|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 29, 2008 9:39:36 GMT -5
we4, read other 204 boards. I believe elsewhere people are cheering for 3 people to run on the "change the boundaries" platform. People want to move on and yes, I'm all for it, but when other boards talk about getting a majority in to form a mutiny of some sort against the current board, I just don't think anything good can come of that. Just my opinion. I'm all for getting someone in to question some of what has been done regarding PR and the treatment of several subdivisions and it's always good to question things and speak up if one person seems to be running the whole board, but I don't want another park district board that can't get along. How is that good for the kids and our district? ETA: I know you are talking about the current vacancy. I am talking about April. I am way beyond who they pick next week. That person will be examined and re-evaluated in April. It's when the major change takes place that I am evaluating. Let's be fair about exactly all the 'other boards' aresaying if you are going to quote them. Goal 1 is to change the status quo - which a number of areas believe leave them without a voice - in some cases ignore them, in other cases have actually been antagonistic to them. The only way to do that is to change the voting block ( and let's not pretend there is not one) - driven by power that has maybe been there too long and lost sight and vision The best quote I have ever heard on this was by an ex CEO of IBM - he stated when he joined that no CEO should ever stay in power more than 7 years as at that point they begin to lose any peripheral vision, and can't see the forest for the trees. He held true to his word and left in a few months after his 7 years..I believe the powers that be here have this issue- and I am far from alone in that feeling--- There are plenty of reasons for that feeling and rehashing them again will only get me another 'warning' Now IF that changes - and someone has a BETTER plan ( who knows , if one is actually put forth even some here might agree with it) - why is that a Bad thing ? I keep reading how we need to try and make things better for all. Well they are not better for all right now. So do we stop trying because some like things exactly as they are ? If that was the case the school would notbe being built where it is either. The reason given for that was they kept looking for the best plan that would work --so do we have the 'perfect plan' now ? Of course if one has exactly what they want right now - they don't want to think anyone would even look at it...but is that better for all ? Or back to - shut up, sit down and take another one for the team ? You don't want another park district board that can;t get along - andI submit not getting along is not the issue there-,it is the wrong people in place. Why hire someone to run it who spends more time running their own biz venture than their #1 job ? etc. Is it better to have a rubber stamp board ? I suggest, no it isn't and there are also some people here on this board who agree with that. If there is a better boundary situation out there, why not take a look at it. If there isn't - then that will come out also. To close the books and say it is what it is - too bad is not the type of board I want either, on any topic. The same holds true for the A/C issue and other issues. I don;t see this as a mutiny. Let me ask this question- do you want change in Springfield so that maybe this state government can accomplish something for ALL the people of Illinois versus the power structure that is in place today ? I know I do - I don't want Emil Jones the III to step right in and keep on keepin on the way things run today... That is not a mutiny- that is called a democratic process. btw - one of the reasons ( at the time ) the incumbents received a lot of votes and challengers did not was the 'fear' that the newcomers would change the boundaries -- vs. leaving them alone. And what was the end result anyway - boundaries changed and became a modified Option 6. So I understand why there is concern - but if these boundaries are better ( yes I know the location changed)- they are as a result of oging over them again. ok- likely I'll be slapped for this - even though again I did not bring up the topic DRW - you raise some valid points, however when the location changed, the boundaries had to change - it's called adapting to the situation at hand. It's also a fact that some people where not happy with the BB location and/or the selected boundaries for the BB locations - they had their reasons, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with them. And, there are people now that are unhappy with the MV location and/or boundaries, for whatever reason - I ask: what's the difference? In some cases, it's different people that are unhappy. Since you were happy with the BB location and boundaries and you are now unhappy with the final MV location and/or boundaries, you have quantified your unhappiness and you have spent time trying coming up with a "better" plan. Better for who? Your area, and maybe some other areas. But at what cost? "Worse" for some other areas? Probably - I'd be shocked if anyone could come up with a comprehensive ES, MS, HS boundary plan that is both proven to be "better" (whatever that means) and does not make some group of people unhappy. Do you have insight into all of the considerations that were made to get to final boundaries? Are they all quantifiable, such that one could even argue that one set of boundaries is "better" than another? I doubt it. But, if someone wants to try, I guess that's OK. All I know is that boundaries are an emotional hotspot - and whenever they change, some group of people is unhappy. Have you ever seen an article in the paper that said "District X held a meeting to discuss boundary changes and every resident that spoke was completely happy and in support of the proposed changes"? I haven't. That's the reasoning behind my position. Frequent changes of boundaries isn't a good thing. And, due to the MV location change, we've essentially had 2 boundary changes over the last 2 years for the MV boundaries. To even consider having to tell the current 7th graders and/or 8th graders and/or freshman that "sorry, but for the 3rd time in 3 years, we're changing your school assignment" doesn't seem very reasonable. Nor does it seem reasonable to, say in 2010, shift a group of kids around in 2010, possibly having some kids attend 3 different schools in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Yes, kids can adapt, but unnecessarily putting them through that kind of change cannot be a good thing. And I said "unnecessarily" because I have yet to see a comprehensive plan that is proven to be "better" and doesn't result in a group of unhappy people.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 10:05:20 GMT -5
