|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 22:29:17 GMT -5
Agreed Warriorpride... More important to me is that all children in 204 get a fantastic, equitable education regardless of boundaries. It's my opinion that 204 needs to move forward and get away from the boundary/inequality discussion. As I stated earlier in my post, it is my opinion we've become too focused on boundaries and have lost sight of our goals. McLovin, I agree with your numerous posts about the need to get over boundaries and focus on the education. Earlier someone posted this: One person that doesn't fit this criteria is Laura Thomson the TG HOA president who is running only to get Fry back into NV. Before the boundries were finalized the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. I might add for you Watts people (Arch and Doc) that this proposal sends MW and Cowl to MV as it is now. So Thomson doesn't have a problem with sending other kids elsewhere just so long as her area is kept at NV. These are the kind of people that we don't need.If this statement is true and this candidate wants to change boundaries, would you want her appointed? It sounds like that would be her "platform". If she doesn't get appointed, would this be someone you vote for in April? Or would you want someone who is more focused on the education and some of the issues you deem as important like foreign language, equitable education, etc.? Also wasn't this the same person who made a comment in the newspaper about the bridge over Rt. 59? If so, it doesn't sound like she's moved on at all. I don't think this is the type of person we need on the school board at all, if it's a single issue candidate. But I could be wrong...maybe I'm thinking of a different person. I agree that we should move on and we need candidates who are looking to the future, not the past.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 28, 2008 22:29:23 GMT -5
I've read some posts on this board that discount/trash a resident from a certain area because of boundaries. I've also read this and the original "blue board" for years. Let's face it, the discussion has centered on boundaries for the past 2 years at least. Do you disagree with that analogy WP? Or are you of the mindset that boundaries are the most important filter for anyone interested in a 204 board seat? Above and beyond anything else, boundaries are #! and the continued focus on this site and other sites. That bothers me, doesn't it bother some of you? Get over it. In my opinion, its time to move forward, you disagree it seems, right? I agree with you if you think that boundaries should move to the back-burner and remain untouched for a while - I never said it was the most important thing - however, I bet if you surveyed current 204 families, a majority would not want to hear any talk of boundary changes in the near future why has there been a focus of boundaries over the last 3 years? maybe ask the hundreds of people that have posted on boards, written LTEs, written emails to the SB, and spoken at SB meetings about boundaries You're right, the boundaries have been set and it's time to move on Time to move on for all of us. Is the ongoing boundary argument going to help any child in district 204? I don't think so, yet we've (myself included) wasted so much time discussing and debating the topic. It's my opinion we all need to focus on something else that will directly impact ALL of our kids regardless of where they attend school
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 28, 2008 22:35:39 GMT -5
Agreed Warriorpride... More important to me is that all children in 204 get a fantastic, equitable education regardless of boundaries. It's my opinion that 204 needs to move forward and get away from the boundary/inequality discussion. As I stated earlier in my post, it is my opinion we've become too focused on boundaries and have lost sight of our goals. McLovin, I agree with your numerous posts about the need to get over boundaries and focus on the education. Earlier someone posted this: One person that doesn't fit this criteria is Laura Thomson the TG HOA president who is running only to get Fry back into NV. Before the boundries were finalized the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. I might add for you Watts people (Arch and Doc) that this proposal sends MW and Cowl to MV as it is now. So Thomson doesn't have a problem with sending other kids elsewhere just so long as her area is kept at NV. These are the kind of people that we don't need.If this statement is true and this candidate wants to change boundaries, would you want her appointed? It sounds like that would be her "platform". If she doesn't get appointed, would this be someone you vote for in April? Or would you want someone who is more focused on the education and some of the issues you deem as important like foreign language, equitable education, etc.? Also wasn't this the same person who made a comment in the newspaper about the bridge over Rt. 59? If so, it doesn't sound like she's moved on at all. I don't think this is the type of person we need on the school board at all, if it's a single issue candidate. But I could be wrong...maybe I'm thinking of a different person. I agree that we should move on and we need candidates who are looking to the future, not the past. EB204, Have you spoken with this person? It seems that you have already made up your mind. Why don't you contact Ms. Thomson and ask some questions directly related to your concerns. I think that would be a fair thing to do. EB, your posts are a bit inflammatory, no? Do you have a grudge against certain areas in 204? Time to get over it... This district needs to unite and focus on the goal of education for all kids regardless of where they live.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 22:35:56 GMT -5
