|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 7, 2008 21:42:34 GMT -6
Will certain areas be used to "balance" no matter where they build the school? I'm wondering if that's constitutional. Just wondering if FRY were a true minority school with under-achieving students (granted we don't have that anywhere in 204) whether moving them to a farther school just to balance achievement would be allowed? I'd think Jessie would be standing on the corner. My point is, one has to be careful with regards to reverse discrimination. again with so many schools so very close to each other - I just don't see that as the case -- |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 7, 2008 21:45:45 GMT -6
I'm wondering if that's constitutional. :)You are funny lacy. Wonder if Metzger is giving Daeschner any advice on that issue? Metzger: I can't answer that. You'd have to ask the lawyers. Q. You are a lawyer. Metzger: Those motions are rarely granted. WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAhhhhhh...... |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jan 7, 2008 21:45:54 GMT -6
Will certain areas be used to "balance" no matter where they build the school? I'm wondering if that's constitutional. my understanding of recent US Supreme Court decision: race cannot be used as balance criteria. However, the Court did not rule on other factors for boundary balancing, such achievement scores or income. I have never heard any school official or anybody on this message board for that matter ever breathe a word about using race as a balance criteria. Therefore, I am fully confident that any consideration 204 gives to balance will abide by the Court's decision. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 7, 2008 21:58:28 GMT -6
Therefore, I am fully confident that any consideration 204 gives to balance will abide by the Court's decision. I'd be very careful about being fully confident about anything our SB does. Sorry, they don't get any vote of confidence from me. Let's please don't forget MM is a lawyer ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 7, 2008 21:59:56 GMT -6
Metzger: I can't answer that. You'd have to ask the lawyers. Q. You are a lawyer. Metzger: Those motions are rarely granted. WAH WAH WAH WAAAAAhhhhhh...... The best post I read all night. Thanks D204mom for a good chuckle.  . |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 7, 2008 22:09:57 GMT -6
in addition to the above reasons (and I think this is a significant reason) .... NV is set back 1/2 mile from route 59. Contrast this with WV, which is ~100 ft off Eola. Once you get to the 59/95th intersection (are their sidewalks?) you still have a good walk ahead of you. The closest single family home in Tall grass is at least a mile walk from NV. Contrast this with the walker areas we looked at for WV (Mcc and Steck)....for them the furthest walker house is <1 mi Those are all great reasons but I guess I was asking for the legal reason we receive bus funding for all of Tall Grass. The legal reason IS Rt 59 |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Jan 7, 2008 22:11:59 GMT -6
that's your chip not mine! You seem awfully concerned where TG is placed - whereas I haven't spent much time trying to figure out (or lobby) where other areas may go. Just an observation.  I have a concern where everyone is placed in the end. I think we all should. Looking only at your own best interest usually comes back to bite you in the end. Personally I do hope that TG and WE remain together; my son has forged great friendships in 6th grade with many TG kids. I feel that WE and TG are a community of sorts. We attend family functions/parties and children's gatherings in TG pretty regularly. So , yes, on a personal level I think it would be great. My feelings about TG and WE being kept together don't go beyond a personal preference. I am entitled to a personal preference without sabotaging your wish to remain at NVHS. I don't believe I have made any posts trying to lobby to keep the two areas together. I have nothing but good feelings about TG and hope that whatever happens that a fringe benefit (not the end-all) of the final outcome is that our kids can continue on through high school with the friends they made at Scullen who happen to live in TG. Enough said on this point IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 7, 2008 22:22:01 GMT -6
Those are all great reasons but I guess I was asking for the legal reason we receive bus funding for all of Tall Grass. The legal reason IS Rt 59 The question was how is EOLA legally different than Mt. 59? Fergit it. I was told to cool my heels and just sit back and continue waiting for the decision to be handed down from on high. GEEZ what's the rush, the ref just passed 20 months ago! They've got it ALL figured out, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jan 7, 2008 22:31:39 GMT -6
The legal reason IS Rt 59 The question was how is EOLA legally different than Mt. 59? Fergit it. I was told to cool my heels and just sit back and continue waiting for the decision to be handed down from on high. GEEZ what's the rush, the ref just passed 20 months ago! They've got it ALL figured out, I'm sure. IL Rt 59 is a 6+ laned State Highway in the eyes of the State. Eola is a 4 laned County/City/Township Road. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 8, 2008 0:06:54 GMT -6
