AME Actual distances/times

[doctorwho]

dan75 said:

A little angry are we Dr. Who?

I'm just participating in the conversation here. I read your post and simply made a comment on how close the schools are and how it makes sense to keep them together. The schools are really close (0.6 miles apart according to Google Maps) and I think they should stick together. That's it, that's the entirity of my opinion based on your comment above.

I personally have no dog in the fight between the two; but I agree with the post above, the issue is bigger than invisible street boundaries and travel times. When I read posts about distance, walkers, railroad crossings, etc., it reminds me of the wonderful back-and-forth between posters during the referendum days. Or as I like to think of them, the bad old days.

The district needs a school and not everyone is going to be happy unfortunately.

Nothing personal, I guess I'll get in my TARDIS now and vanish . . . .

Yes we are - as someone who has been an active part of my community and this SD for 19 years I feel I have a right to be - is that a problem for you ? If you have no dog in the race - why join in ? That reminds me of the bad old days --

I understand that the district needs a 3rd HS - my area voted for that overwhemingly - and no not everyone was happy about having to open a new school. Yet I get scolded about the bigger picture from an area that voted overwhelmingly no - I guess the bigger picture has changed ? If you have read my posts as you said then you know I have already said I would vote for an Ops referendum regardless of where they put the school or us - if that does not show I understand the need for a 3rd HS I don't know what does.

The boundaries I wanted left us at WVHS when many were trying for some unknown reason not to go there -so please do not lump me into that group. My vote for the 3rd HS would not change no matter what - We would go to NVHS ( the closest school to our home, to WVHS (gladly even though commute is still longer thanmost will havve) - or the new school ( since it was going to be closer) - I find that pretty flexible.

But to tell my area that we get the worst deal possible - the longest commute, open a new HS & lose varsity sports and potentially activities sophomore year for those of us with 8th graders - and I am just supposed to turn the other cheek and say thank you sir, can I have another ? Sorry to disappoint, that makes me angry - yes.


btw - make sure you return the TARDIS when done with it, my area will need it for their commute.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

dan75 said:

A little angry are we Dr. Who?

I'm just participating in the conversation here. I read your post and simply made a comment on how close the schools are and how it makes sense to keep them together. The schools are really close (0.6 miles apart according to Google Maps) and I think they should stick together. That's it, that's the entirity of my opinion based on your comment above.

I personally have no dog in the fight between the two; but I agree with the post above, the issue is bigger than invisible street boundaries and travel times. When I read posts about distance, walkers, railroad crossings, etc., it reminds me of the wonderful back-and-forth between posters during the referendum days. Or as I like to think of them, the bad old days.

The district needs a school and not everyone is going to be happy unfortunately.

Nothing personal, I guess I'll get in my TARDIS now and vanish . . . .

I'm not sure why or what the reason is to 'keep them together'. Each one has a certain population that attends it and each one should factor individually when it comes down to juggling the attendance of the 3 high schools. So, why the glue-bond?

Because Arch - we just need to shut up and go where we're told - did you not get the memo ?

[dan75]

archwinsome said:

I'm not sure why or what the reason is to 'keep them together'. Each one has a certain population that attends it and each one should factor individually when it comes down to juggling the attendance of the 3 high schools. So, why the glue-bond?

Good question. I mentioned above that they go to the same middle school. That was my reasoning/opinion.

I wasn't saying that the good doctor was advocating otherwise, I was just pointing out their similarities. I think it's a good idea to have the least amount of school splitting as possible when the new HS boundaries are written. Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

I wish I had a more in depth answer for you, but that's all I got.

;D

[dan75]

doctorwho said:

btw - make sure you return the TARDIS when done with it, my area will need it for their commute.

THAT was well delivered and funny. Kudos.

[doctorwho]

dan75 said:

archwinsome said:

I'm not sure why or what the reason is to 'keep them together'. Each one has a certain population that attends it and each one should factor individually when it comes down to juggling the attendance of the 3 high schools. So, why the glue-bond?

Good question. I mentioned above that they go to the same middle school. That was my reasoning/opinion.

I wasn't saying that the good doctor was advocating otherwise, I was just pointing out their similarities. I think it's a good idea to have the least amount of school splitting as possible when the new HS boundaries are written. Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

I wish I had a more in depth answer for you, but that's all I got.

;D

However land wise we are neighbors ( - so I understand it to some extent - but as far as splitting schools- the maps will show you there is no land lock to Hill where we both go. It is a good distance away but makes sense only because of the odd shape of the district.

When Watts moved in - our closest people were WE - Owen as they were built at th same time and lots of kids the same age and friends. That really has not changed.

And don't get me wrong - I think Hill is a wonderful school- and has served my children well - but if we're putting all cards on the table for boundaries - we need to look at everything

[doctorwho]

dan75 said:

doctorwho said:

btw - make sure you return the TARDIS when done with it, my area will need it for their commute.

THAT was well delivered and funny. Kudos.

It's not easy being humorous these days, but I try - thanks

[EagleDad]

dan75 said:

Watts and Cowlishaw are very close, probably the closest two elementary schools in the district. I really don't see much difference in their locations.

McCarty, Georgetown, and Gombert are each much closer to each other than Watts/Cowlishaw.

dan75 said:

The majority of the Watts population comes from the surrounding neighborhoods, just like the majority of Cowlishaw's population comes from its surrounding neighborhoods.

