|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Aug 31, 2008 12:53:52 GMT -5
With the appointment of a new board member it would be great if that person would have a fresh outlook on what will be important looking forward. Our district will be looking for a referendum in the not so distant future. This along with an aging adult population, stagnating tax base, and stagnating economy may prove to be a perfect storm.
Add the perception (by some) that the enrollment numbers where fudged to justify the third high school and some might say "you have a recipe for failure". I read this board and can't help but notice that some continue to argue borders and adequate neighborhood representation. For me these are mute points, my concern is the financing of the present and future district under much tougher economic conditions. It is becoming quite apparent that the boom of the 90's and real estate run up of this decade are well behind us. All one has to do is read the editorials about pension programs and salary packages to gov. /educators -- it is not hard to see how some may vote when they are asked to give more to district 204.
I would love to see a new board member with the financial expertise of BG to take us forward into this "unique period" of our district's history.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Aug 31, 2008 17:32:24 GMT -5
You seem to be implying that people from the south would not do so, while others would. I believe the vast majority of the candidates have the interests of all the kids at heart. However there are a few that are in it simply to change the boundries. I already mentioned one in an earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 31, 2008 18:56:38 GMT -5
No one questioned their time and dedication to their volunteer role- so we don't need a red herring discussion to try and draw the topic elsewhere. again if you are saying splitting two ES's in order to fit Owen East into WVHS was the best solution possible - when one of the criteria was to limit split schools - that's your call. I am saying one can see how someone would connect the dots to form a different conclusion. Whether that conclusion is right or not only the SB members and SD knows - not you nor I When people stop questioning things that seem to make less than perfect sense - I daresay we'll have bigger issues. Sorry to say it doesn't make them bad people I wasn't saying that at all (about the Owen split- it was never brought up in my post) nor was it a "red herring" question to direct the topic elsewhere. Trying to STAY on topic regarding the choosing of a school board member so the focus can get back to kids...again. My focus is on the kids also - I'll thank you not to insinuate it is not- however it is on ALL the kids. You don't have artisitic license to that focus. If you follow the disussion ( and the thread) - the response is in repsonse to comments made to me IN the thread- once again, if I veer the topic of course fine- if I am responding to others who have used the 'no split schools' as a reason for not considering other plans - when it was an integral part of the one we have- sorry I am going to respond. Getting tired of having to defend that.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Aug 31, 2008 21:01:23 GMT -5
Come on now enough with the attacks !
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 31, 2008 23:10:02 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that at all (about the Owen split- it was never brought up in my post) nor was it a "red herring" question to direct the topic elsewhere. Trying to STAY on topic regarding the choosing of a school board member so the focus can get back to kids...again. My focus is on the kids also - I'll thank you not to insinuate it is not- however it is on ALL the kids. You don't have artisitic license to that focus. If you follow the disussion ( and the thread) - the response is in repsonse to comments made to me IN the thread- once again, if I veer the topic of course fine- if I am responding to others who have used the 'no split schools' as a reason for not considering other plans - when it was an integral part of the one we have- sorry I am going to respond. Getting tired of having to defend that. Doctorwho, I don't know where or why you're coming up with these accusations, but I wasn't insinuating anything. And I certainly never said that I was the only one with focus on the kids, nor did I say that you weren't focus on the kids. I really don't know why you're getting so defensive. I didn't even say you veered off topic. Simply that I was trying to stay on topic. How you interpret things is up to you, but these personal attacks are uncalled for. Now, I'm going back to school board candidates/interviews. If you want to stay and argue, you'll be arguing by yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 1, 2008 2:00:13 GMT -5
My focus is on the kids also - I'll thank you not to insinuate it is not- however it is on ALL the kids. You don't have artisitic license to that focus. If you follow the disussion ( and the thread) - the response is in repsonse to comments made to me IN the thread- once again, if I veer the topic of course fine- if I am responding to others who have used the 'no split schools' as a reason for not considering other plans - when it was an integral part of the one we have- sorry I am going to respond. Getting tired of having to defend that. Doctorwho, I don't know where or why you're coming up with these accusations, but I wasn't insinuating anything. And I certainly never said that I was the only one with focus on the kids, nor did I say that you weren't focus on the kids. I really don't know why you're getting so defensive. I didn't even say you veered off topic. Simply that I was trying to stay on topic. How you interpret things is up to you, but these personal attacks are uncalled for. Now, I'm going back to school board candidates/interviews. If you want to stay and argue, you'll be arguing by yourself. Just to wrap up this tangent, I think this was the statement that was insulting and insinuating: " It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame."No, it's not all about that. Do we have a perfect district? No. When things get identified that do need improvement you can call it 'blame' if you wish. That is not discrediting. The discrediting is done by those that make the errors. If I make a mistake and you point it out, you are not discrediting me; I did it to myself with the error in the first place. The sames hold true for any other person or entity.