Boundaries again.

[wvhsparent]

lacy said:

There are many kids already either walking or providing their own transportation - because they live too far to be bussed. So many parents are already 100% responsible for ensuring their kids make it to and from school each day.

I would think your proposal sounds fair enough - unless a ton of people wanted to do it and it altered the numbers at the schools - such that one school was more crowded than it was supposed to be and vice versa. Then maybe it would be hard for the district to manage.

That is incorrect. If one lives outside the 1.5 mile distance or have hazardous crossings to the school there is a bus provided.

board.ipsd.org/policy/sec4/435.pdf

Maybe they do not want to take the bus as scheduled, and that is their choice... do not fault the SD for that.

[gatordog]

harry said:

archwinsome said:

Lacy, What did you think about the idea of parents being able to 'opt out' of their area's assignment but the parents sign an indemnification and are 100% responsible for ensuring their kids make it to and from their closer school each day?

Why should our SD offer a buffeteria style education, where you choose what you want?? The district would have to hire an army to handle the paperwork alone.

others would know more but...
I suspect this might violate IHSA rules for athletic participation. Something to consider.

[Arch]

Exclude athletes if it violates rules, put cap limits on it, lottery or first come first served and be done with it by X date. The only switch allowed after that is to the school you are assigned. No ping ponging. You can switch, move back to assigned school, then no more regardless.

Takes care of athletic disqualifications and 'too many people' doing it all in one swoop.

As for the paperwork, this would be 1 sheet of paper (signed form) and maybe at most 2 extra numeric fields in an existing enrollment database. 1 person could handle the 'volume' of paperwork. Feed the sheets into a document scanner for electronic storage and association w/ the child's district record. Woopty do.

[harry]

archwinsome said:

Exclude athletes if it violates rules, put cap limits on it, lottery or first come first served and be done with it by X date. The only switch allowed after that is to the school you are assigned. No ping ponging. You can switch, move back to assigned school, then no more regardless.

Takes care of athletic disqualifications and 'too many people' doing it all in one swoop.

As for the paperwork, this would be 1 sheet of paper (signed form) and maybe at most 2 extra numeric fields in an existing enrollment database. 1 person could handle the 'volume' of paperwork. Feed the sheets into a document scanner for electronic storage and association w/ the child's district record. Woopty do.

9000 students making 2 switches in 4 years multiplied by 2 or 3 sheets of paperwork........a big woopty nightmare

You can't make an exception (athletes) on an exception..you would then be discriminating against my child

I think this topic is over as it will never fly

[Arch]

harry said:

archwinsome said:

Exclude athletes if it violates rules, put cap limits on it, lottery or first come first served and be done with it by X date. The only switch allowed after that is to the school you are assigned. No ping ponging. You can switch, move back to assigned school, then no more regardless.

Takes care of athletic disqualifications and 'too many people' doing it all in one swoop.

As for the paperwork, this would be 1 sheet of paper (signed form) and maybe at most 2 extra numeric fields in an existing enrollment database. 1 person could handle the 'volume' of paperwork. Feed the sheets into a document scanner for electronic storage and association w/ the child's district record. Woopty do.

9000 students making 2 switches in 4 years multiplied by 2 or 3 sheets of paperwork........a big woopty nightmare

You can't make an exception (athletes) on an exception..you would then be discriminating against my child

I think this topic is over as it will never fly

It's not exclusionary. Your child can do it, but they are disqualified from sports because of *YOUR* choice which you signed.... So, you can have your child participate in sports by going to your assigned school.. OR you can exclude them by signing a paper stating you want that. *Your* choice.

There are document scanners that work faster than you think and the resulting pdf file (or whatever format you choose) can easily be named the student# with date encoding. Very easy to manage.

[harry]

archwinsome said:

harry said:

9000 students making 2 switches in 4 years multiplied by 2 or 3 sheets of paperwork........a big woopty nightmare

You can't make an exception (athletes) on an exception..you would then be discriminating against my child

I think this topic is over as it will never fly

It's not exclusionary. Your child can do it, but they are disqualified from sports because of *YOUR* choice which you signed.... So, you can have your child participate in sports by going to your assigned school.. OR you can exclude them by signing a paper stating you want that. *Your* choice.

There are document scanners that work faster than you think and the resulting pdf file (or whatever format you choose) can easily be named the student# with date encoding. Very easy to manage.

There is no benefit

ETA; There is no benefit to the district

[Arch]

harry said:

archwinsome said:

It's not exclusionary. Your child can do it, but they are disqualified from sports because of *YOUR* choice which you signed.... So, you can have your child participate in sports by going to your assigned school.. OR you can exclude them by signing a paper stating you want that. *Your* choice.

There are document scanners that work faster than you think and the resulting pdf file (or whatever format you choose) can easily be named the student# with date encoding. Very easy to manage.

There is no benefit

And that can be your family's choice.

ETA: As far as benefit to the district... If an area CHOOSES to go their own and there is no further need to send a bus to the area, that is a cost savings to the district and thus, a benefit. Surely we're not flip-flopping on ways to save money now too?

[lacy]

wvhsparent said:

lacy said:

There are many kids already either walking or providing their own transportation - because they live too far to be bussed. So many parents are already 100% responsible for ensuring their kids make it to and from school each day.

I would think your proposal sounds fair enough - unless a ton of people wanted to do it and it altered the numbers at the schools - such that one school was more crowded than it was supposed to be and vice versa. Then maybe it would be hard for the district to manage.

That is incorrect. If one lives outside the 1.5 mile distance or have hazardous crossings to the school there is a bus provided.

board.ipsd.org/policy/sec4/435.pdf

Maybe they do not want to take the bus as scheduled, and that is their choice... do not fault the SD for that.