Boundaries can and should change if there is a compelling reason for them to be altered. I really think we all need to get over the boundary discussion and move on towards more important topics for our children. Foreign Language in Elementary School? one topic I'm concerned about. 203 is all over this. Why aren't we? Again, another reason for us to move on from our normal discussions of boundary related topics. Foreign language was discussed as one of the districts's goals at a school board meeting a few weeks ago. Very exciting stuff coming down the pike in this regard. Administration and the board seemed excited that this will be implemented. You should have been there! You would have been pleased with the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 22:44:58 GMT -5
McLovin, I agree with your numerous posts about the need to get over boundaries and focus on the education. Earlier someone posted this: One person that doesn't fit this criteria is Laura Thomson the TG HOA president who is running only to get Fry back into NV. Before the boundries were finalized the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. I might add for you Watts people (Arch and Doc) that this proposal sends MW and Cowl to MV as it is now. So Thomson doesn't have a problem with sending other kids elsewhere just so long as her area is kept at NV. These are the kind of people that we don't need.If this statement is true and this candidate wants to change boundaries, would you want her appointed? It sounds like that would be her "platform". If she doesn't get appointed, would this be someone you vote for in April? Or would you want someone who is more focused on the education and some of the issues you deem as important like foreign language, equitable education, etc.? Also wasn't this the same person who made a comment in the newspaper about the bridge over Rt. 59? If so, it doesn't sound like she's moved on at all. I don't think this is the type of person we need on the school board at all, if it's a single issue candidate. But I could be wrong...maybe I'm thinking of a different person. I agree that we should move on and we need candidates who are looking to the future, not the past. EB204, Have you spoken with this person? It seems that you have already made up your mind. Why don't you contact Ms. Thomson and ask some questions directly related to your concerns. I think that would be a fair thing to do. If by "her" you mean Laura Thompson, no I've not spoken to her. And if given the chance I will certainly ask that question of her or other candidates to see if they have intentions of changing boundaries and if so, why. And no, my mind is not made up as to who I am voting for, because the candidates for the April election have not been announced. And for this appointment, it really doesn't matter what I think. My question was simply if you agreed with this person (if indeed what Majorianthrax stated is true). You and I both seemed to agree that it is time to move on and that boundaries are in the past. I was curious if you would want this person appointed if she indeed has a change in boundaries in mind. Given your previous statements about boundaries and the need to move on, I thought we would be in agreement that this is someone we would not want to be appointed. I guess the better question might be - If this person were appointed, how would you feel if she did propose changes to the boundaries to suit her neighborhood instead of focusing on the entire district? It's a simple question, really....I'm not sure why you're telling me to talk to her. My question was for you, McLovin. Just curious. ETA: changed sentence to include "no, I've NOT spoken to her" instead of "no, I've spoken to her" - typo
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 28, 2008 22:48:08 GMT -5
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 22:49:18 GMT -5
McLovin, I agree with your numerous posts about the need to get over boundaries and focus on the education. Earlier someone posted this: One person that doesn't fit this criteria is Laura Thomson the TG HOA president who is running only to get Fry back into NV. Before the boundries were finalized the TG HOA submitted a proposal that of course kept Fry at NV and moved Springbrook to WV. On the middle school level this proposal sends Springbrook to Still, Peterson to Scullen and Welch to Gregory. I might add for you Watts people (Arch and Doc) that this proposal sends MW and Cowl to MV as it is now. So Thomson doesn't have a problem with sending other kids elsewhere just so long as her area is kept at NV. These are the kind of people that we don't need.If this statement is true and this candidate wants to change boundaries, would you want her appointed? It sounds like that would be her "platform". If she doesn't get appointed, would this be someone you vote for in April? Or would you want someone who is more focused on the education and some of the issues you deem as important like foreign language, equitable education, etc.? Also wasn't this the same person who made a comment in the newspaper about the bridge over Rt. 59? If so, it doesn't sound like she's moved on at all. I don't think this is the type of person we need on the school board at all, if it's a single issue candidate. But I could be wrong...maybe I'm thinking of a different person. I agree that we should move on and we need candidates who are looking to the future, not the past. EB204, Have you spoken with this person? It seems that you have already made up your mind. Why don't you contact Ms. Thomson and ask some questions directly related to your concerns. I think that would be a fair thing to do. EB, your posts are a bit inflammatory, no? Do you have a grudge against certain areas in 204? Time to get over it... This district needs to unite and focus on the goal of education for all kids regardless of where they live. Imflammatory? No, I was agreeing with you. I agreed with you that it's time to get over boundaries. No grudges against certain areas- and I know several people from TG - very nice families. Just curious as to your opinion since you also think boundaries are in the past.
