|
|
Post by admin on Dec 30, 2005 18:43:53 GMT -6
That would be a great gesture by the board and probably would sway a lot of voters.
Let's see if they steal this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 30, 2005 18:45:37 GMT -6
I nominate Fence for SB!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 30, 2005 18:48:03 GMT -6
I second.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Dec 30, 2005 19:38:07 GMT -6
Good Post fence. Who blinks first? Do we as taxpayer say " so sorry we denied you the 1st time, here take all our money?, or do we expect the SB to say "so sorry we messed up the 1st try; What do we need to do this time? I vote for the latter. Now I will admit the SB has made a few half-hearted attempts at engaging the public, but usually fell back to status-quo. To date I have not heard one SB member take ownership. If the SB (and Admin) were truly "out for the best interests of the kids", they would have backed down. I say you take it up your problems with the school at the ballot box by voting the school board out. Do not take it out on the kids. All of the school board members that approved the freshman campuses have faced new elections. Only two of the seven remain and they were reelected by wide margins. What more can you do? I think that you overstate this past mistake of the freshamn campuses. One freshman campus will remain in use. Both middle schools that were built will remain in use. The improvements at what will become the 7th MS will probably be put to use in some way or another by the community. So for the cost of one gold campus conversion (like what? $3,000,000) you delayed a $100+million dollar project for several years. What was that worth? You didn't prevent the need for a high school but it might have worked for all anyone knew at the time. I don't know if it was a such a bad decision financially. CFO's solutions would have been much more expensive and doomed to failure. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Dec 30, 2005 19:40:07 GMT -6
I was posting. I am sorry I missed the nomination. Yes yes Fence for school board. Let's call the new high school Fence High School.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Dec 30, 2005 20:11:13 GMT -6
Good Post fence. Who blinks first? Do we as taxpayer say " so sorry we denied you the 1st time, here take all our money?, or do we expect the SB to say "so sorry we messed up the 1st try; What do we need to do this time? I vote for the latter. Now I will admit the SB has made a few half-hearted attempts at engaging the public, but usually fell back to status-quo. To date I have not heard one SB member take ownership. If the SB (and Admin) were truly "out for the best interests of the kids", they would have backed down. I say you take it up your problems with the school at the ballot box by voting the school board out. Do not take it out on the kids. All of the school board members that approved the freshman campuses have faced new elections. Only two of the seven remain and they were reelected by wide margins. What more can you do? I think that you overstate this past mistake of the freshamn campuses. One freshman campus will remain in use. Both middle schools that were built will remain in use. The improvements at what will become the 7th MS will probably be put to use in some way or another by the community. So for the cost of one gold campus conversion (like what? $3,000,000) you delayed a $100+million dollar project for several years. What was that worth? You didn't prevent the need for a high school but it might have worked for all anyone knew at the time. I don't know if it was a such a bad decision financially. CFO's solutions would have been much more expensive and doomed to failure. You guys are funny. Sorry to say that I don't have the patience or personality for public service! As you can probably tell. Parent is much more democratic - let's vote for her! ProSchool I don't think my one or two sentences about the Fr. Campuses was overstating anything. Obviously they made the wrong decision. That is not to say that they didn't think it wasn't a good decision at the time, they were just wrong. And saying that it "deferred an investment" for a few years is just another way to avoid admitting you made a mistake. 5 years ago, there were more land choices, cheaper cost of goods and land, more support, etc. They didn't make the decision to add Fr. Campuses as a stop-gap, or a deferral, they made the decision as THE solution to a problem. Trying to avoid taking ownership of a mistake just makes it worse. Just say oops and move on. I think that's all people are asking. And saying if you don't like the SB vote them out would imply that you believe they are incapable of working with the public. What is so outrageous about asking them to come out to the community and sit down with people to discuss this referendum? Do we need a different board or just a different attitude? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 30, 2005 22:02:25 GMT -6
Exactly,
If they had gone for a 3rd HS instead of Freshman centers they could have had their choice of land at a lot less too.
The Property at Eola and Molitor (My site of choice) is 84 acres with another 34 next to it, was purchased by African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2003 for 6 million. Far less that they spent on the 25 acres they got at BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Dec 30, 2005 23:25:06 GMT -6
Fence,
From what I can tell you would make an awesome public servant. I was not referring to any of your statements being "overstated." Darn these confusing quotations.
This might be a surprise to you but I voted NO on the referendum that funded the freshman campuses.