Let's be fair about exactly all the 'other boards' aresaying if you are going to quote them. Goal 1 is to change the status quo - which a number of areas believe leave them without a voice - in some cases ignore them, in other cases have actually been antagonistic to them. The only way to do that is to change the voting block ( and let's not pretend there is not one) - driven by power that has maybe been there too long and lost sight and vision The best quote I have ever heard on this was by an ex CEO of IBM - he stated when he joined that no CEO should ever stay in power more than 7 years as at that point they begin to lose any peripheral vision, and can't see the forest for the trees. He held true to his word and left in a few months after his 7 years..I believe the powers that be here have this issue- and I am far from alone in that feeling--- There are plenty of reasons for that feeling and rehashing them again will only get me another 'warning' Now IF that changes - and someone has a BETTER plan ( who knows , if one is actually put forth even some here might agree with it) - why is that a Bad thing ? I keep reading how we need to try and make things better for all. Well they are not better for all right now. So do we stop trying because some like things exactly as they are ? If that was the case the school would notbe being built where it is either. The reason given for that was they kept looking for the best plan that would work --so do we have the 'perfect plan' now ? Of course if one has exactly what they want right now - they don't want to think anyone would even look at it...but is that better for all ? Or back to - shut up, sit down and take another one for the team ? You don't want another park district board that can;t get along - andI submit not getting along is not the issue there-,it is the wrong people in place. Why hire someone to run it who spends more time running their own biz venture than their #1 job ? etc. Is it better to have a rubber stamp board ? I suggest, no it isn't and there are also some people here on this board who agree with that. If there is a better boundary situation out there, why not take a look at it. If there isn't - then that will come out also. To close the books and say it is what it is - too bad is not the type of board I want either, on any topic. The same holds true for the A/C issue and other issues. I don;t see this as a mutiny. Let me ask this question- do you want change in Springfield so that maybe this state government can accomplish something for ALL the people of Illinois versus the power structure that is in place today ? I know I do - I don't want Emil Jones the III to step right in and keep on keepin on the way things run today... That is not a mutiny- that is called a democratic process. btw - one of the reasons ( at the time ) the incumbents received a lot of votes and challengers did not was the 'fear' that the newcomers would change the boundaries -- vs. leaving them alone. And what was the end result anyway - boundaries changed and became a modified Option 6. So I understand why there is concern - but if these boundaries are better ( yes I know the location changed)- they are as a result of oging over them again. ok- likely I'll be slapped for this - even though again I did not bring up the topic DRW - you raise some valid points, however when the location changed, the boundaries had to change - it's called adapting to the situation at hand. It's also a fact that some people where not happy with the BB location and/or the selected boundaries for the BB locations - they had their reasons, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with them. And, there are people now that are unhappy with the MV location and/or boundaries, for whatever reason - I ask: what's the difference? In some cases, it's different people that are unhappy. Since you were happy with the BB location and boundaries and you are now unhappy with the final MV location and/or boundaries, you have quantified your unhappiness and you have spent time trying coming up with a "better" plan. Better for who? Your area, and maybe some other areas. But at what cost? "Worse" for some other areas? Probably - I'd be shocked if anyone could come up with a comprehensive ES, MS, HS boundary plan that is both proven to be "better" (whatever that means) and does not make some group of people unhappy. Do you have insight into all of the considerations that were made to get to final boundaries? Are they all quantifiable, such that one could even argue that one set of boundaries is "better" than another? I doubt it. But, if someone wants to try, I guess that's OK. All I know is that boundaries are an emotional hotspot - and whenever they change, some group of people is unhappy. Have you ever seen an article in the paper that said "District X held a meeting to discuss boundary changes and every resident that spoke was completely happy and in support of the proposed changes"? I haven't. That's the reasoning behind my position. Frequent changes of boundaries isn't a good thing. And, due to the MV location change, we've essentially had 2 boundary changes over the last 2 years for the MV boundaries. To even consider having to tell the current 7th graders and/or 8th graders and/or freshman that "sorry, but for the 3rd time in 3 years, we're changing your school assignment" doesn't seem very reasonable. Nor does it seem reasonable to, say in 2010, shift a group of kids around in 2010, possibly having some kids attend 3 different schools in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Yes, kids can adapt, but unnecessarily putting them through that kind of change cannot be a good thing. And I said "unnecessarily" because I have yet to see a comprehensive plan that is proven to be "better" and doesn't result in a group of unhappy people. I totally understand there were people unhappy with BB. What I look for is