|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 12:18:49 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that. Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently. I do remember some from back then who didn't want their kids going to 'that' school with 'those' kids... where 'that' school was NV. I certainly can't speak for those people but I do know that I had initial concerns with my child fitting in at NV. I, like many others in this district, came to the conclusion eventually that these types of worries are adult problems and the kids in the end are just fine. Just like some who were afraid of my neighborhood and the children here, once you get to meet people throughout the district, you discover we are all pretty much the same; parents who want the best for their kids.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 12:19:28 GMT -5
GD, I appreciate your explanation... With that, throw the walkers of Steck and McCarty to MV then too in order to keep the neighborhoods together. The distance from there to MV is a lot closer than the distance from Cowl and Watts to MV (who are running double buses to get there).
Drop them (Cowl/Watts) back to single-bus schedules like today and send them to WV like today (no cost added) and send what would have been the double buses from Cowl/Watts (the new cost) to pick up the S/M walkers and make a short run up Eola to MV.
Can you tell if the cost to send a bus from Steck/McCarty area is cheaper or more expensive than a bus from Cowl/Watts?
That way, whole neighborhoods are kept together, right? And I would believe that COST would be cheaper to run them up Eola than running them up ogden/N.Aurora/Eola.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 5, 2008 12:32:33 GMT -5
But in practice I'll explain why this was very hard to do (and I looked long and hard at this): It is difficult to draw the boundary line without splitting up neighborhoods. You have to understand that. If not, just drive around there a bit and tell me...where do you draw the line?? Tough call! I agree that splitting ES's is not ideal but also not the end of the world. But having an arbitrary line going through a neighborhood.....that should absolutely be avoided in my opinion. That makes me very uncomfortable. I wouldnt want that to happen in my neighborhood. I'm not sure splitting neighborhoods is that big of a problem. Not all communities are made up of named subdivisions, yet they all have school boundaries. Where are the school boundaries for East and West Aurora districts I wonder? Not too many subdivisions, so there must be cases where kids on one side of the street attend a different school than kids on the other side (for ES and MS but not for HS since only one HS per district).
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 12:34:20 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that. Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently. I do remember some from back then who didn't want their kids going to 'that' school with 'those' kids... where 'that' school was NV. arch... you allusions to "these/those" is an unfair way to describe the issue. Maybe outsiders wanted to explain it in their minds in such overly simplistic terms. But that is not fully reflecting on the real issues: my area of Gombert was against Option 6 because we would have been an "island of all islands" a fraction of an ES being assigned to geographically further HS in which our MS assignement would have been terribly imbalanced in terms of future HS split. It was the BD problem in reverse! BD addressing their problems by imposing the same ones on Gombert. (and to the credit of many in BD, they came to fully understand this.) Of course the Gombert/BD "swap" would have solved that, but that was unpalatable to some across the district and in the administration.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 12:40:08 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that. Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently. no one is 'throwing stuff' at people, I am sorry but that is reality. You may be one of the exceptions , and I believe you truly are- who would have accepted any assignment, but to believe that is commonplace is not reality. People get transferred to new cities, it helps it if is a city you like, people get new job assignments- it helps if you find the job interesting and challenging -- so yes, there is a portion of what's in it for me, as I believe there is for almost everyone in any situation in life. Making it sound like a nasty thing, doesn't change that.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 12:42:47 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that. Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently. no one is 'throwing stuff' at people, I am sorry but that is reality. You may be one of the exceptions , and I believe you truly are- who would have accepted any assignment, but to believe that is commonplace is not reality. I know my neighbors. They would have been fine with it as well. Funny thing about Gombert community, we just kinda go where the district tells us without too much fuss. After all, we are assured of the same high quality education no matter where our kids end up. I understand this does nothing for Watts commute but you underestimate my neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 12:43:14 GMT -5