|
|
we4
Junior
Let's Go Yankees......Let's Go Yankees
Posts: 204
|
Post by we4 on Aug 28, 2008 23:00:14 GMT -5
EB204, Have you spoken with this person? It seems that you have already made up your mind. Why don't you contact Ms. Thomson and ask some questions directly related to your concerns. I think that would be a fair thing to do. If by "her" you mean Laura Thompson, no I've not spoken to her. And if given the chance I will certainly ask that question of her or other candidates to see if they have intentions of changing boundaries and if so, why. And no, my mind is not made up as to who I am voting for, because the candidates for the April election have not been announced. And for this appointment, it really doesn't matter what I think. My question was simply if you agreed with this person (if indeed what Majorianthrax stated is true). You and I both seemed to agree that it is time to move on and that boundaries are in the past. I was curious if you would want this person appointed if she indeed has a change in boundaries in mind. Given your previous statements about boundaries and the need to move on, I thought we would be in agreement that this is someone we would not want to be appointed. I guess the better question might be - If this person were appointed, how would you feel if she did propose changes to the boundaries to suit her neighborhood instead of focusing on the entire district? It's a simple question, really....I'm not sure why you're telling me to talk to her. My question was for you, McLovin. Just curious. ETA: changed sentence to include "no, I've NOT spoken to her"in stead of "no, I've spoken to her" - typo I'm getting confused here. If a person wants to run for school board in April to get the boundaries changed, the person must know that they would need the existing school board's support. That is correct, right? No one person can change the boundaries, plus it would be very frustrating when the school board may not want to touch that with a 10 ft pole. So really does it matter why they want to run. If boundaries are truly the reason for applying for school board and many people see that and do not agree, that person may not be re-elected. And if the public likes what they see in a person solely there because of boundaries, then that person can get re-elected. It's part of the democratic process. disclaimer: spell check was replacing words in the previos post but I do not know which ones, so if posts are changed, it's spell check.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 23:12:02 GMT -5
If by "her" you mean Laura Thompson, no I've not spoken to her. And if given the chance I will certainly ask that question of her or other candidates to see if they have intentions of changing boundaries and if so, why. And no, my mind is not made up as to who I am voting for, because the candidates for the April election have not been announced. And for this appointment, it really doesn't matter what I think. My question was simply if you agreed with this person (if indeed what Majorianthrax stated is true). You and I both seemed to agree that it is time to move on and that boundaries are in the past. I was curious if you would want this person appointed if she indeed has a change in boundaries in mind. Given your previous statements about boundaries and the need to move on, I thought we would be in agreement that this is someone we would not want to be appointed. I guess the better question might be - If this person were appointed, how would you feel if she did propose changes to the boundaries to suit her neighborhood instead of focusing on the entire district? It's a simple question, really....I'm not sure why you're telling me to talk to her. My question was for you, McLovin. Just curious. ETA: changed sentence to include "no, I've NOT spoken to her" I'm getting confused here. If a person wants to run for school board in April to get the boundaries changed, the person must know that they would need the existing school board's support. That is correct, right? No one person can change the boundaries, plus it would be very frustrating when the school board may not want to touch that with a 10 ft pole. So really does it matter why they want to run. If boundaries are truly the reason for applying for school board and many people see that and do not agree, that person may not be re-elected. And if the public likes what they see in a person solely there because of boundaries, then that person can get re-elected. It's part of the democratic process. disclaimer: spell check was replacing