oh we tried to give voters what they wanted" argument will only hurt the district's argument. It leads one to believe they believe they marketed and sold boundaries to voters. If not, why would they try to stick with 5a? |
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Apr 20, 2008 19:43:30 GMT -6
macy,
Why can't they just say, "Well, dang, I wished BB had worked. UNless we win the lottery, we'll have to move on. OMG. We have to do boundaries again. Do you want to do this?? I sure don't want to do this. We are going to have people really mad at us again. IT's unfortunate we can't use the boundaries already voted on but we just didn't see this coming. So given our situation, how can we do this as fairly as possible?"
Why do you think it was, "Give me five. That BB thing is so yesterday. Thank God we can get AME like we always wanted. But wait, we are baiting and switching so let's just keep 5A and let's screw some subdivisions while we are at it."
|
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 20, 2008 20:17:59 GMT -6
Sleepless - I really want to hear your thoughts on this. If you have a good suggestion, I'm being sincere that it would be nice to have another way. I wish I knew that answer fryfox. I feel the pain on the 'slow down' thing myself sometimes. This is my opinion on the way the school board thinks. Disclaimer: I'm not saying it is right, and I am not saying I agree with it. I also don't know them that well to say this is true or not. I think they are like a parent whose children want to change some rules. In my house, whenever a rule is to be changed, my kids write a persuasive letter to me. I then hear that letter and decide if something will be changed. Sometimes I would like to change things, but it won't make anything better so I stick with what I had originally proposed. I think this is the case with the boundaries. They had to move 2.5 schools into WV, and it made the most sense to move them in a contiguous group. Also, IMO they could have moved Steck etc. and let Watts and Owen stay. People may think that is because of favoritism but I also think it has to do with the fact that these schools (Watts, Owen, Fry, WE, etc) were already pulled to move. In a twisted way, the board was trying to keep the 5A boundaries as much as possible. It was totally impossible to keep them 100% the same, so they did the minimal movement necessary. In the SB's eyes, Fry/WE voted to leave NV and go to another HS so they weren't seeing it as much different. Watts too. They voted, knowing they were leaving WV. AGain, just my opinion of why things went the way they did. It's my opinion that the SB is functioning as a parent and doing what they think is best for the district. They are not buddies with us like everyone would like for them to be. If a group of CFO's came in and wanted to talk and they listened to everyone and did what everyone wanted, we wouldn't have a school. This might be more possible in a smaller district but again, even districts like Oswego don't ask for parental input on the boundaries. Our SB listened (even if you don't think they did, they gave everyone multiple opportunities to voice concerns) and in the end, went ahead with what they thought was best for our residents. BTW: My children don't always like my decisions either. As far as the rush, I can't explain that although it is clear they want to open this school by 2009. They don't see a problem. I hope they are right. Maybe there is pressure from someone else to get the school built. They have heard your pleas but again, feel that the risk of not opening in 2009 is greater than the risk of a huge payout. Again, I don't like the gamble with our money but at this point, all I can do is hope. As for suggestions, I have suggested to the board to have those coffees again, and I do like the individual members coming to the PTA meetings althought it doesn't seem like it was productive in Fry's case. I just think their hands are tied because of the lawsuits. And God forbid any more emails go around from anyone that can be used against them. So I'm afraid that avenue is shut. There has been a communication gap between us and the board and I don't know if it can be rectified anytime soon. Thanks for your response, Sleepless. I have tried and tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the lack of response and the mistreatment of any concerns has done them in. I think what the rest of the community is missing is that it is not the boundaries in and of themselves that got people so upset, it is the way the SB/District treated our concerns - they didn't acknowledge them in their discussions. No one represented our concerns or seemed to even hear what we said. Our community and others waited and waited thinking, "o.k., now they're going to acknowledge our concerns." It never happened and then they voted. THAT is what put many of us over the edge. The same thing happened with the site selection. They led us to believe we'd all have some input and then never publicly discussed issues that were raised - distance from the population, environmental concerns, hazards. If they would have just discussed them openly in front of the audience, people would have felt that they were heard. They PRETENDED they looked at all three sites and ruled out the other two for legitimate reasons. When it came down to it, they really only wanted one in the North. CB practically admitted that at our meeting. I think CB's idea to come WAS good, it was just a little too late in this case. Sorry, but I still don't see any good options. What might have been really effective would've been a group from areas unaffected by the boundaries coming forward with a reality check for the board. Did you do that? ETA: I didn't mean to sound harsh in saying "Did you do that?" I just really wish that someone else had - someone with unquestionable motivations. I think the rest of the district would have been able to accept their objections b/c they wouldn't have to be stuck on other possible motives. |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Apr 20, 2008 20:20:03 GMT -6
One more comment - I think the communication gap is intentional - it benefits the board to not have to deal with any input and just do whatever they want. Like a parent, it's easier that way, you have authority. Unfortunately, unlike parents, we are ALL adults and capable of seeing whether or not logic and reasoning exist in that parents decisions. We do not have to blindly follow their ideas. We can disagree. It's a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 20, 2008 20:22:09 GMT -6
"how can we do this as fairly as possible"
Last time around that meant four, six hour meetings and this time around it meant a done deal behind closed doors.
The first time they needed community support (= votes), the second time, they didn't. It's not too hard to see how their definition of "fairness" changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 20, 2008 20:37:05 GMT -6
"how can we do this as fairly as possible" Last time around that meant four, six hour meetings and this time around it meant a done deal behind closed doors. The first time they needed community support (= votes), the second time, they didn't. It's not too hard to see how their definition of "fairness" changed. last time Bruce Glawe spent terrabytes of power working the best transportation situation - best cost return, least schools crossed RR crossings (4) vs 9 now, etc..-- this time either he didn't do it, or they decided they didn't like the results and moved 3 entire ES areas to the furthest HS from their home |
|