What I meant to say and maybe I wasn't clear (I am not however incorrect) - is that many people within the 1.5 miles do not walk. I think I sad too far before - my bad.

For some kids, 1.5 miles is too far to walk at all due to instruments/backpacks, etc. Others walk or ride their bikes for part but not all of the year depending on weather. So many, many parents are already 100% responsibile for ensuring their kids get to school. My kids are not bused to Scullen - but they don't always walk or bike ride.

And I would beg to differ that 59 would be considered a hazard if it had a pedestrian bridge built specifically so people could walk or ride their bike. What exactly would the hazard be?

[justvote]

lacy said:

justvote said:

Ummmm - if you read my post you'll see that I agree that Fry should not be split.

Lacy - do you know if bus service will be continued for the new "walkers"? If it is, your point is moot as noone from your area will be defined as a "walker" by the SB.

Another question - why is it NV at all costs with some in your area? This is not a rhetorical question, I really don't get it. Is it a "sense of entitlement" about Neuqua? Are some of you upset, because you were led to believe that your area would always be assigned to NV? It cannot be all about the distance as WV is just not that far from your area and BB is even closer.

Are you in charge of the bussing service for the district? If not, then neither you or I know whether bussing would be continued - so by you declaring it's a "moot point", doesn't make it so. I wouldn't think it would be any different from any other area that has people who can walk. Bussing is provided in neighborhoods where some children are walkers. There may even be bus stops closer than the school for some walkers. So this area should be no different - unless you have something against the area? Is that it?

As for your other point, does it serve a purpose to label certain areas as elitist? Does that help your cause? I think those that wanted to stay at NVHS wanted that because it is the closest school. They already have children attending there, etc. With the addition of the bridge many kids (not just one or two) could walk or ride their bikes - not just to school but to after school activities. Do you think the children of this area should be treated differently?

NVHS is considerably closer to the Fry attendance area than BB or WVHS. So I disagree with your last point as well.

There is very little likelihood that my area will be affected regardless of the location of the new HS, so that refutes your argument that I'm trying to support "my cause".

Lacy - do you really read the responses that are directed to you? Your answers suggest otherwise as you often go off on tangents that have little to do with the post that you are "replying to".

And no, I'm not in "charge of bussing". What I stated (pretty succinctly, I believe) is that if bus service were to continue for the entire area, the Fry attendance area will not be considered "walkers" as defined by the SB, so your "walkers" argument to keep Fry at NV is moot. As far as your area being different, it's been established that Rte. 59, may, in fact, keep the Fry attendance area from ever being walkers (again, as defined by the SB). So, yes, it is different.

[lacy]

Why would bus service continue for the portions of the Fry area considered to be walkers? Is this the way it's done district wide - bussing is still provided to the whole area even when some are walkers? I wasn't aware of that.

Or are you saying that the Fry area should be treated differently? I thought that maybe you were in charge of bussing since you knew of some sort of exception for the Fry area.

And no, I often don't read the responses that are directed at me because they are often filled with nonsense. Such as your "moot point" remark. I'm not buying the premise that bussing would continue for the entire area if some were determined to be walkers. Unless you are in charge of bussing, that wouldn't be your call to make. So just because you say it's so wouldn't make it so.

[lacy]

Just vote - who determined that "it's been established that Rte. 59, may, in fact, keep the Fry attendance area from ever being walkers (again, as defined by the SB)." ?

The question is would Rt. 59 still be determined a hazard if it had a pedestrian bridge built over it? If that was so hazardous, why would they build it? Could children fall through it? I mean really - if it's built for the purpose of people walking or riding their bikes over it, then what is the hazard?

With all due respect, I don't believe that the posters on this board are in a position of authority to declare that the bridge would not be safe and that it would still be considered a hazard.

So IMHO anyone here proclaiming that the Fry attendance area could never be considered as walkers is pulling that out of their a** to promote some agenda of their own.

[Arch]

Lacy, you've dodged my question (or simply not seen it). Do you like the idea of parents being able to 'opt out' of their assigned school by being completely responsible for all caveats and expenses (transportation, indemnification, no longer qualified for whatever state athletic participatory rules, etc) that result?

[gatormom]

Actually lacy precedent has been set in the last round of boundaries. A part of McCarty that would walk to BB were placed in those boundaries and the rest of McC was to go to WV.

I would ask that the portion of Fry that becomes walkers by virtue of the bridge should be allowed to stay at NV and the rest of Fry will attend whatever school the district assigns them too.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

Just vote - who determined that "it's been established that Rte. 59, may, in fact, keep the Fry attendance area from ever being walkers (again, as defined by the SB)." ?

The question is would Rt. 59 still be determined a hazard if it had a pedestrian bridge built over it? If that was so hazardous, why would they build it? Could children fall through it? I mean really - if it's built for the purpose of people walking or riding their bikes over it, then what is the hazard?

With all due respect, I don't believe that the posters on this board are in a position of authority to declare that the bridge would not be safe and that it would still be considered a hazard.

So IMHO anyone here proclaiming that the Fry attendance area could never be considered as walkers is pulling that out of their a** to promote some agenda of their own.

I hope I am misunderstanding because otherwise you claim to want fair and equal treatment was not sincere. Just because some people are walkers DOES NOT nake an entire area walkers - sorry. McCarty is one example of where that has already been addressed with the boundaries at BB. However if the distance is within the guidelines, I wouldn't care if they walked on a bridge, under a tunnel or on a regular sidewalk - those people would be walkers.

but if 1% or 10% or 50% of an area are walkers - it DOES NOT make the entire school a walker for boundary sake.

[bob]

So if a kid's bedroom is 1.5 miles from the school, does he bus or walk. Is it the lot or the corner of the house? Would it be neighbor vs neighbor?