|
|
Post by rew on Apr 9, 2009 4:46:30 GMT -6
And let me add. that if the enrollment numbers don't materialize, the frosh center at NVHS closes, three 3000 student HSs go forward, and new boundaries.
Does anyone else think it's odd that Springbrook voted number one for Piehl? They are Gregory attendees. Do they really like how the current board has handled their situation? Do they like what MM, supported by Piehl, called their neighbor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 9, 2009 5:38:15 GMT -6
And let me add. that if the enrollment numbers don't materialize, the frosh center at NVHS closes, three 3000 student HSs go forward, and new boundaries. Does anyone else think it's odd that Springbrook voted number one for Piehl? They are Gregory attendees. Do they really like how the current board has handled their situation? Do they like what MM, supported by Piehl, called their neighbor? Ah, but they are NV bound... *tap nose* |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 9, 2009 5:41:47 GMT -6
Maybe not for long
|
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Apr 9, 2009 6:01:59 GMT -6
My prediction is that this will be a very weak board due to inexperience and character. I think the net, net of changing the demographics at WV and opening MV will be that NV will still be the #1 performing HS and WV and MV will fight over the #2 spot. The initiatives started at the elementary school level to improve performance will be continued and will succeed, but they will be stalled at the middle and high school level because our middle and high schools are too big to make meaninful change given the dollars we have to allocate. I believe that from day one MV will be an architechtural money pit and we will be constantly digging ourselves out of that one. I believe the next referendum will fail unless the SB and Admin convince the south end of the district that something could threaten NV. That's what I believe will happen. What I hope will happen is that the new SB (hope you are reading this) will take a good, hard look at all the $ that is being spent at the CEC and realize the payback has been minimal. I also hope that boundaries are reopened because they were based on a model that never materialized. They just don't make any sense. The model that lumped TG and WE together was just stupid, stupid stupid. IMO. I'm waiting here to be villified for my comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 9, 2009 6:07:51 GMT -6
Exactly but honesty wouldn't fit the agenda. I know of several people from the unaffected southern areas who "wouldn't want the targets painted on" their backs so they don't get too involved. I also know of others who successfully joined forces to get what they wanted in 2006 so they want everything to stay the same. Just to refresh everyone's memory, Spring Brook, Clow, and Welch, joined forces during the 2006 "boundary wars" and did some backdoor dealings. Their under the table tactics worked very well. They literally were able to get the original 4 boundary options thrown out overnight. In 2008 Dr. D. told the Fry PTA that it was down to Fry and Welch in who would have to move from NV, pitting school against school. Then Welch resident and district employee Karla Zozulia puts out that fabricated email about the bridge... Can anyone tell me why someone from the Welch would want to revisit the boundaries? If people took the time they spent reading the FUD about the slate of 4 and did actual research, they would have known that. The Fry community doesn't do backdoor dealings or use under-handed tactics like fabricated memos. We have done everything in the light of day. I am enormously proud of my area. researching I agree. However, just because of where we live, we've been played like fools, called names, and have a target on our back for no good reason just because of where we live. I didn't send out, nor read one nasty email coming from anyone campaigning for the "fab four" (nice little slam, eh?) during this election. Maybe negative, nasty campaigns are the most successful. Unfortunate but true. Good luck to Sue, Cathy, Dawn and Christine. I sincerly wish you the best. I really wanted to see change on the board. Maybe it can still happen, maybe not. I think WE and TG have been demonized because of the perceived status of the area. Think about it; as the south was growing and new houses were going in they were bigger and more expensive houses than in the north. My hunch is that is when the 'divide' started. Then the icing on the cake was a newer fancier school for those darned southerners and their fancy houses. It is unfortunate but true that frequently the 'have's' are demonized. Do you really think that if WE and TG were trailer parks that the issue would have been handled the way it was. I don't. Unfortunately there are some in society that always want to bring down those that they perceive as being 'better off'. I think WE and TG were unfortunately a victim of that in some respects. I hope the work ethic which brought many to where they are today continues in this country and that the American Dream of hard work paying off continues! |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 9, 2009 6:16:28 GMT -6
