|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 10:10:04 GMT -5
Post by steckdad on Sept 8, 2008 10:10:04 GMT -5
I posted this on another board...I will spin it a bit though.
why does the SB like or dislike your subdivision. I have gotten some good information on the other thread, but nothing in the way of reasons why.....let me hear ya.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 10:32:17 GMT -5
Post by gatormom on Sept 8, 2008 10:32:17 GMT -5
I posted this on another board...I will spin it a bit though. why does the SB like or dislike your subdivision. I have gotten some good information on the other thread, but nothing in the way of reasons why.....let me hear ya. For my subdivision, Gombert (we are the west portion attending Waubonsie), I don't think it is a matter of like or dislike. It is what it is. We exist. Our students are all attending excellent schools and that is enough for me. I should say that I am aware that there are those who believe omission of certain areas during the recent boundary discussions or hyperfocusing on other areas was an important indication of how the board felt. I don't recall them saying much about Gombert's split, half to Metea and half to Waubonsie but that didn't bother me. I am either too easy going or maybe its because I got what I wanted. I am having a hard time believing the SB dislikes any subdivision for any reason. I could see some personal dislikes, this person said this to me or that person emailed me a scathing email calling me names but disliking an area, just hard to fathom.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 10:44:57 GMT -5
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 8, 2008 10:44:57 GMT -5
I posted this on another board...I will spin it a bit though. why does the SB like or dislike your subdivision. I have gotten some good information on the other thread, but nothing in the way of reasons why.....let me hear ya. Personally I don't think it's a matter of liking or disliking any area. I think there is a perception within certain areas (MW/TG as examples) That they were "ignored", or that they were "discriminated against". Rather they did not like the answers or solutions ultimately chosen. I really do not think anyone is getting ignored...now I am on record and still feel this way too, that the SD/SB still needs to much work on their communication skills. A good anaolgy from before was you are in the store with your 3 yr old......He/She wants a toy and makes their case. You then decide they need a book instead.......They feel you ignored them, when actually your heard them just fine, but decided not to honor their request. You also explained your decision, but he/she is mad and not paying attention or could care less what you are saying. Now they complain to their friends that you are a big meanie for not getting them the toy............
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 14:13:56 GMT -5
Post by sushi on Sept 8, 2008 14:13:56 GMT -5
Steckdad - no way any area is being "punished" for anything. There is just no good way to split up a district of this size with the population divided the way it is. I just don't get why this is still being discussed - to me the way the areas were divided make sense with a few minor exceptions ( NOT TG OR WE ). However, most of the complaining is coming from these two areas (I live in WE and only some are complaining - don't know about TG except the ones who post). It is geographically the most logical move for WE and TG to move to WV - somebody had to move out of NV (2.5 schools to be exact) and Welch are TRULY walkers - I have seen them walk in all weather. The continued whining is the same thing over and over. It is time to move on and forward.
ETA: Not chastising you, SD, just the whining!
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 15:01:47 GMT -5
Post by asmodeus on Sept 8, 2008 15:01:47 GMT -5
But then what is the point of the original post, if not to whine or to bash those who he feels are whining?
I would tend to agree that particular subs are not necessarily liked/disliked, but if what you say is true -- that "there is just no good way to split up a district of this size with the population divided the way it is," then perhaps it is time to split the area into two or more districts.
I think that would be a more interesting discussion than which subs are "liked" by the SB.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 15:10:33 GMT -5
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 8, 2008 15:10:33 GMT -5
But then what is the point of the original post, if not to whine or to bash those who he feels are whining? I would tend to agree that particular subs are not necessarily liked/disliked, but if what you say is true -- that "there is just no good way to split up a district of this size with the population divided the way it is," then perhaps it is time to split the area into two or more districts. I think that would be a more interesting discussion than which subs are "liked" by the SB. You do realize that a split would be even more costly as now you would need a set of admin for the splitoff. Besides U46 is even bigger than us and they have tried to split and it keeps failing. sushi, it's not the whining we are worried about per se. Other boards/blogs appear to be starting up the discrimination angle again, and we thought it good to address it again, not to bash anyone, but hopefully set the record straight. IMO it's a perception thing...unless someone has concrete proof otherwise.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 15:25:37 GMT -5
Post by asmodeus on Sept 8, 2008 15:25:37 GMT -5
I'm not advocating it a split, but I think it would be an interesting to discuss how and why districts are formed the way they are.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 15:42:25 GMT -5
Post by eb204 on Sept 8, 2008 15:42:25 GMT -5
I agree with some of the other posters in that it is not a like/dislike by the SB or SD. I think some areas feel that way though because of they ways thinks shook out. We went through 2 rounds of boundary proposals, including the change of HS sites. I believe that people who were scheduled to go to the BB site now feel that the areas from the north are being acknowledged more because of the change of site. However, I don't think the two are related. When the HS was to be at BB, there were certain boundaries and some didn't like those. Then when the site got changed, and boundaries redone, another group of people didn't like the outcome. My opinion is they feel this move was done to "get back at them", when in fact, it was the change in location. Period.
I really don't know why many blame the SB for this. The administration came up with proposed boundaries and with the exception of Owen East being switched to WVHS, and maybe one other that I can't recall, those boundaries were accepted. And the SD administration drew the boundaries using the agreed upon criteria. I know there are some who felt they were screwed or were not listened to, but I feel the process was done fairly. I liked Parent's analysis as it hits the nail on the head. They voiced their concerns but just because they didn't change things for every areas doesn't mean that they were not heard. It was a case of we can't make everyone happy in a district this size.