some objective data such as not sending any ES to the scenic drive HS from their home area. I see this as important for the same linkage reasons as some see no MS splits- continuity and sense of friendships. If one is important the other should be also. There is also the cost factor- with gas. There is a safety factor which just got raised exponentially by the CN-EJE situation. And btw- you already know you can't count me ( and a few other Watts posters here ) into the group who was thrilled with BB either - I still would have preferred staying at WVHS for a myriad of other reasons, but accepted BB because it didn't screw us over with 2 of the districts longets commutes for MS AND HS. So the other hits we would have taken were our hits for the team so to speak. When they continued to mulitply is when people got upset. I totally understand there will NEVER be 100% happy in this - I move people around the world - job to job in my real life....I don't try to make all of them happy, but I do try and apply a set of factors that does not single out a group or two with a larger burden than the others. I would rather share some of the discomfort - than have say 4 groups thrilled and 3 groups upset. So yes I agree a 'perfect ' plan where everyone is jumping for joy is not possible - but I do believe one is possible where there are not clear winners and losers. I also wouldagree that moving kids 3 times would be wrong but I don't follow your logic as to how that occirs - if thereis a boundary change I would absoultey want it to go into effect BEFORE the school opens, not after. I agree even if it got it more right - that would be hard on the kids. Changing 'future' assignment may not be easy on them, but I don't viewit as catclysmic either - trust me there are tougher changes to explain than WV of MV or NV. It's my feeling on it - and again I do not begrudge those who benefit lets say more for the sake of argument, from this - the school is being built where it's being built- that horse has left the barn and there is no sense in going thru that again. My thoughts now are to make it the best possible situation for all involved - make sure those kids that start in 2009 get everything in the way of a complete HS experience they deserve regardless of which of the 3 high schools they go to. Make sure all parents feel their concerns were heard ( this is not true today) - and that all that could be done to equalize commutes/costs/opportunities etc was done. I agree this should be a very happy time for the district- but for all people in the district- and today you have to admit that is not the case. While it may never be, I believe it can be more comprehensive than it is today. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but it's how I and I know more than a few others feel. And yes I understand the overcrowding issue - and it affects everyone, some more than others.. and even with the population coming in 1500 under the worst case scenario, it will ease things today- agreed. I know it may not seem that way at times, but I am not trying to be the 'bad guy' on this issue, just feel very passionately that the situation could indeed be a lot better for my area -and should have been. Never asked for ideal - 3rd closest MS and 2nd closest HS I don't think were unreasonable requests. I , like you, want the children here to get the best education and school expience possible - all of them, not just mine or my neighbors. There was no prouder 204 parent than me - and most people here know that - and when I lost a lot of that, it was not fun. Not soimething I like or wear as any 'badge of honor' - I am truly sad about it. I miss wearing green and gold war paint and headdress - and feeling prouder than a peacock when we spank 203 at something.... I did not ask for this...it was dictated to me... that's what hurts. So please consider that any candidate that may at least want to take a look at boundaries before school opens, might not be an evil person.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Aug 29, 2008 11:58:38 GMT -5
I am sorry Doc. Especially with the big game tonight it has gotta hurt.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 12:09:10 GMT -5
I am sorry Doc. Especially with the big game tonight it has gotta hurt. I'll still be pulling for them- and my oldest daughter will be there with some of her friends, some are ex FB players there... but yes, it does - I will be at the Benet - Oswego home game tonight - cheering wholeheartedly for the RedWings.....so the family will be spread around. the one exception re: Warriors will be in any Benet - WVHS volleyball games - my allegiance will clearly be with the Red & White that day.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 29, 2008 13:17:34 GMT -5
- which a number of areas believe leave them without a voice - in some cases ignore them, in other cases have actually been antagonistic to them. The only way to do that is to change the voting block ( and let's not pretend there is not one) - driven by power that has maybe been there too long and lost sight and vision drwho, I appreciate these thoughtful, heartfelt, and sincere comments. FWIW...I think those three adjectives describe all your posts here, and that means a lot. Let me give a quick perspective, from the "middle of the district". (I hope you find it an impartial perspective) Concerning SB candidates..., a much-spoken refrain from some voters such as yourself, and some on the Blue Board, is "We are without a voice, we have not been heard." More specifically, of course, it seems to be "we are without voice" on two issues only: MV site and boundaries. There are myriad of other school issues were in the past, present (and future I am certain) where I understand you and others making that claim are heard just fine. Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored. For many of us to hear "we were ignored" as a big campaign issue or motivation for some...that will be hard for many around the district to really follow. We will look back on the public meetings, the open microphones for anybody to talk, the Administration inviting anybody to submit their own boundary plan with criteria and due dates, and so on. That doesnt translate into not being heard, in my mind. And lets not forget the great attention lavished on this topic by the local media with headlines and LTEs. Nor, the willingness and ability of a small group to take this to an unprecedented level of having this heard by the courts. By many avenues, the very last word that could be used to describe the site/boundry choice situation is "ignored"! Yes, decisions were made. No, they were not ideal. Nor was there perfectly ideal solutions available---after much much thinking and discussion. I am with maclovin and the rest, SB candidates need to move on the the next set of issues and challenges.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 13:53:21 GMT -5