But in practice I'll explain why this was very hard to do (and I looked long and hard at this): It is difficult to draw the boundary line without splitting up neighborhoods. You have to understand that. If not, just drive around there a bit and tell me...where do you draw the line?? Tough call! I agree that splitting ES's is not ideal but also not the end of the world. But having an arbitrary line going through a neighborhood.....that should absolutely be avoided in my opinion. That makes me very uncomfortable. I wouldnt want that to happen in my neighborhood. I'm not sure splitting neighborhoods is that big of a problem. Not all communities are made up of named subdivisions, yet they all have school boundaries. Where are the school boundaries for East and West Aurora districts I wonder? Not too many subdivisions, so there must be cases where kids on one side of the street attend a different school than kids on the other side (for ES and MS but not for HS since only one HS per district). I cannot claim that other SDs dont resort to this. Or this may even happen within SD boundaries (203/204 for instance). All I am saying, with something here and now under our control back in Jan 2008, we minimized (best as I can tell) having an "arbitrary line" where one side of the street is this HS, and the very same looking house on other side goes to that HS. (this may somewhat happen in the Peterson ES area...i dont know for sure). But I sure doesnt happen in the Mcc/Steck/Gombert/Owen/Cowl/Watts areas...and i have to say that is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 5, 2008 12:46:02 GMT -5
I agree the blankets need to be put away, however let's acknowlege the fact that most people either already moved on, or more easily doing so, have something they like in the new deal. Didn't the entire district get something they should like in the new deal? Less crowding across the board for all students in grades 6-12 for years to come? More opportunities for those same students? These are the exact reasons I voted for the ref and maybe I'm idealistic to hope that others voted yes for the same reason. I do not want our district's children treated like sardines. We chose to live here in part for the excellent education and extra-curricular opportunities that would be provided by District 204 and adding space and resources at the middle school and high school level will allow this to continue district-wide. Yes, this shift involves one difficult year for a number of students, including my own daughter who is hoping that MV is delayed by one year to prevent this from affecting her. But whenever MV opens, it will affect all MS and HS students either negatively or positively that first year. Our kids are resilient, their parents can help them get used to whatever changes are to come.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 12:48:44 GMT -5
no one is 'throwing stuff' at people, I am sorry but that is reality. You may be one of the exceptions , and I believe you truly are- who would have accepted any assignment, but to believe that is commonplace is not reality. I know my neighbors. They would have been fine with it as well. Funny thing about Gombert community, we just kinda go where the district tells us without too much fuss. After all, we are assured of the same high quality education no matter where our kids end up. I understand this does nothing for Watts commute but you underestimate my neighborhood. If I do I apologize, but I believe people are people everywhere and as I just added to my last post - any change that comes to people is ALWAYS more easily accepted when there is something in it for the person. The overall change may be unwanted - but the more beneficial the entire circumstance is, the easier it is to accept. If we change from Gombert, who will go anywhere - a perfect example is Brookdale. They voted heavily no for the 3rd HS when they were going to go to WVHS as the only member of Hill. Understandable why they were upset -- nothing changed about having a 3rd HS except location and with whom, yet they are now clearly in the moving on camp. I guess they are a more common example. Doesn't make them bad people, makes them more like exactly what I am saying
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 12:52:41 GMT -5
GD, I appreciate your explanation... With that, throw the walkers of Steck and McCarty to MV then too in order to keep the neighborhoods together. The distance from there to MV is a lot closer than the distance from Cowl and Watts to MV (who are running double buses to get there). Drop them (Cowl/Watts) back to single-bus schedules like today and send them to WV like today (no cost added) and send what would have been the double buses from Cowl/Watts (the new cost) to pick up the S/M walkers and make a short run up Eola to MV. Can you tell if the cost to send a bus from Steck/McCarty area is cheaper or more expensive than a bus from Cowl/Watts? That way, whole neighborhoods are kept together, right? And I would believe that COST would be cheaper to run them up Eola than running them up ogden/N.Aurora/Eola. When there are clearly other options available (such as assigning Cowl and Watts instead to MV), this doesnt make sense to me. (edit: that was the big problem with Fry trying to fit into NV. One of their proposals had Welch leaving WV. Fry saying "we are walkers" but ignore fact that Welch has large number of even closer walkers). Furthermore, following your suggestion would turn Hill and 7th MS both from 100% feeder HS (desired by the criteria....and the students and parents) into split MSs. You cannot forgot the implications with the MS's! To me and a lot of people, that is a very strong benefit for Cowl and Watts even though they have further to travel for HS. Now for Gombert E and Owen W...thats another story