My prediction is that this will be a very weak board due to inexperience and character. I think the net, net of changing the demographics at WV and opening MV will be that NV will still be the #1 performing HS and WV and MV will fight over the #2 spot. The initiatives started at the elementary school level to improve performance will be continued and will succeed, but they will be stalled at the middle and high school level because our middle and high schools are too big to make meaninful change given the dollars we have to allocate. I believe that from day one MV will be an architechtural money pit and we will be constantly digging ourselves out of that one. I believe the next referendum will fail unless the SB and Admin convince the south end of the district that something could threaten NV. That's what I believe will happen. What I hope will happen is that the new SB (hope you are reading this) will take a good, hard look at all the $ that is being spent at the CEC and realize the payback has been minimal. I also hope that boundaries are reopened because they were based on a model that never materialized. They just don't make any sense. The model that lumped TG and WE together was just stupid, stupid stupid. IMO. I'm waiting here to be villified for my comments. I agree with much of what you state. Why do you think lumping WE and TG together was stupid? Not following your logic there. Pls. clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 9, 2009 6:37:22 GMT -6
Do you think, treehugger, that the "lumping" is what drove the boundaries?
The SB wanted to keep Welch at NV, a) because there are more "walkers" to NV at Welch and b) there are more low income at Welch contributing to the socioeconomic diversity at NV. It had nothing to do with a "buddy system".
Plus they wanted Ashwood Park at WVHS, they aren't going to hopscotch over TG.
Unless they shutter WVHS, which maybe they will in 15 yrs, I don't know, a better question is who else will be shifted from NV when they close the Gold campus and which MS will be closed? I won't speculate because who knows what will happen between now and then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 9, 2009 7:00:39 GMT -6
Rew, Due to the budget deficit approaching, I'll go on record that the shuttering will be talked about as early as within the next two years... denied right up until that point with hair-splitting statements like "there are no plans to close WV"... If the Op ref fails, be on the look out...
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 9, 2009 7:11:37 GMT -6
I'll go on record Arch saying nothing would shock me and I won't try to predict or count on anything...I am a bobber on the 204 seas, just goin' whichever way I'm pushed.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 9, 2009 7:39:13 GMT -6
I am not saying this was going to happen, but if the slate of four was elected, they could help their "buddies" slated for MV and WV back into their school of choice with a change of boundaries. wow what an evil thing - imagine a way to not have a school travel to the farthest possible location from it's area and maybe have the district save money on transportation in the process. How horrid a thought would that be even if the FUD was true- which it wasn't. Put those people away - we couldn't have that - they're like terrorists or something. String em up  you don't have to preach to me because I get it. question was asked. I answered. |
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Apr 9, 2009 7:54:31 GMT -6
REW, to answer your questions, I think total lack of consideration and a Superintendent who did not give a rats arse where people went drove the boundaries. I think that TG was lumped with WE to appease WE. That's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 9, 2009 8:10:50 GMT -6
time to take your own advice and "move on" thanks Steckdad for your kind words. You are a real nice guy  ! I hope we meet someday, honestly!  Seems like you like an argument. I'm not going to engage with you. What would be the point? my point has always been move on and move forward. Not looking for an argument, just want you to read the whole post before replying. |
|
|
|
Post by caliber on Apr 9, 2009 9:03:04 GMT -6
I took the time to sit down and map out where the 7 SB members (post election) were located geographically. Two are in the North, two in the South, and three in the center of the district. Very evenly spread out.
I don't believe the "North/South division" exists to the degree that many would like to suggest. I don't think it is fair to paint the "South" with one brush. There is an small area in the southwest part of the district that is disgruntled. It is this "hotspot" that has drawn a lot of emotion by people all over the district. Right or wrong, agree or disagree this area has been very vocal and has sparked reaction from others in the district. This will hopefully eventually cool down and dissipate.