Currently there are 4800 kids at NVHS. Someone had to move. Same with WVHS. Would I have preferred to go to a closer HS? Sure. But I knew all along that because of my location within this district, we could potentially have gone to any of the 3. As it stands, we are going to the one that is technically "farthest away." But I don't see it like that. I just don't. I guess it's because we've already got a long commute to ES - one of the longest ones in the district - and are closer to about 9 other ES's. But I'm not complaining about either situation. I feel very fortunate that we have such a great choice in where we send out kids to school in this district.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the SB dislikes any area. I think that's just how it is perceived. I do think the SB needs to do some things to change that perception, but at this point, pretty much anything the SB does is met with scrutiny and a whole lot of criticism. So aside from giving some areas what they want, I don't think there's much the SB can do to change things right now.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 16:16:23 GMT -5
Post by Arwen on Sept 8, 2008 16:16:23 GMT -5
I agree with Eb and Parent. My area switched from WV to MV with the new location. There was at least 1 boundary proposal for MV at BB where my area was assigned there. It wasn't selected, so we would have remained at WV (which was fine). I never felt like the SB was trying to torture or discriminate against my subdivision at that time. With the new location, I also didn't think the site was selected to make my area happy. The site change just happened to give us the benefit of a short commute rather than the Owen folks who would've gotten the short commute with BB. Neither neighborhood was targetted for preferential treatment, it was just how it worked out as circumstances changed for each site.
I do understand why some in TG are upset by the new circumstances. If I had purchased my house thinking that the commute to all my schools would be 10 minutes or less, I would not be happy either. The logic that the SB was specifically out to get them is where they lose me. As Sushi said, someone had to go out of NV. There were no other more logical or justifiable choices. (For example, if Gombert currently went to NV and they opted to leave Gombert there but move TG, then I would see some preferential treatment, but the best they could argue was to leave TG and take Welch which has more walkers so I don't see Welch being treated preferentially - my opinion).
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 16:37:08 GMT -5
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 8, 2008 16:37:08 GMT -5
I can't let this topic go without putting my two cents in. It is hard to say since no one knows what each SB member really thinks. People like to assume based on past performance but no one can say what anyone really feels which makes it all nonsense. I do believe that the SBs perseption of TG may have been tainted as a result of the loud mouth fools who seemed to think confrontation was the answer. Why should the SB be cooperative with a group of people that send nasty Emails and attempts to sue them? Yet no matter what I don't believe the SB really dislikes any area enough to base their boundary decision on those feelings.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 18:45:24 GMT -5
Post by sushi on Sept 8, 2008 18:45:24 GMT -5
I can't let this topic go without putting my two cents in. It is hard to say since no one knows what each SB member really thinks. People like to assume based on past performance but no one can say what anyone really feels which makes it all nonsense. I do believe that the SBs perseption of TG may have been tainted as a result of the loud mouth fools who seemed to think confrontation was the answer. Why should the SB be cooperative with a group of people that send nasty Emails and attempts to sue them? Yet no matter what I don't believe the SB really dislikes any area enough to base their boundary decision on those feelings. Exactly. It is a logical move.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 19:22:41 GMT -5
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 8, 2008 19:22:41 GMT -5
+++++++++++++++++++ It has to do with perception ------------------------------------------------
The concern of many in the district has to do with the process of decision making. For the life of me I can not understand how an advertised meeting asking for public comment can be followed up with major decisions being made within hours and done so at the very same meeting.
The process of taking public comment without a "time to process the input" could and has been mistaken as the board giving only lip service to the public comments.
This PERCEPTION of lip service only intensifies the emotions/beliefs held by some in the district.
A yes what a person perceives can be so much more powerful than what facts provide, more on the facts as I see them later.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 19:23:41 GMT -5
Post by asmodeus on Sept 8, 2008 19:23:41 GMT -5
I think many feel there was much more time spent on the BB boundaries than on the AME boundaries -- that the current ones weren't given nearly the same effort.
|
|
|
WHY?
Sept 8, 2008 22:12:01 GMT -5
Post by gatordog on Sept 8, 2008 22:12:01 GMT -5
I think many feel there was much more time spent on the BB boundaries than on the AME boundaries -- that the current ones weren't given nearly the same effort. but we participants of message boards know better. Plenty of time was spent...boundaries were discussed ad naseum since 2006! Look, asmo, I sort of see your point. Yes, there was not as much public time spent. However, I personally feel the quality of the public input in 2006 left much to be desired. It seemed like the last boundary "time spent" and public input was for largely for the benefit of a handful of subdivision homeowners associations to make the same points over and over and over again. I thought the "time spent" was more about making a political statement, than about fairly and logically determining boundaries. I personally think the last process and all that time spent didnt add a whole lot of value. Let me take it in a different direction....if more time were spent, would a "better" solution have been found? Well, surely people have spent plenty of time on these message boards. And really, nobody has come up with a clearly "better" solution, only ones that address one set of issues only to open up other sets of issues.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
WHY?
Sept 9, 2008 9:50:54 GMT -5
Post by sushi on Sept 9, 2008 9:50:54 GMT -5
Exactly, there is no perfect solution. I do feel although the public didn't spend time at meetings giving their opinions over and over ad nauseum, that Cathy Birkett and Jay Strang spent A LOT of time before presenting their recommendations. As GD said, make one area happy at the expense of another. Can we just make lemonade and move on?
|
|