District 203 not stuck to planned boundaries

[doctorwho]

momof3 said:

I see both wvhsparent and rew's points.

What was the process when NV opened?

for those who weren't here, I'll keep it short and sweet -- the boundaries that the school opened with were not the same boundaries that started out being discussed either - there was more of a east of 59 and west of 59 flavor to it -- and after much nasty wrangling we have what we have today -- and a lot of the animosity you read here between N and S - and aimed at people like JC comes from that - far more than comes from did NV have a bell tower type nonsense. The process was not as openly discussed ( and boards like this did not exist) so much more of that was behind closed doors.

[gatordog]

rew said:

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 think Winston Churchill would agree. To paraphrase his quote on democracy as a form of government:

"Getting public input on boundaries is the worst way to do it, but its better than all the alternatives"

[lacy]

The boundary mess is ultimately what soured me on this SB. Someone mentioned the term "boundary wars" and that's what I didn't like. It turned into a shouting match to see who could raise the biggest stink or lobby the best. In the end, I didn't feel there was much objectivity. And it got terribly out of control.

I don't know if I would feel any better if they just up and changed something without public input, but I doubt I would feel any worse. We shouldn't all go to "war" with one another over what school our kids attend. Someone should just make decisions that are logical, rational and unemotional. Involving the parents unforunately sometimes brings none of those things to the table.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

The boundary mess is ultimately what soured me on this SB. Someone mentioned the term "boundary wars" and that's what I didn't like. It turned into a shouting match to see who could raise the biggest stink or lobby the best. In the end, I didn't feel there was much objectivity. And it got terribly out of control.

I don't know if I would feel any better if they just up and changed something without public input, but I doubt I would feel any worse. We shouldn't all go to "war" with one another over what school our kids attend. Someone should just make decisions that are logical, rational and unemotional. Involving the parents unforunately sometimes brings none of those things to the table.

although I need to noodle on this some more ( and I believe it may have been me who used the term ) - but I agree with you that they still have a lot of those details... including plenty of spreadsheets left to plug data into including ISAT scores etc. -- so I am not sure it could be any worse. The last go around brought out the worst in a lot of people.

Although of course I am still hopeful things will work out where that is not an issue, but if it goes far south or far north -- of course things will change regardless of some claims, as the boundaries are set up for a central site.

[lacy]

At the same time, I feel that there should have been public input (in a controlled, respectful manner) regarding the BB situation. Given there was a referendum that the voters approved and something has changed (the price of the land), I think it was warranted. Those are our tax dollars.

I just think the boundary thing gets completely out of control. The area I came from changed boundaries frequently due to growth. They allowed a short time for public comment and then just did it. I think some people were probably unhappy, but it seemed to settle down quicker. When there is an all-out "war", people tend to hold grudges, which is bad.

[Arch]

lacy said:

I just think the boundary thing gets completely out of control. The area I came from changed boundaries frequently due to growth. They allowed a short time for public comment and then just did it. I think some people were probably unhappy, but it seemed to settle down quicker. When there is an all-out "war", people tend to hold grudges, which is bad.

I agree with this point. When neighborhoods think other neighborhoods are 'at fault' for their situation, it gets ugly and stays ugly. If an elected body just does it, then everyone has the the one central body to complain about and if they hold onto any grudge can do something about it come next election day. Then, it's over.

Having This neighborhood be unhappy and think it was because of THAT neighborhood, then THIS OTHER neighborhood believes they got the shaft because THAT OTHER neighborhood got their way.. Ew.. That stuff is just plain nasty. I didn't go to any of those last time around because I didn't want to be anywhere near that crap. Just figure it out without me and send the bus. That's where my kids go.

[proschool]

doctorwho said:

momof3 said:

I see both wvhsparent and rew's points.

What was the process when NV opened?

for those who weren't here, I'll keep it short and sweet -- the boundaries that the school opened with were not the same boundaries that started out being discussed either - there was more of a east of 59 and west of 59 flavor to it -- and after much nasty wrangling we have what we have today -- and a lot of the animosity you read here between N and S - and aimed at people like JC comes from that - far more than comes from did NV have a bell tower type nonsense. The process was not as openly discussed ( and boards like this did not exist) so much more of that was behind closed doors.