- which a number of areas believe leave them without a voice - in some cases ignore them, in other cases have actually been antagonistic to them. The only way to do that is to change the voting block ( and let's not pretend there is not one) - driven by power that has maybe been there too long and lost sight and vision drwho, I appreciate these thoughtful, heartfelt, and sincere comments. FWIW...I think those three adjectives describe all your posts here, and that means a lot. Let me give a quick perspective, from the "middle of the district". (I hope you find it an impartial perspective) Concerning SB candidates..., a much-spoken refrain from some voters such as yourself, and some on the Blue Board, is "We are without a voice, we have not been heard." More specifically, of course, it seems to be "we are without voice" on two issues only: MV site and boundaries. There are myriad of other school issues were in the past, present (and future I am certain) where I understand you and others making that claim are heard just fine. Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored. For many of us to hear "we were ignored" as a big campaign issue or motivation for some...that will be hard for many around the district to really follow. We will look back on the public meetings, the open microphones for anybody to talk, the Administration inviting anybody to submit their own boundary plan with criteria and due dates, and so on. That doesnt translate into not being heard, in my mind. And lets not forget the great attention lavished on this topic by the local media with headlines and LTEs. Nor, the willingness and ability of a small group to take this to an unprecedented level of having this heard by the courts. By many avenues, the very last word that could be used to describe the site/boundry choice situation is "ignored"! Yes, decisions were made. No, they were not ideal. Nor was there perfectly ideal solutions available---after much much thinking and discussion. I am with maclovin and the rest, SB candidates need to move on the the next set of issues and challenges. I appreciate you views and know you are not part of the sit down and shut up contingent, however I beg to differ and will let others from here speak also- but I know how they feel: "Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored." Why did Owen East ( 2 minutes south) require a change as well as discussion ( albeit I don't believe it was a real discussion) at the SB meeting on boundaries and yet Watts did not. The Watts issue was raised by a very sincere and well spoken parent - while no one on the board paid any attention whatsoever ? Why ? Yes, we spent a lot of time on our boundary proposal and it was not chosen - my bigger issue is that is was not read either. A SB member when addressing 3 of the authors of it told us we were moving walkers so he put it down. We in no way shape or form were moving walkers- so either he didn't read it - or he attirbuted someone else's to us. So YES, we were ignored at that meeting and at meetings before and after that. It seems some areas warranted discussion - yet we somehow did not. Yet we were replacing the longest commute in the district today - which was deemed unacceptable also, and that doesn't even get an explanation or mention ? The only conclusion I can reach unfortunately is that we were a 'done deal' going where we were and nothing was going to even get anyone to look at anything else. Why is that ? How much wouldit take to explain how yes we now have the same worst case scenario commute from the 2 HS scenario even though we have 3, and here is how we tried to address that but could not. That's assuming anyone tried. I do believe talking about how bad the commute was from some areas - then replicating it even though we put up a 3rd HS warrants some discussion and explanation. Call me crazy. Why did discussion occur on TG - on Welch, on Peterson, on OwenEast ( btw Owen west thrown under the bus also) - The only discussion item on us was to move 30 kids from 5 miles away to our ES. So, although I appreciate your input on this- our experiences here tell me were are ignored. For a number of us heavily involved in this from day day - once we questioned what happened - communication stopped. No one wanted to hear it. One person continued to talk to us and they were from Admin... Also you don't know all of the items going on with Watts parents and the district re: FOIA requests / hearing issues etc that are going unanswered - so I may have more info that you on the level of not paying attention to us ( not that you could know that - or should - I'm just saying so don't take it negatively ) I am not speaking for anyone but myself and my area- so bringing upother issues in here that are not Watts issues is not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 29, 2008 14:09:42 GMT -5
drwho, I appreciate these thoughtful, heartfelt, and sincere comments. FWIW...I think those three adjectives describe all your posts here, and that means a lot. Let me give a quick perspective, from the "middle of the district". (I hope you find it an impartial perspective) Concerning SB candidates..., a much-spoken refrain from some voters such as yourself, and some on the Blue Board, is "We are without a voice, we have not been heard." More specifically, of course, it seems to be "we are without voice" on two issues only: MV site and boundaries. There are myriad of other school issues were in the past, present (and future I am certain) where I understand you and others making that claim are heard just fine. Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored. For many of us to hear "we were ignored" as a big campaign issue or motivation for some...that will be hard for many around the district to really follow. We will look back on the public meetings, the open microphones for anybody to talk, the Administration inviting anybody to submit their own boundary plan with criteria and due dates, and so on. That doesnt translate into not being heard, in my mind. And lets not forget the great attention lavished on this topic by the local media with headlines and LTEs. Nor, the willingness and ability of a small group to take this to an unprecedented level of having this heard by the courts. By many avenues, the very last word that could be used to describe the site/boundry choice situation is "ignored"! Yes, decisions were made. No, they were not ideal. Nor was there perfectly ideal solutions available---after much much thinking and discussion. I am with maclovin and the rest, SB candidates need to move on the the next set of issues and challenges. I beg to differ and will let others from here speak also- but I know how they feel: "Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored." Why did Owen East ( 2 minutes south) require a change as well as discussion ( albeit I don't believe it was a real discussion) at the SB meeting on boundaries and yet Watts did not. The Watts issue was raised by a very sincere and well spoken parent - while no one on the board paid any attention whatsoever ? Why ? Yes, we spent a lot of time on our boundary proposal and it was notchosen - my issue is that is was not read either. A SB member when addressing 3 of the authors of it told us we were moving walkers so he put it down. We in no way shape or form were moving walkers- so either he didn't read it - or he attirbuted someone else's to us. So YES, we were ignored at that meeting and at meetings before and after that. It seems some areas warranted discussion - yet we somehow did not.Yet we were replacing the longest commute in the district today - which was deemed unacceptable also, and that doesn't even get an explanation or mention ? The only conclusion I can reach unfortunately is that we were a 'done deal' going where we were and nothing was going to even get anyone to look at anything else. Why is that ? Why did discussion occur on TG - on Welch, on OwenEast ( btw Owen west thrown under the bus also) - The only discussion item on us was to move 30 kids from 5 miles away to our ES. So, although I appreciate your input on this- our experiences here tell me were are ignored. For a number of us heavily involved in this from day day - once we questioned what happened - communication stopped. No one wanted to hear it. One person continued to talk to us and they were from Admin... I am not speaking for anyone but myself and my area- so bringing upother issues in here that are not Watts issues is not relevant. we're veering off topic, but I'll continue the slide AND I won't lock this thread (I assume we'll start a new SB vacancy thread when the "finalists" are announced)... Glad that you just labeled your post as being MW-centric and MW-serving. I could list other areas that want their areas "fixed", too. When does it end? Some fairly motivated & smart people have worked on alternate boundary proposals since the MV location was finalized. If there was a comprehensive (ES, MS, HS) plan that was clearly "better", I would think that we would have seen it by now. If there's someone out there that gets an SB position (steering this thread back on topic!), and can come up with something that nobody in the entire district has been able to come up with, I'd be shocked. But I don't think it should be discounted, without it being looked at. What I think will be hard is defining how it is "better", without it looking like it is "worse" for others - or, better said, how it is "better" for the entire district. EDIT: updated the last sentence
|
|
|
Post by sardines on Aug 29, 2008 14:35:52 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I think it sucks that your area was treated the way they were. I do think minimally, an explanation would have been reasonable especially after I'm sure a considerable amount of time and energy was devoted to the project. I also know that a lot of groups submitted their own boundary designs and ultimately somebody had to decide on the best of what was workable and move forward. As I objectively look at the boundary maps on the IPSD.ORG website, it appears to me that based on the locale of the 3 high schools and the geographic outlines of our District, Butterfield and Watts areas either have been or will travel further than most in the district. Butterfield currently, as they travel to WV and Watts in the future as they travel to Metea. Watts would have benefitted travel wise, greatly from MV at the BB locale, but Butterfield would not have. With Owen being even South of Watts, I do see why that area was directed to WV. ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Documents/Boundaries/Boundary_Map_Packet_0910.pdfI know this topic has been rehashed over and over and ultimately I suspect that HOW you were treated is just as important/impactful as where the Watts area was ultimately assigned. I do think it's vital that people feel heard and respected and hopefully the new candidate will bring this to the SB table from us "little people"
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 14:48:35 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I think it sucks that your area was treated the way they were. I do think minimally, an explanation would have been reasonable especially after I'm sure a considerable amount of time and energy was devoted to the project. I also know that a lot of groups submitted their own boundary designs and ultimately somebody had to decide on the best of what was workable and move forward. As I objectively look at the boundary maps on the IPSD.ORG website, it appears to me that based on the locale of the 3 high schools and the geographic outlines of our District, Butterfield and Watts areas either have been or will travel further than most in the district. Butterfield currently, as they travel to WV and Watts in the future as they travel to Metea. Watts would have benefitted travel wise, greatly from MV at the BB locale, but Butterfield would not have. With Owen being even South of Watts, I do see why that area was directed to WV. ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Documents/Boundaries/Boundary_Map_Packet_0910.pdfI know this topic has been rehashed over and over and ultimately I suspect that HOW you were treated is just as important/impactful as where the Watts area was ultimately assigned. I do think it's vital that people feel heard and respected and hopefully the new candidate will bring this to the SB table from us "little people" Thank you sardines and you could not be more right. It is why I chose the word ignored and still believe it to be the correct one. Add to that fact that those who submitted our proposal were people who worked tirelessly over the past 3 years to pass the referendum / get people elected /made trips to political officeholders /made calls to Springfield/ and previously held various offices/positions within the district and the deaf ear and lack of response is even more upsetting. None of that means we should have gotten our way - but one would have hoped it would at least have warranted an explanation- and some public discussion. It did not. Yes BB would have helped us but not the Ginger Woods area and understand why that site would not have been their first choice - am aware of that. I also was vocal that Brookdale's being the only ES from Hill at WVHS needed to be addressed. I don't mind split MS, but not split 3-1. I don't think you'd find many here who would have minded joining them at WVHS. As far as Owen East - if they were going to split that school then they should have gone to NV - looking at any map. That is not a large population. I went on the assumption based on what was being said that ALL boundaries were up for review , including ES. This was likely the last chance to do that and fix places like Lehingh Station also- and all of Peterson - as we will not be building any time in the future. Why was that not done ? What was the magic of announcing FINAL boundaries in January ? I understand why it was done the first time - that was to secure a passing vote for the referendum - we even hired someone to help us figure that one out. But what was magic about January an not taking another 90 - 120 days to address ALL boundary issues at all levels ? But once the site changed they had an opportunity for NO ONE to have that lousy commute - and we did nothing about it
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 14:59:37 GMT -5
I beg to differ and will let others from here speak also- but I know how they feel: "Just because your choice on site was not picked, doesnt mean the SB didnt hear you. Just because your boundary plan was not picked doesnt mean you were ignored." Why did Owen East ( 2 minutes south) require a change as well as discussion ( albeit I don't believe it was a real discussion) at the SB meeting on boundaries and yet Watts did not. The Watts issue was raised by a very sincere and well spoken parent - while no one on the board paid any attention whatsoever ? Why ? Yes, we spent a lot of time on our boundary proposal and it was notchosen - my issue is that is was not read either. A SB member when addressing 3 of the authors of it told us we were moving walkers so he put it down. We in no way shape or form were moving walkers- so either he didn't read it - or he attirbuted someone else's to us. So YES, we were ignored at that meeting and at meetings before and after that. It seems some areas warranted discussion - yet we somehow did not.Yet we were replacing the longest commute in the district today - which was deemed unacceptable also, and that doesn't even get an explanation or mention ? The only conclusion I can reach unfortunately is that we were a 'done deal' going where we were and nothing was going to even get anyone to look at anything else. Why is that ? Why did discussion occur on TG - on Welch, on OwenEast ( btw Owen west thrown under the bus also) - The only discussion item on us was to move 30 kids from 5 miles away to our ES. So, although I appreciate your input on this- our experiences here tell me were are ignored. For a number of us heavily involved in this from day day - once we questioned what happened - communication stopped. No one wanted to hear it. One person continued to talk to us and they were from Admin... I am not speaking for anyone but myself and my area- so bringing upother issues in here that are not Watts issues is not relevant. we're veering off topic, but I'll continue the slide AND I won't lock this thread (I assume we'll start a new SB vacancy thread when the "finalists" are announced)... Glad that you just labeled your post as being MW-centric and MW-serving. I could list other areas that want their areas "fixed", too. When does it end? Some fairly motivated & smart people have worked on alternate boundary proposals since the MV location was finalized. If there was a comprehensive (ES, MS, HS) plan that was clearly "better", I would think that we would have seen it by now. If there's someone out there that gets an SB position (steering this thread back on topic!), and can come up with something that nobody in the entire district has been able to come up with, I'd be shocked. But I don't think it should be discounted, without it being looked at. What I think will be hard is defining how it is "better", without it looking like it is "worse" for others - or, better said, how it is "better" for the entire district. EDIT: updated the last sentence " But I don't think it should be discounted, without it being looked at. " That's all I am asking - let's not demonize someone who will want to look at it. Thank you for not locking as I am trying to make sure this dialogue is as positive as can be, and offers solutions to how we got here as opposing to just complaining about it. AS far as MW centric - yes, no denying that, but then we are the one who 'inherited' that horrific commute that others have had - and by adding a 3rd school, no one should have, not MW or any other school. No plans submitted gave anyone what we have. When you ask how could it be better - I just tried to include that in my last post. When boundaries came up the discussion was to look at ALL levels of boundaries. This is likely our last chance where that makes sense because we are building. This should be it for that. Get rid of all the satellites for ES's ( we have 3, one as far as 5 miles from the school ) - put ALL boundaries on the table - from ES thru HS and apply one last common sense approach to who goes where. Why was this not done ? What was magical about the date in January ? What would have been different about say April and this type of work done ? That is where I believe we should have started and that is not MW centric. maybe we could have avoided split ES's / satellites etc.