words in the previos post but I do not know which ones, so if posts are changed, it's spell check. True, one person probably would not affect that much change in the current SB. But if 4 different people with those same set of goals of changing boundaries were all elected, it might be a different outcome. Thus, the reason for wanting to know where candidates stand. I only pulled out Laura Thompson because of what was posted earlier today. If there are others out there with a similar viewpoint running for the board in April, I would want to know that as well, so I would make sure not to vote for them. As much as I'd like MY kids to go to their closest HS when it is time for them to do so, I can't see putting the district through that turmoil again, especially only weeks/months before the school year begins. I would think that would really upset not only parents, but students as well. As McLovin said many times, it's time to move on and put boundaries behind us.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 28, 2008 23:17:32 GMT -5
Where they stand, or where they live? You can bet the candidates living in the "wrong" areas will be dismissed on that fact alone, regardless of what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 28, 2008 23:22:20 GMT -5
Where they stand, or where they live? You can bet the candidates living in the "wrong" areas will be dismissed on that fact alone, regardless of what they believe. For me, where they stand. The "areas" aren't a concern for me, but what they plan to do or work towards if elected. I agree, though, for some, it will be where people live and unfortunately, that may stay with some folks quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 28, 2008 23:26:38 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.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Aug 29, 2008 0:20:00 GMT -5
.... Time to move on for all of us. Is the ongoing boundary argument going to help any child in district 204? I don't think so, yet we've (myself included) wasted so much time discussing and debating the topic. It's my opinion we all need to focus on something else that will directly impact ALL of our kids regardless of where they attend school bravo! I think for much of the district this is a clear and obvious point. To turn back the clock...I surely wish a resident or residents of the "unhappy areas" would have publicly stepped forward with exactly these sentiments during mid-winter SB meetings and homeowner assoc clubhouse mtgs where lawsuit was planned. Or in LTEs. Now a person who had done that...showing courage, district-wide perspective, wisdom about what really is important ....wow, I could have seen them gaining a lot of district wide support for a SB candidacy.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 29, 2008 1:24:09 GMT -5
It's a nice wish, but that's not how politics works.
Any politician who tells what they truly believe stands no chance of winning, as they will inevitably offend certain segments of voters. And those voters will not "take one for the team" (e.g., senior citizens will not vote for someone who threatens to slash Social Security benefits even if it were to be proven that the money would be better spent on projects for the greater good). People will always vote for the person who promises to do the most for THEM (or, conversely, they won't vote for the person who threatens their demographic).
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 29, 2008 9:08:28 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. Just so I am as clear as I can be on this: It should NOT be the 'main' goal on anyone who gets elected in April - but I would hope it is part of a myriad of things they want to look at - which also includes: A/C for elementary schools , NCLB , facilities issues when MV opens and alternatives to ensure kids there get the same opportunities as those at NV & WV in 2009, and more open/honest communication with ALL areas in the district. Already being accused elsewhere of a slate to run on boundary changes only - why ? Likely because that would play into some peoples fears ( like split shifts) - If there is a better way why not look at it - if there is not, then there is not. I can't believe there isn't a way of accomplishing opening a 3rd HS without totally screwing a few areas over - and giving them longer commutes than people have today with 2 HS's ok- likely I'll be slapped for this - even though again I did not bring up the topic - so if this cotinues down this path - we should take to a new thread I argee
|
|