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 1, 2008 7:04:52 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I don't know where or why you're coming up with these accusations, but I wasn't insinuating anything. And I certainly never said that I was the only one with focus on the kids, nor did I say that you weren't focus on the kids. I really don't know why you're getting so defensive. I didn't even say you veered off topic. Simply that I was trying to stay on topic. How you interpret things is up to you, but these personal attacks are uncalled for. Now, I'm going back to school board candidates/interviews. If you want to stay and argue, you'll be arguing by yourself. Just to wrap up this tangent, I think this was the statement that was insulting and insinuating: " It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame."No, it's not all about that. Do we have a perfect district? No. When things get identified that do need improvement you can call it 'blame' if you wish. That is not discrediting. The discrediting is done by those that make the errors. If I make a mistake and you point it out, you are not discrediting me; I did it to myself with the error in the first place. The sames hold true for any other person or entity. To say that the SB/Admin are not regularly ripped to shreds pretty much whenever news articles, press releases, transcripts of SB meetings, etc. are released would be a statement I'd have to disagree with, especially since the winter, and continuing on right now. It's done some on this board, and plenty on other board & blogs. Quotes are taken out of context & twisted, false rumors & innuendo are spread, and conspiracy theories are invented, for what appears to soley be for the purpose of discrediting the SB/Admin. I'm not pointing any fingers, but those who do it know who they are. And, it's usually those with an axe to grind. And to clear, I'm not saying that one can't disagree with a decision that's made.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 1, 2008 8:11:45 GMT -5
Doctorwho, I don't know where or why you're coming up with these accusations, but I wasn't insinuating anything. And I certainly never said that I was the only one with focus on the kids, nor did I say that you weren't focus on the kids. I really don't know why you're getting so defensive. I didn't even say you veered off topic. Simply that I was trying to stay on topic. How you interpret things is up to you, but these personal attacks are uncalled for. Now, I'm going back to school board candidates/interviews. If you want to stay and argue, you'll be arguing by yourself. Just to wrap up this tangent, I think this was the statement that was insulting and insinuating: " It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame."No, it's not all about that. Do we have a perfect district? No. When things get identified that do need improvement you can call it 'blame' if you wish. That is not discrediting. The discrediting is done by those that make the errors. If I make a mistake and you point it out, you are not discrediting me; I did it to myself with the error in the first place. The sames hold true for any other person or entity. in the case of these boards a lot of the mistakes pointed out are the posters opinion. which doesn't necessarily discredit the district. I would even go as far to say that the constant and repetitive posting of negative opinions about the school board over the same issues tends to discredit the poster and not the district....
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 1, 2008 9:34:28 GMT -5
Just to wrap up this tangent, I think this was the statement that was insulting and insinuating: " It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame."No, it's not all about that. Do we have a perfect district? No. When things get identified that do need improvement you can call it 'blame' if you wish. That is not discrediting. The discrediting is done by those that make the errors. If I make a mistake and you point it out, you are not discrediting me; I did it to myself with the error in the first place. The sames hold true for any other person or entity. in the case of these boards a lot of the mistakes pointed out are the posters opinion. which doesn't necessarily discredit the district. I would even go as far to say that the constant and repetitive posting of negative opinions about the school board over the same issues tends to discredit the poster and not the district.... Very well said Steckdad....However, that point is lost/unheeded by several posters on the boards/blogs/etc.......
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 1, 2008 9:37:28 GMT -5
Just to wrap up this tangent, I think this was the statement that was insulting and insinuating: " It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame."No, it's not all about that. Do we have a perfect district? No. When things get identified that do need improvement you can call it 'blame' if you wish. That is not discrediting. The discrediting is done by those that make the errors. If I make a mistake and you point it out, you are not discrediting me; I did it to myself with the error in the first place. The sames hold true for any other person or entity. in the case of these boards a lot of the mistakes pointed out are the posters opinion. which doesn't necessarily discredit the district. I would even go as far to say that the constant and repetitive posting of negative opinions about the school board over the same issues tends to discredit the poster and not the district.... Thank you for the agreement. "The discrediting is done by those that make the errors."