I would hate to see the district turn to another boundary committee. I think the meeting of boundary members "behind closed doors" is inherently unfair and possibly a violation of the open meetings act.

I trust the school board much more than any boundary committee. Everyone was allowed to have their say in the last boundary process.

[wvhsparent]

OK fine, announce a special meeting to discuss boundaries....... give anyone who shows up their 3 min and then decide.........DO MAKE ANOTHER CIRCUS OUT OF IT!!!

Anyone caught crying, or otherwise causing a scene will be escorted from the premisis ( This includes Board members)

[movingforward]

proschool said:

doctorwho said:

for those who weren't here, I'll keep it short and sweet -- the boundaries that the school opened with were not the same boundaries that started out being discussed either - there was more of a east of 59 and west of 59 flavor to it -- and after much nasty wrangling we have what we have today -- and a lot of the animosity you read here between N and S - and aimed at people like JC comes from that - far more than comes from did NV have a bell tower type nonsense. The process was not as openly discussed ( and boards like this did not exist) so much more of that was behind closed doors.

I would hate to see the district turn to another boundary committee. I think the meeting of boundary members "behind closed doors" is inherently unfair and possibly a violation of the open meetings act.

I trust the school board much more than any boundary committee. Everyone was allowed to have their say in the last boundary process.

I agree...I think we all have a pretty good idea of how each area feels!! No need to rehash that. If boundaries need to be re-drawn, so be it. Let the school board determine the boundaries and announce them to the public and we all move on.

[gatordog]

proschool said:

I trust the school board much more than any boundary committee. Everyone was allowed to have their say in the last boundary process.

SB yes. A boundary committee no. I agree.

In one way, yes "everybody had their say" in last process. But from another viewpoint, you could also say "not everybody had their say."

First, the speakers at the meetings were basically from 4 ES attendance areas. Now I understand these areas were "motiviated" (or whatever you call it...). I kept thinking, gee, I wish I could hear a different perspective, instead of basically the same "arguments" over and over and over again. A basic problem with those meetings was all the talking was from a very very limited portion of the whole district. I think if a broader speaker representation would have brought some "sanity" to the process. I understand many from other areas where not so interested in attending the meetings, and certaintly did not feel the need to step up and speak. I cant blame them for that. We were going to have three equal HS's, period. But in hindsight, I bet some wished they had.

Second, the Home Owners Associations really give a "un-democratic" advantage to get word out, draw large crowds (maybe even make wardrobe choices!). I understand that is just the way it is. But many areas dont have that. Maybe un-democratic is too strong a word, but it doesnt exactly make for a level field when it comes to bringing broad input to the table.

Finally, when speaker after speaker from the same neighborhood/homeowner assoc. says same thing, it really doesnt add to the "public discourse". It was the equivalent of a Senate fillibuster or something like that. The hours and hours of "testimony" was more a "political show of force" than really providing meaningful input and opinions. After a while, it seemed to become just a bunch of "noise". Or at worst a threat...see how many votes we can bring to the polls to either vote yes or no for ref.


Of course I am being way too idealistic to think that such public input could be rational, reasonable, and open-minded. After all....this is politics. Look no further than Congress, General Assembly, etc. . Again, given all these flaws...not completely certain how to "make it better"

[gatordog]

wvhsparent said:

Anyone caught crying, or otherwise causing a scene will be escorted from the premisis ( This includes Board members)

....with the exception of HS students who show up, get involved, care, listen....their example is one not to forget!

And for those who CAUSE a student to cry....

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

wvhsparent said:

Anyone caught crying, or otherwise causing a scene will be escorted from the premisis ( This includes Board members)

....with the exception of HS students who show up, get involved, care, listen....their example is one not to forget!

