Boundaries - One More Time - Nap. Sun 4/12

[macy]

archwinsome said:

The statement reads like a 0 tolerance policy. While they are usually implemented with the best of intentions they also mean that kids get taken away in handcuffs because they doodled a cartoon in the 4th grade that depicted something blowing up. (See Ocala FL for that lovely doozy).

It also assumes people will be unemotional about it. They won't.

Trying to make a policy that's a hammer and then smash it onto everything whether it's a nail or not does not always yield wonderful happy outcomes.

While there may not have been a lot to like while going through the last process, the fact is we got through it and it's workable. Changing that may yield a decision or result that is less than workable but still adherent to the 'newly formed (and untested) policy'.

Sorry Arch,

I don't understand your thoughts here?

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

The statement reads like a 0 tolerance policy. While they are usually implemented with the best of intentions they also mean that kids get taken away in handcuffs because they doodled a cartoon in the 4th grade that depicted something blowing up. (See Ocala FL for that lovely doozy).

It also assumes people will be unemotional about it. They won't.

Trying to make a policy that's a hammer and then smash it onto everything whether it's a nail or not does not always yield wonderful happy outcomes.

While there may not have been a lot to like while going through the last process, the fact is we got through it and it's workable. Changing that may yield a decision or result that is less than workable but still adherent to the 'newly formed (and untested) policy'.

Sorry Arch,

I don't understand your thoughts here?

It was in response to this:

As we consider middle school boundary decisions, the district must clearly define and prioritize the criteria that will be used to draw the boundaries. Defining and prioritizing the criteria upfront will increase confidence in the process by replacing much of the subjectivity and emotion with objectivity."

If you can not see a possible downside to that, then that's your point of view.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

Sorry Arch,

I don't understand your thoughts here?

It was in response to this:

As we consider middle school boundary decisions, the district must clearly define and prioritize the criteria that will be used to draw the boundaries. Defining and prioritizing the criteria upfront will increase confidence in the process by replacing much of the subjectivity and emotion with objectivity."

Thanks for clarifiying.

That's the part of the statement I like. In contrast to the last boundary decision, criteria must be established (and NOT CHANGED mid game).

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

I posted another response on this and seriously, I would like to know how you would change the boundary process . If you can consider one faulty - there has to be parts of it you have identified as being such. With the MS's coming up, and my area potentially going to any one of 3 MS's, I would be interested.
I was at least somewhat involved with the last process, and if there is a better way identified, I would go forward with those ideas if better in a moment, but none of the candidates that claim they want a new process has given on shred of an idea what that would involve.

I kind of like this response from one of the candidates:

"While I’m satisfied with the outcome and wouldn’t vote to change it, I’m dissatisfied with the larger process used to arrive at the outcome. As we consider middle school boundary decisions, the district must clearly define and prioritize the criteria that will be used to draw the boundaries. Defining and prioritizing the criteria upfront will increase confidence in the process by replacing much of the subjectivity and emotion with objectivity."

Macy,
my point being it is easy to craft a paragraph like above - and I would love to have each of the candidates sign it ( but some surely wouldn't)- as that is the goal for achieving inner peace with this process.

The issue is how exactly is that done ? What gets one differently ?
Do we go completely analytical like KK wants - and remove the SD residents from the equation as far as input ?

Who decides something arbitrary ( like fairness and what gets ranked ahead of what) - because believe it or not that was part of the last process also. I do not see everyone agreeing to some magical set of prioritizations of the criteria. It just isn't going to happen.
Some will disagree because they truly believe in geo over academic and socio economic balancing - others will believe just the opposite and both sides here will think they are doing what is right. And that is for the people who truly want what's best for the entire district.
Throw in those who only want what they perceive as best for their own area, some ho believe none of this is necessary and will use the discussions to further divide the community, and those who don't even want the 3rd high school.....and tell me where the nice mission statement like above has the rubber meet the road.