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 1, 2008 10:24:13 GMT -5
drwho, you are saying of course that for one recent SB decision (the boundaries) the deciding factor was SB member home address and conspiratoral deal making. There is the possiblity of another deciding factor on that decision: in their judgement and after getting input from the administration, it was the choice available that best met the criteria. Unless somebody can show a boundary plan that better meets the criteria, I find it unbelievably hard for these conspiracy theories to fly. I am saying it is feasable for someone to come to that conclusion based on the results- to deny that someone could connect those dots - right or wrong as I mentioned- is insincere. you can come to your own conlusion, I have no issue with that - but to blow it off as not possible I'm not buying into and the following is one of the reasons as for the best choice- since split schools were somethig to be avoided - we split 2 ES's to fit Owen East into WVHS - if that's an example of the best solution- I'd love to see the alternatives. first a minor typo above...only 1 additional ES was spilt to change Owen East back from MV to WV. Gombert already had been split. Concerning your example of the Owen East change, there was logic in that. The criteria was threefold: geography, enrollment balancing, and minimizing splits. In this case for Owen E, the SB made a choice to improve the geography at the expense of an ES split , with a relatively small number of students that made negligibal impact on enrollment balance and capacity. The SB had a choice with Owen E. The original proposal addressed the criteria in one way, while their chosen alteration satisfied it in another way. I think it makes perfect sense to explain what the SB decided here in terms of the above-board criteria. No, one can never dispel the thinking some will have that it was a "consipiracy". Well, maybe it was a conspiracy....a conspiracy to apply and use the established rules!
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 1, 2008 11:18:14 GMT -5
I am saying it is feasable for someone to come to that conclusion based on the results- to deny that someone could connect those dots - right or wrong as I mentioned- is insincere. you can come to your own conlusion, I have no issue with that - but to blow it off as not possible I'm not buying into and the following is one of the reasons as for the best choice- since split schools were somethig to be avoided - we split 2 ES's to fit Owen East into WVHS - if that's an example of the best solution- I'd love to see the alternatives. first a minor typo above...only 1 additional ES was spilt to change Owen East back from MV to WV. Gombert already had been split. Concerning your example of the Owen East change, there was logic in that. The criteria was threefold: geography, enrollment balancing, and minimizing splits. In this case for Owen E, the SB made a choice to improve the geography at the expense of an ES split , with a relatively small number of students that made negligibal impact on enrollment balance and capacity. The SB had a choice with Owen E. The original proposal addressed the criteria in one way, while their chosen alteration satisfied it in another way. I think it makes perfect sense to explain what the SB decided here in terms of the above-board criteria. No, one can never dispel the thinking some will have that it was a "consipiracy". Well, maybe it was a conspiracy....a conspiracy to apply and use the established rules! There are residents in Owen East who claim they were told 4 days before the meeting exactly that would go on at the boundary meeting and shared that with others - and to the letter of hte law it is exactly what happened.- but of course they are all relatives of Nostradamus. As for Gombert being split before- if you think the Owen East was actually a real change and not done before the meeting yes, however put Owen East back @ MV and neither Owen or Gombert have to be split do they ? But of course we couldn't split Hill- oh the humanity ! As far as geography the NW section of Owen east is only divided by 75th street from the SE section of Watts - but we are told- hey MV only a 'little' further than WV - suck it up -- ( and not even acknowledged distance wise by the Sd or SB) - but Owen East was a catastrophe ? Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 1, 2008 11:22:02 GMT -5
in the case of these boards a lot of the mistakes pointed out are the posters opinion. which doesn't necessarily discredit the district. I would even go as far to say that the constant and repetitive posting of negative opinions about the school board over the same issues tends to discredit the poster and not the district.... Very well said Steckdad....However, that point is lost/unheeded by several posters on the boards/blogs/etc....... yeah , I know " shut up and sit down" "take another one for the team" thankfully not everyone in history decided to just ' let it be' when something was wrong. and I know that we speak for more than just ourselves- I talk to these others every day in my area -
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 1, 2008 11:27:12 GMT -5
In the OE case, it seems splits are OK if it helps an area with geography. Why not continue that path and help others w/ geography. In fact, the more one splits, the better off MORE areas can get with respect to geography. In the end, that's what hits people in their wallets year after year. I doubt we will see a real individual survey of each family in the district as to whether or not geography matters more than splits or visa versa, so we can each have our opinions on that one.
While an opinion can say you are minimizing the families who experience a 'split' you are also not helping anywhere near as many parents who would thank the SB for minimizing their commute and subsequently their expenditures for their kids to attend HS.
In this economy, which way do you think people will vote; Splits, or saving money? I have my guesses.... And if more would vote geography then the SB did not accurately represent the district on that one.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 1, 2008 11:44:02 GMT -5
Well, arch, I'd like to see a plan for that with the enrollment numbers we gave you on the other thread. Don't worry about splitting anything up. See what you come up with. Then we can evaluate it. I would really like to see a plan we can all discuss instead of just rehashing what is wrong. If something makes sense, I can support it. But we need a plan, not just talk.
|
|