I do not believe people voted based on North vs. South. I believe most people voted based on who they thought were best qualified and would best serve the interests of the district as a whole.
I voted for Dawn DeSart. She lives further south than any of the 4 candidates on the slate. I felt she had school/education related experience and service that would qualify her for the position. I voted for Cathy Piehl, she live is the same area as Jerry Huang. Again, she had direct Dist. 204 experience and service I felt translated well to the board. I voted for Sue Rasmus. She lives north. She has been involved in her schools PTA for years and has been the PTA president for 2 years--direct, applicable experience and a knowledge of what is going on inside the school. I did not vote for the Slate of 4 for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with their geographic locations. First, I did not feel it was in the best interest of the district to elect 4 people as a group that if elected would come in with a collective agenda and have the majority vote on the board. I feel the board should be made up of 7 individuals. Secondly, none of the candidates had any significant service with any of the 204 schools. Some coached sports but none were in any way related to the school district. Third, I did not like the camouflaged campaign contributions by the teacher's union. I think these men would have been better served to run individually. Their slate strategy, IMO, backfired on them. It came across as though they were going to come in and try to strong-arm the district and the existing board. I was turned off by that.
My thought... Stop this North vs. South nonsense. It is not truly as many would like everyone to believe. The members of this district, aside from a very small group, are just interested in the best interests of the district as a whole regardless of geographic location.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Apr 9, 2009 9:12:59 GMT -6
I took the time to sit down and map out where the 7 SB members (post election) were located geographically. Two are in the North, two in the South, and three in the center of the district. Very evenly spread out. I don't believe the "North/South division" exists to the degree that many would like to suggest. I don't think it is fair to paint the "South" with one brush. There is an small area in the southwest part of the district that is disgruntled. It is this "hotspot" that has drawn a lot of emotion by people all over the district. Right or wrong, agree or disagree this area has been very vocal and has sparked reaction from others in the district. This will hopefully eventually cool down and dissipate. I do not believe people voted based on North vs. South. I believe most people voted based on who they thought were best qualified and would best serve the interests of the district as a whole. I voted for Dawn DeSart. She lives further south than any of the 4 candidates on the slate. I felt she had school/education related experience and service that would qualify her for the position. I voted for Cathy Piehl, she live is the same area as Jerry Huang. Again, she had direct Dist. 204 experience and service I felt translated well to the board. I voted for Sue Rasmus. She lives north. She has been involved in her schools PTA for years and has been the PTA president for 2 years--direct, applicable experience and a knowledge of what is going on inside the school. I did not vote for the Slate of 4 for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with their geographic locations. First, I did not feel it was in the best interest of the district to elect 4 people as a group that if elected would come in with a collective agenda and have the majority vote on the board. I feel the board should be made up of 7 individuals. Secondly, none of the candidates had any significant service with any of the 204 schools. Some coached sports but none were in any way related to the school district. Third, I did not like the camouflaged campaign contributions by the teacher's union. I think these men would have been better served to run individually. Their slate strategy, IMO, backfired on them. It came across as though they were going to come in and try to strong-arm the district and the existing board. I was turned off by that. My thought... Stop this North vs. South nonsense. It is not truly as many would like everyone to believe. The members of this district, aside from a very small group, are just interested in the best interests of the district as a whole regardless of geographic location. I respect what you are saying but realize that your rationale is not that of many. Now that this is over it amazes me how many have openly said they voted for the Rasmus, DeSart, Piehl, Rising slate as a result of various forms of communication. And that is fine. My issue is that they were not upfront about it and yes there are ties to MM as well. It is what is it at this point and going forward it will all become quite obvious what is going on as we see the vote counts continue to be 7-0, 7-1 or maybe an occasional 6-2. I am hoping that I am wrong though. |
|
|
|
Post by caliber on Apr 9, 2009 9:39:26 GMT -6
With all due respect, my decisions were solely based on who I thought was best suited for the positions. It had nothing to do with MM or anyone telling me who to vote for. I watched the interviews and read the candidates information. I was an informed voter not a puppet.
|
|