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 12:52:54 GMT -5
I do remember some from back then who didn't want their kids going to 'that' school with 'those' kids... where 'that' school was NV. arch... you allusions to "these/those" is an unfair way to describe the issue. Maybe outsiders wanted to explain it in their minds in such overly simplistic terms. But that is not fully reflecting on the real issues: my area of Gombert was against Option 6 because we would have been an "island of all islands" a fraction of an ES being assigned to geographically further HS in which our MS assignement would have been terribly imbalanced in terms of future HS split. It was the BD problem in reverse! BD addressing their problems by imposing the same ones on Gombert. (and to the credit of many in BD, they came to fully understand this.) Of course the Gombert/BD "swap" would have solved that, but that was unpalatable to some across the district and in the administration. Allusions are not allusions when they are words spoken face to face.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 5, 2008 12:52:54 GMT -5
If we change from Gombert, who will go anywhere - a perfect example is Brookdale. They voted heavily no for the 3rd HS when they were going to go to WVHS as the only member of Hill. Understandable why they were upset -- nothing changed about having a 3rd HS except location and with whom, yet they are now clearly in the moving on camp. I guess they are a more common example. Doesn't make them bad people, makes them more like exactly what I am saying I'm curious what makes it ok to constantly paint all of Brookdale with the same brush, yet people get very upset if this is done with WE/TG? I don't think it should be done for any neighborhood. People are individuals and within one neighborhood do not have the exact same views, votes, shift in views, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 12:55:31 GMT -5
GD, I appreciate your explanation... With that, throw the walkers of Steck and McCarty to MV then too in order to keep the neighborhoods together. The distance from there to MV is a lot closer than the distance from Cowl and Watts to MV (who are running double buses to get there). Drop them (Cowl/Watts) back to single-bus schedules like today and send them to WV like today (no cost added) and send what would have been the double buses from Cowl/Watts (the new cost) to pick up the S/M walkers and make a short run up Eola to MV. Can you tell if the cost to send a bus from Steck/McCarty area is cheaper or more expensive than a bus from Cowl/Watts? That way, whole neighborhoods are kept together, right? And I would believe that COST would be cheaper to run them up Eola than running them up ogden/N.Aurora/Eola. When their are clearly other options available (such as assigning Cowl and Watts instead to MV), this doesnt make sense to me. Furthermore, following your suggestion would turn Hill and 7th MS both from 100% feeder HS (desired by the criteria....and the students and parents) into split Ms. You cannot forgot the implications with the MS's! To me and a lot of people, that is a very strong benefit for Cowl and Watts even though they have further to travel. Now for Gombert E and Owen W...thats another story You are placing a 'benefit' in your own mind onto a neighborhood you don't live in.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 13:02:01 GMT -5
If we change from Gombert, who will go anywhere - a perfect example is Brookdale. They voted heavily no for the 3rd HS when they were going to go to WVHS as the only member of Hill. Understandable why they were upset -- nothing changed about having a 3rd HS except location and with whom, yet they are now clearly in the moving on camp. I guess they are a more common example. Doesn't make them bad people, makes them more like exactly what I am saying I'm curious what makes it ok to constantly paint all of Brookdale with the same brush, yet people get very upset if this is done with WE/TG? I don't think it should be done for any neighborhood. People are individuals and within one neighborhood do not have the exact same views, votes, shift in views, etc. 80% is a pretty big brush. OK since we are going to nit pick this -- 80% of Brookdale voted no- the other 20% who voted Yes voted for any sceanrio. Does that make you feel better ? In most scenario's 80% is a solid indicator of anything - however not here where I am obviously just some idiot who has no idea what he is talking about - Really, dealing with saints is more difficult than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 13:05:58 GMT -5
When their are clearly other options available (such as assigning Cowl and Watts instead to MV), this doesnt make sense to me. Furthermore, following your suggestion would turn Hill and 7th MS both from 100% feeder HS (desired by the criteria....and the students and parents) into split Ms. You cannot forgot the implications with the MS's! To me and a lot of people, that is a very strong benefit for Cowl and Watts even though they have further to travel. Now for Gombert E and Owen W...thats another story You are placing a 'benefit' in your own mind onto a neighborhood you don't live in. No, I am not. This achieves one of the expressed boundary criteria...to minimize splits. Its not a nebulous personally-defined "benefit" I am going after...its trying to meet agreed-upon criteria.
|
|