I am not suggesting that anyone pretend that the freshman campuses were anything less of a mistake than they were. But we should not say that they were any more of a mistake than they were either. The referendum funded two brand new middle schools which we will use for decades. It also converted two middle schools into freshman campuses one of which we will continue to use. The only money that could have been spared in the end was the conversion of one middle school into a gold campus. I just wanted to remind everyone that the expanded facilities at what will become the 7th MS might still be put to good use and they were only a small portion of that referendum. I am not an economist but the abilty to delay an extremely expensive project for several years must have some value especailly if you believed that the extremely expensive project may be totally avoided. I just replaced the tires and brakes on my car so I don't have to buy a new car for now. A new car will be more expensive in a few years than it is now but still it made economic sense to buy it later rather than sooner.
Does anyone else think that it is strange that there are posters to this site who say that it was obvious that we needed a third high school 5 years ago but they cannot see the need for one now?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 31, 2005 9:03:39 GMT -6
For the record... I am leaning towards a 3rd HS, just not where they want to put it.
5 years ago the economy was a bit better too.
I can't remember how I voted for the Fr centers, but I think I voted for them...I had voted yes to all other referendums except the last one. Partly too because they were moving Granger farther North...anyone see a trend?
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Dec 31, 2005 10:00:05 GMT -6
I think if I were around then, I would have voted for the Fr. Campuses. It is a good concept that could have worked, but we just ended up bigger than anyone thought. And managing campuses that size probably involved more than anyone thought.
I DO believe that the SB and the district made the best decision we could back then, and I also believe that we are trying to do that now.
Granted I think the SB's "people skills" could use some work, but they live here too and have an interest in making good decisions that support the needs of the district.
I guess my point is that there are certain things the SB needs to learn about people and how they respond. Look at the state and national politicians and see what you like and don't like about their approaches. We talked about their resumes on the other board and how qualified they were on paper, but it takes more than that to be effective, and a high level of intellect can almost hinder the process. Even George Vickers made a mistake with the elementary reconfiguration proposal and he's supposed to be a very smart cookie.
I don't believe that many people will vote "no" because of the Fr. Campuses situation or past mistakes, but I believe they vote "no" in response to how the past decisions and mistakes are addressed because to some degree past mistakes can indicate future behavior.
People want a certain amount of accountability in the government, even more so now than ever before. Historically people have just done what the government says is best, and they don't do that anymore, nationally or locally. That isn't to say that they expect government to have a crystal ball, or never make a mistake, but they do expect that when it does happen, and the governement comes back to the constituents to ask for more money or support or whatever, that they have to be willing to talk to people openly, provide the facts and have conversations so that people don't draw their own conclusions or continue to be suspicious of motives.
I would bet if they went out to Parent's neighborhood and talked to her and her neighbors face to face, they could answer alot of questions for her on alternate locations, and she might vote yes. They could go talk to Topher about enrollment numbers, and there is the possibility that he would think differently afterwards.
The people you mention that said we needed another HS five years ago, but will not vote for one now - I don't know what those people need to know. Maybe someone should go ask them......
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 31, 2005 11:29:47 GMT -6
Very well put fence.
But given the current displayed attitude of the SB, I don't think any of what you mentioned will occur. I would love for them to prove me wrong.
They know who I am, they know how to get in contact with me. I would be glad to help them set something up.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Dec 31, 2005 11:47:51 GMT -6
You're right, maybe I'll send them a suggestion. Sometimes, we need to manage our managers!
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Dec 31, 2005 11:53:10 GMT -6
They are all welcome here too....right Topher?
They as in the School Board Members...Howie too.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 31, 2005 12:29:55 GMT -6
Of course, they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Dec 31, 2005 15:01:45 GMT -6
I did send in the suggestion. Below is what I got back. Sounds like they are willing and planning to do something similar to what I was thinking. Not sure of their timeframes - Feb/March is a little late in the game but who knows. I know one of the board members attended on of our PTA meetings at Hill, but this is an area that generally supports the referendum strongly. I would encourage them to connect with people like Topher and WVHSParent in their areas in particular to get them engaged in a dialogue about the harder issues. Not sure if you guys might want to suggest it directly. I can't and wouldn't speak for you personally but it would be an interesting conversation!
"Thanks for your note. We are planning on having such sessions on Saturday mornings throughout February and into March. I also think all of the board members are making an attempt to attend PTA meetings at the three elementary schools we are assigned, as well as our middle and high school. I believe we are also looking to reach out to homeowner associations, which is often a similar type of setting to what you are describing, albeit with a different type of audience. Best wishes for a Happy New Year, and thanks again for the suggestion!
Bruce Rodman, Member, Board of Education"
|
|