What I am reminded of are the mission statements for major corporations. Everyone has one, and the majority of the time the actions taken do not follow the mission statement.

example:

ENRON's motto:
Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence

ENRON's mission statement:
"We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves....We do not tolerate abusive or disrespectful treatment. Ruthlessness, callousness and arrogance don't belong here."


and I pick on them because they are an easy target, but truthfully pick any other one and then compare to daily actions -- that is what I would see happening to the statement you propose. Not trying to slam you, and I would love that statement to actually happen, but I believe it is next to impossible given the landscape.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

It was in response to this:

As we consider middle school boundary decisions, the district must clearly define and prioritize the criteria that will be used to draw the boundaries. Defining and prioritizing the criteria upfront will increase confidence in the process by replacing much of the subjectivity and emotion with objectivity."

Thanks for clarifiying.

That's the part of the statement I like. In contrast to the last boundary decision, criteria must be established (and NOT CHANGED mid game).

If that criteria is deemed to be not working, it better be subject to change, IMO. Now, if you re-read what I stated initially, it should make even more sense.

[momof3]

While on this topic with the MS process coming up - Are there any better ideas out there about how to handle the boundary process?

There will still be the process of:

1 - A suggested plan or plans
2 - Review / gather input
3 - Tweak
4 - Gather consensus or repeat 2 & 3 until consensus is reached
5 - Approve

I could see commissioning a professional to come up with the plan or plans. (MM could probably qualify as a professional imo b/c he's been doing this for 16 years.) But you would still have to give them the criteria for formulating the plan. And there will be debate about that - demographics, geography, cost (bus service, etc.) all come into play. And there will still be unhappy people. You could cut out the public comment part. But people still want to be heard.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

Thanks for clarifiying.

That's the part of the statement I like. In contrast to the last boundary decision, criteria must be established (and NOT CHANGED mid game).

If that criteria is deemed to be not working, it better be subject to change, IMO. Now, if you re-read what I stated initially, it should make even more sense.

From what I remember, the SB kept adding criteria on, and on, and on til the general person following the process was confused. I don't remember the addition of criteria because the original points weren't working.

If you clearly establish UPFRONT what criteria you are going to apply and stick to it, not being influenced during the process, it DOES in my opinion remove some of the emotion and make the decision look more objective.

[bob]

You could cut out the public comment part.

But, but that is the best part. :'(You find out who's who in those things.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

If that criteria is deemed to be not working, it better be subject to change, IMO. Now, if you re-read what I stated initially, it should make even more sense.

From what I remember, the SB kept adding criteria on, and on, and on til the general person following the process was confused. I don't remember the addition of criteria because the original points weren't working.

If you clearly establish UPFRONT what criteria you are going to apply and stick to it, not being influenced during the process, it DOES in my opinion remove some of the emotion and make the decision look more objective.

Let's try an example:

What do you believe the criteria should be? Then we'll apply that verbatim to some areas to see how well it works.

Post whenever you have it ready.

[macy]

bob said:

You could cut out the public comment part.

But, but that is the best part. :'(You find out who's who in those things.

LOL! That was the best part. We are still trying to identify individuals from those sessions.

[macy]

archwinsome said:

macy said:

From what I remember, the SB kept adding criteria on, and on, and on til the general person following the process was confused. I don't remember the addition of criteria because the original points weren't working.

If you clearly establish UPFRONT what criteria you are going to apply and stick to it, not being influenced during the process, it DOES in my opinion remove some of the emotion and make the decision look more objective.

Let's try an example:

What do you believe the criteria should be? Then we'll apply that verbatim to some areas to see how well it works.

Post whenever you have it ready.

I'm not running for the board and I'm not criticizing the criteria being used. I agree with the candidate's statement in clearly laying it out and prioritizing it. Changing and adding criteria, IMO, can only deteriorate support for the ultimate decision.

[bob]

Walkers have preference to busers.

[Arch]

macy said:

archwinsome said:

Let's try an example:

What do you believe the criteria should be? Then we'll apply that verbatim to some areas to see how well it works.

Post whenever you have it ready.

I'm not running for the board and I'm not criticizing the criteria being used. I agree with the candidate's statement in clearly laying it out and sticking with it.

I would venture a guess that it should be stuck to until it creates a problem in that candidate's neighborhood. I would further venture a guess that some 'tweaking' would be in order.

[macy]

bob said:

Walkers have preference to busers.

Agreed

[momof3]

macy said:

bob said:

Walkers have preference to busers.

Agreed

absolutely agreed. I would even argue that cost should be the #1 priority.