Thanks, parent. I prefer my information all dumbed down with pretty pictures 'n stuff.  So I guess the technical answer for why Eola is not a hazard and Rt. 59 is - is that D204 put in a DOT application for Rt 59 and not Eola. It doesn't have to do with whether it's a state or county or city road. www.isbe.state.il.us/funding/pdf/bus_safety_parents.pdf6. Does the district have to provide transportation for my child if it is too dangerous to walk? Article 29-3 states that school districts may provide free transportation for any pupil living less than one and one-half miles from the school attended where conditions are such that walking, either to or from the assigned school or to or from a school bus pick-up point, constitutes a serious hazard to the safety of the pupil that is due to vehicular traffic or rail crossings. The district must have a Department of Transportation approved safety hazard application on file. Such transportation shall not be provided if adequate transportation for the public is available. 7. Who determines whether a safety hazard exists? The school district will conduct a study of the walking routes of pupils and submit an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation who will then determine whether the application and findings meet the DOT requirements. www.isbe.net/funding/pdf/safe_hazard_app_instruct.pdfHuh. It says that the application must be updated if conditions change. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 8, 2008 0:16:55 GMT -6
Thanks, parent. I prefer my information all dumbed down with pretty pictures 'n stuff. So I guess the technical answer for why Eola is not a hazard and Rt. 59 is - is that D204 put in a DOT application for Rt 59 and not Eola. It doesn't have to do with whether it's a state or county or city road or number of lanes. www.isbe.state.il.us/funding/pdf/bus_safety_parents.pdf6. Does the district have to provide transportation for my child if it is too dangerous to walk? Article 29-3 states that school districts may provide free transportation for any pupil living less than one and one-half miles from the school attended where conditions are such that walking, either to or from the assigned school or to or from a school bus pick-up point, constitutes a serious hazard to the safety of the pupil that is due to vehicular traffic or rail crossings. The district must have a Department of Transportation approved safety hazard application on file. Such transportation shall not be provided if adequate transportation for the public is available. 7. Who determines whether a safety hazard exists? The school district will conduct a study of the walking routes of pupils and submit an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation who will then determine whether the application and findings meet the DOT requirements. www.isbe.net/funding/pdf/safe_hazard_app_instruct.pdfDid they say if they submitted one for Eola but it was rejected by the DOT or is it just an a$$umption that it was not submitted at all? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jan 8, 2008 0:19:01 GMT -6
Thanks, parent. I prefer my information all dumbed down with pretty pictures 'n stuff. So I guess the technical answer for why Eola is not a hazard and Rt. 59 is - is that D204 put in a DOT application for Rt 59 and not Eola. It doesn't have to do with whether it's a state or county or city road or number of lanes. www.isbe.state.il.us/funding/pdf/bus_safety_parents.pdf6. Does the district have to provide transportation for my child if it is too dangerous to walk? Article 29-3 states that school districts may provide free transportation for any pupil living less than one and one-half miles from the school attended where conditions are such that walking, either to or from the assigned school or to or from a school bus pick-up point, constitutes a serious hazard to the safety of the pupil that is due to vehicular traffic or rail crossings. The district must have a Department of Transportation approved safety hazard application on file. Such transportation shall not be provided if adequate transportation for the public is available. 7. Who determines whether a safety hazard exists? The school district will conduct a study of the walking routes of pupils and submit an application to the Illinois Department of Transportation who will then determine whether the application and findings meet the DOT requirements. www.isbe.net/funding/pdf/safe_hazard_app_instruct.pdfDid they say if they submitted one for Eola but it was rejected by the DOT or is it just an a$$umption that it was not submitted at all? Just an a$$umption. You are right, maybe it was rejected. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Jan 8, 2008 7:16:44 GMT -6
The question was how is EOLA legally different than Mt. 59? Fergit it. I was told to cool my heels and just sit back and continue waiting for the decision to be handed down from on high. GEEZ what's the rush, the ref just passed 20 months ago! They've got it ALL figured out, I'm sure. IL Rt 59 is a 6+ laned State Highway in the eyes of the State. Eola is a 4 laned County/City/Township Road. If Rt. 59 is such a hazard, why would they build a pedestrian bridge over it? Will it be too hazardous to utilize? |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jan 8, 2008 7:48:14 GMT -6
lacy, just my thoughts and it really doesn't matter but I don't think Fry is going to Neuqua unless the mystery site is further south. BB was pretty central and the difference for Fry and Spring Brook made it a difficult decision. If a northern site is selected, I just see Spring Brook having a better chance of staying at Neuqua than Fry. Just my thoughts also....we have no idea where or when the school will be built. But you seem sure where TG will go? Why is that? Will certain areas be used to "balance" no matter where they build the school? I'm wondering if that's constitutional. I'm pretty sure that the SB will use some amount of balance when determining the boundaries. Sorry if you have a problem with that. Go ahead and threaten with a lawsuit if you don't like the boundaries - it wouldn't be the first time that is was done RE the MV boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 8, 2008 8:06:33 GMT -6
IL Rt 59 is a 6+ laned State Highway in the eyes of the State. Eola is a 4 laned County/City/Township Road. If Rt. 59 is such a hazard, why would they build a pedestrian bridge over it? Will it be too hazardous to utilize? I'll venture a guess and say because people playing 'chicken' on the roadway while trying to cross that width would not be a good idea. |
|