And for those who CAUSE a student to cry....

as far as boundaries - the HS students were some of the only people worth listening to

[proschool]

doctorwho said:

gatordog said:

....with the exception of HS students who show up, get involved, care, listen....their example is one not to forget!

And for those who CAUSE a student to cry....

as far as boundaries - the HS students were some of the only people worth listening to

The high school students were the best speakers in that process. They made me proud to be a part of this school district.

Their may have been a lot of redundancy but I remember a lot of people who were just there to listen to what everyone had to say.

I think most of the school board members would have preferred economic balance but they said that they learned that the majority of the district wanted geographic sensibility. I think they respected the view of the majority in the end. At the beginning of the process they did not know what the voters really wanted. There really was no right or wrong answer.

I remember that I was wondering whether Gombert walkers should be placed at NVHS. I honestly did not know what anyone from that area expected from the process. When two speakers from that area stood up to speak it settled it for me. BR said in his speech that he did not hear much from the area either except from a few people that said that did not want to be moved about "to support someone elses agenda."

The last boundary process was a difficult one. I think the SB had a difficult time with it. I learned that a representative democracy is not such a pretty thing when you are stuck in the middle of an issue. But it is still a great system.

[EagleDad]

doctorwho said:

gatordog said:

....with the exception of HS students who show up, get involved, care, listen....their example is one not to forget!

And for those who CAUSE a student to cry....

as far as boundaries - the HS students were some of the only people worth listening to

There were a few HS students in the last boundary discussions that should have been escorted out - they were just plain rude and disrepectful to the process, shouting things out, even being vulgar. It was only a few though (3 to be exact).

[soon2bwvhs]

gatordog said:

proschool said:

I trust the school board much more than any boundary committee. Everyone was allowed to have their say in the last boundary process.

SB yes. A boundary committee no. I agree.

In one way, yes "everybody had their say" in last process. But from another viewpoint, you could also say "not everybody had their say."

First, the speakers at the meetings were basically from 4 ES attendance areas. Now I understand these areas were "motiviated" (or whatever you call it...). I kept thinking, gee, I wish I could hear a different perspective, instead of basically the same "arguments" over and over and over again. A basic problem with those meetings was all the talking was from a very very limited portion of the whole district. I think if a broader speaker representation would have brought some "sanity" to the process. I understand many from other areas where not so interested in attending the meetings, and certaintly did not feel the need to step up and speak. I cant blame them for that. We were going to have three equal HS's, period. But in hindsight, I bet some wished they had.

Second, the Home Owners Associations really give a "un-democratic" advantage to get word out, draw large crowds (maybe even make wardrobe choices!). I understand that is just the way it is. But many areas dont have that. Maybe un-democratic is too strong a word, but it doesnt exactly make for a level field when it comes to bringing broad input to the table.

Finally, when speaker after speaker from the same neighborhood/homeowner assoc. says same thing, it really doesnt add to the "public discourse". It was the equivalent of a Senate fillibuster or something like that. The hours and hours of "testimony" was more a "political show of force" than really providing meaningful input and opinions. After a while, it seemed to become just a bunch of "noise". Or at worst a threat...see how many votes we can bring to the polls to either vote yes or no for ref.


Of course I am being way too idealistic to think that such public input could be rational, reasonable, and open-minded. After all....this is politics. Look no further than Congress, General Assembly, etc. . Again, given all these flaws...not completely certain how to "make it better"

I agree and disagree with some of what you said. I agree that the SB should make the decision. I NEVER supported the decision to determine boundaries before the referendum. I think this only served to put an already emotional issue into overdrive! It is my understanding that this was the first time that the district determined boundaries before a referendum vote; I am aware of the fact that there was an outcry from some ES areas that they would not support the referendum if the boundaries were not known. IMO it was a gamble the SB should have taken; They didn't do a good enough job in '05 to education the public on the issue. The SB could have educated the public on the issue without being boundaries into play.

As for the late night comments on boundaries, while the majority of the comments were from the more vocal ES areas; there were a lot of comments from those that would be at WV not matter the option chosen; I was one of them.