|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 19, 2007 7:38:13 GMT -6
With the meeting cancelled yesterday, maybe there was an article due and she had to fill ? Who knows This is the first I heard that the meeting was cancelled. How do they notify when they cancel a mtg? Good thing I didn't go last night. I just heard thru the grapevine - well after start time. The SBmeetings are onthe IPSD web site - when I checked about 8 PM last night for the time for SAturday - I saw a note from MM saying the meeting was cancelled and it was lined out on the calendar. I do not know what time that happened ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=16304ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/BoardMeetings0708 |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Oct 19, 2007 7:45:36 GMT -6
Oh good Lord, if we start subtracting for grammer, I'm in big trouble! or gamm ar -- LOL!!!! j/k LOL! you got it! I was testing WVHS Parent. I snuck one in! |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 19, 2007 7:53:00 GMT -6
LOL! you got it! I was testing WVHS Parent. I snuck one in! But that one would have not passed the spellchecker. |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 19, 2007 7:55:51 GMT -6
I'm curious - did she interview M2 again or is this information from her conversation with him at Monday's meeting? It's really not new information - we all know what the referendum language said (no mention of boundaries). But does it really indicate a shift in the SB's thinking - or did she just need something to write (or is that right, WVHS parent!?) about? That's what I was thinking, lacy - filler article with no new info? Are those even "new" quotes from M2? They could have been from a while ago. eta - I also think that the reporters don't write their own headlines, so it's not BC's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Oct 19, 2007 8:12:42 GMT -6
I'm curious - did she interview M2 again or is this information from her conversation with him at Monday's meeting? It's really not new information - we all know what the referendum language said (no mention of boundaries). But does it really indicate a shift in the SB's thinking - or did she just need something to write (or is that right, WVHS parent!?) about? I'm curious, as well. Frankly, based on her past articles, I don't think BC is one do to a lot of investigating and even if she was, this article doesn't contain enough news to be the result of investigative reporting. So, I think she got a press release or something like it from the district. Read it carefully. I think it is M2's way of letting anyway who is still questioning the need for a high school, or suggesting alternatives to a third school, know that there is only one course of action -- build a new high school. That's why the referrncen to the tightened language is in there -- he has no choice, he must build....He may even be referring to CV's comments... Please, I'm not taking a stand on the need for the school, just trying to parse the comments. Except for the 2005 refernendum, the district has always done a good job of using the press to inform and to shape public opinion. It's clear, the decision to build a school has been made. Haven't we already issued bonds? Frankly, I think they've already made the decision on location -- BB -- and are just posturing to try to salvage some credibility after the way they've mishandled the land negotiations |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 19, 2007 9:21:18 GMT -6
Read it carefully. I think it is M2's way of letting anyway who is still questioning the need for a high school, or suggesting alternatives to a third school, know that there is only one course of action -- build a new high school. That's why the referrncen to the tightened language is in there -- he has no choice, he must build....He may even be referring to CV's comments... no need to read between the lines, M2 has already been far more direct in stating that the board is committed to building the 3rd high school IPSD News
Land Update 10/2/07
Reported by 204-info@ipsd.org on 10/2/07The Board of Education met last night with our staff and some of our advisors. In the course of the discussions the board has reaffirmed the district's need for a third high school and is committed to building a third high school and delivering a seventh middle school at the same time. We intend to deliver the project without seeking additional funds from our taxpayers and are further committed to stay within the available revenue for the project. Those funds include the bond proceeds, the interest generated over the life of the project, and land-cash donation contributions from land developers. We have directed the administration to pursue the gathering of additional information to assist us with making the remaining decisions that contain the details of where the school will be located and how the project cost will be addressed. We will bring you updated information as soon as it is available. Mark Metzger, president Board of Education |
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 19, 2007 9:27:22 GMT -6
one thought on the boundaries
There were 6+ choices available last spring and 5a was chosen. I'm assuming those choices were balanced as far as the student population goes. Would one of those work for a site change?
|
|
|
|
Post by soon2bwvhs on Oct 19, 2007 9:42:08 GMT -6
one thought on the boundaries There were 6+ choices available last spring and 5a was chosen. I'm assuming those choices were balanced as far as the student population goes. Would one of those work for a site change? I would think that it still would be site driven. Some of the old "options" might be a jumping off point but I'm not sure we could just go back to the files and say okay we've change to XYZ site now and we will be going with boundary plan 3B. All those options were based on the BB site and where meant to accomplish different objections at that site (distance traveled, Title I balance, etc..). |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 19, 2007 10:57:58 GMT -6
one thought on the boundaries There were 6+ choices available last spring and 5a was chosen. I'm assuming those choices were balanced as far as the student population goes. Would one of those work for a site change? There were objections from somewhere to every one of those also - and none were set for a school as far south as MACOM or as far north as I88 - so while there is useful data in them ( many EXCEL sheets had Test scores as well as population (I know ) - they would be a reference point to start but none of them would likely be adopted. I fear if this was to happen it will be another nightmare. just my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 19, 2007 12:13:40 GMT -6
Does the SB even have to solicit input if it re-does the boundaries? I think they can do it on their own if they wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 19, 2007 12:28:49 GMT -6
The SB has never had to soliict parent input on boundaries. But they always have.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 19, 2007 13:02:00 GMT -6
The more I think about this, it could be a bit of a pre-emptive strike....sort of...due to a possible site change.
Again most people are not as up on all the dealings (unlike those who visit this message board), who get their info from the papers and assume that the past ref dealt only with BB. This is my personal observation based on past voting numbers, and some other people I have spoken to in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 19, 2007 13:05:27 GMT -6
The SB has never had to soliict parent input on boundaries. But they always have.  |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 19, 2007 13:18:41 GMT -6
Why would you think, if they have two years minimum before the school opens, that they would choose now to break with the status quo and just rule on boundaries with no public input??
The boundary wars are brutal, but at least when they're over you feel you had a chance to voice your opinion.
I'm curious why you think now would be a good time to cut district parents out of the discussion??
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Oct 19, 2007 13:23:08 GMT -6
I see both wvhsparent and rew's points.
What was the process when NV opened?
|
|