- in fact that should have been a mandate. I believe it also could have resulted in better bus routes for all areas as well and elimination of double busses. Ask someone in 203 about the bus route issues they are having right now as they try and save some money and they have areas of attendance that make no sense as well - they addressed a few ES's and not the others, now they have an uproar. People in my sisters area have taken to driving the kids to school. Now they got a note that they will go back to the old routes until more work can be done. There will comea day here - likely soon where we will need to save transportation costs also - why not sent that up - top to bottom now for the best efficiency we can ? A lot of work yes, but with us spending $150 million on this project - we could have spent a $100Kmore and got someone to do this objectively.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 29, 2008 15:01:34 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I think it sucks that your area was treated the way they were. I do think minimally, an explanation would have been reasonable especially after I'm sure a considerable amount of time and energy was devoted to the project. I also know that a lot of groups submitted their own boundary designs and ultimately somebody had to decide on the best of what was workable and move forward. As I objectively look at the boundary maps on the IPSD.ORG website, it appears to me that based on the locale of the 3 high schools and the geographic outlines of our District, Butterfield and Watts areas either have been or will travel further than most in the district. Butterfield currently, as they travel to WV and Watts in the future as they travel to Metea. Watts would have benefitted travel wise, greatly from MV at the BB locale, but Butterfield would not have. With Owen being even South of Watts, I do see why that area was directed to WV. ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Documents/Boundaries/Boundary_Map_Packet_0910.pdfI know this topic has been rehashed over and over and ultimately I suspect that HOW you were treated is just as important/impactful as where the Watts area was ultimately assigned. I do think it's vital that people feel heard and respected and hopefully the new candidate will bring this to the SB table from us "little people" Thank you sardines and you could not be more right. It is why I chose the word ignored and still believe it to be the correct one. Add to that fact that those who submitted our proposal were people who worked tirelessly over the past 3 years to pass the referendum / get people elected /made trips to political officeholders /made calls to Springfield/ and previously held various offices/positions within the district and the deaf ear and lack of response is even more upsetting. None of that means we should have gotten our way - but one would have hoped it would at least have warranted an explanation- and some public discussion. It did not. Yes BB would have helped us but not the Ginger Woods area and understand why that site would not have been their first choice - am aware of that. I also was vocal that Brookdale's being the only ES from Hill at WVHS needed to be addressed. I don't mind split MS, but not split 3-1. I don't think you'd find many here who would have minded joining them at WVHS. As far as Owen East - if they were going to split that school then they should have gone to NV - looking at any map. That is not a large population. I went on the assumption based on what was being said that ALL boundaries were up for review , including ES. This was likely the last chance to do that and fix places like Lehingh Station also- and all of Peterson - as we will not be building any time in the future. Why was that not done ? What was the magic of announcing FINAL boundaries in January ? I understand why it was done the first time - that was to secure a passing vote for the referendum - we even hired someone to help us figure that one out. But what was magic about January an not taking another 90 - 120 days to address ALL boundary issues at all levels ? But once the site changed they had an opportunity for NO ONE to have that lousy commute - and we did nothing about it Doc, you've had literally hundred's of posts about what's wrong with the boundaries, and how you think they should be "fixed". You do have a comprehensive (ES, MS, HS) plan that you want to share with us? Maybe you can generate some support here. Until we see something, it's vapor-ware. If you do, please put in a Boundaries thread.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 15:10:40 GMT -5
Thank you sardines and you could not be more right. It is why I chose the word ignored and still believe it to be the correct one. Add to that fact that those who submitted our proposal were people who worked tirelessly over the past 3 years to pass the referendum / get people elected /made trips to political officeholders /made calls to Springfield/ and previously held various offices/positions within the district and the deaf ear and lack of response is even more upsetting. None of that means we should have gotten our way - but one would have hoped it would at least have warranted an explanation- and some public discussion. It did not. Yes BB would have helped us but not the Ginger Woods area and understand why that site would not have been their first choice - am aware of that. I also was vocal that Brookdale's being the only ES from Hill at WVHS needed to be addressed. I don't mind split MS, but not split 3-1. I don't think you'd find many here who would have minded joining them at WVHS. As far as Owen East - if they were going to split that school then they should have gone to NV - looking at any map. That is not a large population. I went on the assumption based on what was being said that ALL boundaries were up for review , including ES. This was likely the last chance to do that and fix places like Lehingh Station also- and all of Peterson - as we will not be building any time in the future. Why was that not done ? What was the magic of announcing FINAL boundaries in January ? I understand why it was done the first time - that was to secure a passing vote for the referendum - we even hired someone to help us figure that one out. But what was magic about January an not taking another 90 - 120 days to