This is pretty much true of every Elementary school in the district. In fact I would say Watts is the standout exception to it with people from Lehigh Station - That has to be the farthest commute of any ES I can think of.

[gatordog]

confused said:

I think this fairness criteria is all irrelevant. Everyone knew, when they bought their homes, whether there would be a grade school or middle school in their subdivision. For that matter, they knew how far they were from their high school and which high school they would be attending. In fact, they probably paid a premium or got a better deal depending on that exact feature of their neighborhood.

It is not fair to penalize someone because they made a more favorable choice. You are obviously o.k. with not having an ES in your neighborhood, or you would have sought one out in the first place.

OK, confused, you think its "silly and irrelevant" to consider striving for an area having 2 out 3 "nearby" school assignments as fair boundary criteria.

Naturally, upon opening a new MS and new HS its impossible to have a criteria of "I knew in the past what ES/MS/HS" my area was going to attend.

But you must have something constructive to work with as criteria. As we all know, pure geographic distances does not work as sole criteria for capacity reasons.

Are you proposing a real-estate transaction cost criteria?

[dan75]

doctorwho said:

Yes we are - as someone who has been an active part of my community and this SD for 19 years I feel I have a right to be - is that a problem for you ? If you have no dog in the race - why join in ? That reminds me of the bad old days --

You're right, I may have no personal stake in the two schools; but, I'm a parent living in the northern half of the district and I'm interested in our district's future and my kids' friendships (with other kids from both areas).

Again, nothing personal Dr. I understand your point and have read in other threads your position. People from Watts and Cowlishaw will have serious gripes if a far north school site is chosen. Legitimate gripes. I will say however, that those of us in the north have been traveling a pretty good distance for years to go to HS.

Traveling sucks, but as we've both mentioned, the district needs this HS.
. . . here's your TARDIS back.

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

dan75 said:

Watts and Cowlishaw are very close, probably the closest two elementary schools in the district. I really don't see much difference in their locations.

McCarty, Georgetown, and Gombert are each much closer to each other than Watts/Cowlishaw.

dan75 said:

The majority of the Watts population comes from the surrounding neighborhoods, just like the majority of Cowlishaw's population comes from its surrounding neighborhoods.

This is pretty much true of every Elementary school in the district. In fact I would say Watts is the standout exception to it with people from Lehigh Station - That has to be the farthest commute of any ES I can think of.

It appears to be what we will be known for -- maybe they can repaint that mural in the gym to show a travellin' man

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

wvhsparent said:

doctor....while I am in complete agreement with your travel dilemma.
But say in 10 years, if a North site is chosen...those who move into your area will also know where the schools are as we do now. So that arguement of "you knew the consequences" work for a short period of time, and will reduce as time goes on. Just like now where your area knew it had to go to Hill when there are closer MS's and my area that knew we had to pass an ES to go to a different one. We got a break when they moved Granger further North, but originally went to the old Granger (WVHS Gold) too.

you're assuming someone will want to move into an area where their MS AND HS are at the other ends of the district...

Actually we did move in when both the MS and HS were at Ogden and Eola.....In fact my Subivision is in 2 Counties and 2 SD. The 204 side sold out quickly while the Batavia SD (which I think is also pretty good) was much slower.

[doctorwho]

dan75 said:

doctorwho said:

Yes we are - as someone who has been an active part of my community and this SD for 19 years I feel I have a right to be - is that a problem for you ? If you have no dog in the race - why join in ? That reminds me of the bad old days --

You're right, I may have no personal stake in the two schools; but, I'm a parent living in the northern half of the district and I'm interested in our district's future and my kids' friendships (with other kids from both areas).

Again, nothing personal Dr. I understand your point and have read in other threads your position. People from Watts and Cowlishaw will have serious gripes if a far north school site is chosen. Legitimate gripes. I will say however, that those of us in the north have been traveling a pretty good distance for years to go to HS.

Traveling sucks, but as we've both mentioned, the district needs this HS.
. . . here's your TARDIS back.

I too am interested in the districts future - but as the future gypsys of 204, I am concerned exactly what experience my daughter gets from this... ( as most people are ) -
Her friends are not north - she gets cut off in the middle of her HS time - sorry, that is a deal I cannot like.

and this is not meant for you Dan, as my guess is your position likely has always been the same ( as in fairness has been most north siders on this board) - but isn't it funny many people did not see it that way before a potential site change?-

[gatordog]

archwinsome said:

I'm not sure why or what the reason is to 'keep them together'. Each one has a certain population that attends it and each one should factor individually when it comes down to juggling the attendance of the 3 high schools. So, why the glue-bond?

I think neighborhood cohesion and keeping contiguous neighborhoods assigned to same attendance area is in general a good thing.

I agree with thought of avoiding "islands" where possible. It is one of the criteria, in my mind.

[Arch]

Hat, sheets of paper, PTA president picks. Boom, done.

[Arch]

gatordog said:

archwinsome said:

I'm not sure why or what the reason is to 'keep them together'. Each one has a certain population that attends it and each one should factor individually when it comes down to juggling the attendance of the 3 high schools. So, why the glue-bond?

I think neighborhood cohesion and keeping contiguous neighborhoods assigned to same attendance area is in general a good thing.

I agree with thought of avoiding "islands" where possible. It is one of the criteria, in my mind.

I never really liked that argument much (neighborhood cohesion).

Somewhere somehow someone gets stuck w/ the division line. I was mostly curious why someone was advocating this pair (watts/caw) had to be a bonded pair.