|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 13:12:30 GMT -6
If you are quoting anything that Karla Zozulia researched it is absolutely IRRELEVANT!
I will be making it my personal mission to educate all of my Fry friends about the blatant bias being shown. At the Fry PTA meeting Dr. D. said that someone had to move and it was between Fry and Welch. Then they have someone assess the bridge who lives in the Welch area! Someone who is completely UNQUALIFIED at that! Unbelievable!
No offense Bob but you are from the Welch area so I am not at all surprised by your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Feb 12, 2008 13:16:14 GMT -6
Fry does not get screwed. They are going to their neighborhood Elementary & Middle School, and they are assigned to the 2nd closest High School. Their MS is split 50/50, which is very fair.
There are other areas FAR worse off than Fry like Owen and Watts. I recently drove from the new high school to my home, which goes right past those communities. It is really far. Further than I even anticipated.
The bridge was built to connect the bike trails. It was not built to turn bussers into walkers and will not be maintained for that purpose. The entire Fry community is still a bussed community as defined by the SD (which is the only definition that counts). There are no walkers in the Fry community.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 13:19:11 GMT -6
If you are quoting anything that Karla Zozulia researched it is absolutely IRRELEVANT! It is ridiculous and I will be doing everything in my power to be sure that EVERYONE I know in the Fry attendance area knows of the blantant biased researcher who discounted the pedestrian bridge. She is completely UNQUALIFIED to make any recommendation in regards to this and it is more than a little conflict of interest! Dr. D. told the people attending the Fry PTA meeting that it was between Welch and Fry as to who stays and who goes and then they appoint someone who lives in the Welch attendance area to decide if the bridge is a viable point! Give me a break! |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 13:20:01 GMT -6
Not just a bike route. We can call the bridge a bike route too.
The City Of Napeville called it NOT A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL. Unless of course they are in on it along with the Naperville Park District.
|
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 13:24:03 GMT -6
Not just a bike route. We can call the bridge a bike route too. The City Of Napeville called it NOT A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL. Unless of course they are in on it along with the Naperville Park District. I don't trust a word of the report so keep quoting it.  I know Ms. Zozulia. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 12, 2008 13:31:28 GMT -6
Not just a bike route. We can call the bridge a bike route too. The City Of Napeville called it NOT A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL. Unless of course they are in on it along with the Naperville Park District. I don't trust a word of the report so keep quoting it. I know Ms. Zozulia. Well until you prove otherwise I will. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Feb 12, 2008 13:36:07 GMT -6
It is interesting the way Ms. Zozulia’s information is put together.
She states that all sources agree that the 95th ST bridge is unsafe. However, of the three sources she quotes, only one states that it is unsafe (The City of Naperville).
I have a few questions about this:
1) Who was the individual that she spoke to (i.e. a City engineer, the City Manager) – It would help to know as we would want to make sure the person who stated this had the proper qualifications to make this judgement.
2) Did the City of Naperville ONLY state “the bridge will not be maintained by the city”?
3) Was the subsequent statement about the bridge “not being a safe walk route to school” a statement that was from the City of Naperville, or was that statement inferred from the City stating it would not maintain the bridge?
Bob, don't worry, I WILL prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dad204 on Feb 12, 2008 13:45:07 GMT -6
The issue of the bridge has been a red herring from the get go.
I would argue that even with the bridge, very few kids from the TG area would walk to school anyway.
I go running behind Neuqua Valley in the mornings and I bet you I see an average of only six kids coming along the bike trail from Ashbury -- which is closer, and more convenient than the bridge will be for TG.
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 12, 2008 13:45:53 GMT -6
No one has said much about achievement gap...in my calculations gap widens for WV from current and from BB boundaries? What happened to the "new WV" theory?
Send McCarty north and leave Owen at WV.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeson321 on Feb 12, 2008 13:48:08 GMT -6
No one has said much about achievement gap...in my calculations gap widens for WV from current and from BB boundaries? What happened to the "new WV" theory? Send McCarty north and leave Owen at WV. How about sending non-walkers of Steck, non-walkers of McCarty and Watts' satellite locations to MV and leaving the rest of Watts and Owen at WVHS ;D ? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 12, 2008 13:51:32 GMT -6
No one has said much about achievement gap...in my calculations gap widens for WV from current and from BB boundaries? What happened to the "new WV" theory? Send McCarty north and leave Owen at WV. How about sending Steck, McCarty and Watts' satellite locations to MV and leaving the rest of Watts and Owen at WVHS ;D ? Send COWL sats north too. You might get a gap that's only 3.7 top to bottom.. a whole point better than their scenario and also putting WV as the 2nd best school (new image). |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Feb 12, 2008 13:53:51 GMT -6
MVHS = north of Ogden, let them tweak the ES to accomodate
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 12, 2008 14:00:30 GMT -6
How about sending Steck, McCarty and Watts' satellite locations to MV and leaving the rest of Watts and Owen at WVHS ;D ? Steck and McCarty don't have satellite areas under the proposed boundaries.  Watts and Cowlishaw do now and will still have from what I've seen. Am I missing something? Busers of Steck/McCarty north, Sat locations of Watts/Cowl North (MV) because they are closer, Watts school area to WV |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 12, 2008 14:00:51 GMT -6
No one has said much about achievement gap...in my calculations gap widens for WV from current and from BB boundaries? What happened to the "new WV" theory? Send McCarty north and leave Owen at WV. just re-ran the model using the changes/splits as identified in todays announcement and here is the new ISAT (I understand that I cannot get scores from exact subdivisions moved) and here is what we have WV 89.9 MV 91.2 NV 93.5 now once I can get a solid estimate on how many Peterson to move to NV I will do that - I have them all in WV right now - and since they are 96.1 as a school- NV will go up and WV down when I make that adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 12, 2008 14:07:41 GMT -6
How about sending Steck, McCarty and Watts' satellite locations to MV and leaving the rest of Watts and Owen at WVHS ;D ? Steck and McCarty don't have satellite areas under the proposed boundaries. Watts and Cowlishaw do now and will still have from what I've seen. Am I missing something? you're missing nothing - the school's like us being sent to the furthst schools have multiple satellites- in fact Watts actually added one in this scenario and now has 3 satellites- including 2 very far from the school itself- 1/longwood 2/lehigh station amazing isn't it? |
|
I know Ms. Zozulia.