address ALL boundary issues at all levels ? But once the site changed they had an opportunity for NO ONE to have that lousy commute - and we did nothing about it Doc, you've had literally hundred's of posts about what's wrong with the boundaries, and how you think they shold be "fixed". You do have a comprehensive (ES, MS, HS) plan that you want to share with us? Maybe you can generate some support here. Until we see something, it's vapor-ware. If you do, please put in a Boundaries thread. We started on it but ran out of time because of the January deadline. Again what was magical about January ? We already had decided on school placement and the ref monies were in hand. Do you not agree that a comprehensive plans should have been done ( and indeed was talked about by SB members and admin) - to fix all the anomlaies in attendance boundaries ? We created additional ones instead - it just made no sense. Also yes, we have a team that could do it and have expertise in a number of the areas involved - however do we not have an admin staff we pay to do that ? We can afford a PR guy but not a logisitical expert project manager ? I would gladly have paid an outside consultant to do the work - we spent money on lobbyists but not that ? I am sure plenty of people are glad it was another instead of me chosen last time, I would have tried as hard as I could to get an expert on school boundaries to address the entire district since the time was perfect. One board member did suggest that but fell on deaf ears, maybe 2 could have made a dffierence. All discussion on favoritism and 'deals' could have been avoided. btw - NEW THREAD STARTED
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 29, 2008 15:41:15 GMT -5
Why did Owen East ( 2 minutes south) require a change as well as discussion ( albeit I don't believe it was a real discussion) at the SB meeting on boundaries and yet Watts did not. The Watts issue was raised by a very sincere and well spoken parent - while no one on the board paid any attention whatsoever ? Why ? I think there is an objective answer to this. Its a matter of scale. As you mentioned, Owen East is a relatively small area. It has about 1/3 of an ES population. Now Cowlishaw Main and Watts Main are approaching 2 ES-worth population. Its reasonable to link Cowl and Watts together....because how would you make fair decision if only 1 was sent to WV? (I think you agreed with this principle, but i cant swear to it....it was a while ago we had these discussions.) So the SB had a "choice" in terms of balancing enrollments when it came to only 1/3 of an ES (the Owen E assignment question). And therefore, its worthy of some discussion on that choice. But concerning Watts and Cowl main, the large scale of their combined enrollments really curtailed the choices. Look, I am not saying they should have avoided your topic or not said anything at all about it. But any discussion or thought might have been saying things like "there isnt a whole lot of choice for the Watts Cowl HS assigments". If there were one...the discussion would have been a very difficult one. I am sure it would have centered more around the difficult question of where to fairly draw the lines through Steck and Mcc neighborhoods, and less on the couple of extra stoplights a Cowl or Watts main family has to drive to get to HS. Ifr the Steck and Mcc line was drawn, the next topic of discussion likely would have been addressing the Meadowlake/Chicory/Thatchers Grove issue with its HS commute and its Owen and Gombert splits by sending them into WV. I am sorry that this discussion didnt directly occur by the SB. I think that was a mistake on their part, a big one. But I am not sure there was much choice to discussion. I know the concept of the boundary proposal your group submitted. It was good thinking and had much merit. But in terms of a SB member not reading it (and I really hate to "gig" you on this again but....), if I were a SB member and a proposal without MS boundaries was brought to me, I wouldnt have read it either. I respectfully have to say you need to bear some responsibility there and cannot exclusively point the finger a SB member for "not reading it" (you know they were given several other complete proposals). To be fair, when you talk to people about the proposal being "ignored", that should be mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 29, 2008 17:26:02 GMT -5
GD,
There was not time for the deadline given to do all levels, so we worked on (with all the data we could gather including neighborhood populations) to attack the primary one first that was on everyone's mind... the HS level.
The other two levels took a back burner and in light of new data (and still some more needed, and deriving others based on the new bus routes for this year) another round will transpire for MS and ES. There is certainly time, and more recent and accurate data is needed that is not quite available yet. A good chunk of the work is deriving WHERE the students actually are and using the 'stops' as a start of the formula (minimum of N number of kids in a certain distance gets you a scheduled bus stop) gets you the rest.
Another piece of data, that will be requested, is a current grade level breakdown of each neighborhood/subdivision so that future 'bus loads' can be extrapolated. There is no doubt that some areas will see an increase in students as the years progress that need to be bussed and some will actually see a decrease, based on the grade-level population for each specific geographic area. With that data one can build in 'cushions' for growth and also make a decent 'guess' as to the busses required and the stops in each area to collect the kids.
As has been pointed out, this is not everyone's full time job but something that is being done on a 'when time permits' basis. I'm not entirely sure to what level of detail the data was looked at (if they were doing multi-year projections based on actuals or just using 'current numbers') for the current boundaries that are in place but they will be looked at from our angle.
Added: And Yes, even HS again should be re-done based on current actuals with year to year changes to the student numbers based on those actuals.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 30, 2008 10:42:17 GMT -5
Since the pool of 6 has been identified, a new thread has been started labeled "School Board candidates - Part 3".
|
|