|
Post by gatordog on Jun 6, 2008 9:34:51 GMT -5
"Everyone is thrilled where it's being positioned in my ward," she said. "For them, this is a convenience that they're looking forward to enjoying." ------ Unfortunately, it's also very inconvenient for certain attendance areas. In terms of HS....yes, there is element of inconvenience. But think broader. Specifically for Cambridge Chase, they do not have the convenience of an ES in their neighborhood. They go to Young. Even moreso, the far NW Butterfield area which goes to mostly Brooks but also to Young, also does not have the convenience of a neighborhood ES nor MS for that matter. I am not going to criticize these neighborhoods at all for seeing convenience, when they have been lacking convenience for all these years with other school placements. It is a good thing, though, that Cowlishaw main and Watts main have the convenience of a neighborhood ES. Me, personally, if I had to pick one kind of school to be nearby to, it would be an ES-not a MS or HS. I say this for child/parent "lifestyle" reasons really.....I am NOT talking about spreadsheet mileage optimization given that a student is at ES for 6 yrs, versus 3 or 4 at MS or HS
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 6, 2008 9:38:35 GMT -5
Regarding site safety - have you contacted the SB? I've contacted them (well, one member) about the p ipelines & options for increasing the safety measures already in place - haven't heard back - I'll post any repsonse I get. Correspondence had already been sent to the entire board and administration that spelled out the concern and also sent to ISBE officials. To date, only AT replied with the expected "Thank you for your concerns" standard reply. District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land. I like the idea of seeing what can be done to take even the perception of hazard away. I have no clue what can be done. Any ideas, beyond emailing the SB and district officials of course.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 6, 2008 9:43:02 GMT -5
GD,
Believe me, I'm actually HAPPY for the northern locations that will now have a closer school for them. I would feel bad if Gingerwoods was sent to NV with MV being where it's going to be built. That would be just plain dumb, as would sending them to the 2nd closest school (WV) and driving right by the first closest. I doubt very seriously that with MV at Eola that if the above assignments sent the closer areas elsewhere, like to the south part of Naperville for HS, that everyone would be singing the same tune they are today.
I don't believe I criticized the neighborhoods for enjoying the convenience either like you imply. I specifically referenced the inconvenience it is for other areas.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 6, 2008 9:48:09 GMT -5
Correspondence had already been sent to the entire board and administration that spelled out the concern and also sent to ISBE officials. To date, only AT replied with the expected "Thank you for your concerns" standard reply. District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land. I like the idea of seeing what can be done to take even the perception of hazard away. I have no clue what can be done. Any ideas, beyond emailing the SB and district officials of course. On the flip side, I can imagine that some might complain if much additional $ is spent on safetey improvements, calling out the SB/Admin for not being honest/accurate with the trus cost of MV. I wish the BB lawsuit/fees could get over ASAP - the outcome of all that might be the biggest determining factor in how much "excess" there is in the MV budget. If the fees come under what was budgeted, spending some of that on increased site safety might be more feasible, without as much backlash from the fiscally conservative crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 6, 2008 9:50:18 GMT -5
Correspondence had already been sent to the entire board and administration that spelled out the concern and also sent to ISBE officials. To date, only AT replied with the expected "Thank you for your concerns" standard reply. District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land.... At one point in the past, I had tried to take what the District said at face value with regards to hazards and unfortunately with some methodical digging to double check that information found out that what they put forth to the public turned out to be false. So, forgive me if I don't fully place my trust in them for my child's safety any longer.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 6, 2008 9:52:04 GMT -5
District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land. I like the idea of seeing what can be done to take even the perception of hazard away. I have no clue what can be done. Any ideas, beyond emailing the SB and district officials of course. On the flip side, I can imagine that some might complain if much additional $ is spent on safetey improvements, calling out the SB/Admin for not being honest/accurate with the trus cost of MV. I wish the BB lawsuit/fees could get over ASAP - the outcome of all that might be the biggest determining factor in how much "excess" there is in the MV budget. If the fees come under what was budgeted, spending some of that on increased site safety might be more feasible, without as much backlash from the fiscally conservative crowd. The kicker here being that we have to wait and see if we can afford to reduce a catastrophic risk down from where it currently sits.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 6, 2008 9:52:38 GMT -5
WP, I appreciate everyone's acknowledgment about the situation. You do, however, make it sound like you only want to read what you wish to read on here and anyone posting to the contrary of the 'happy feeling' might get banned?!?!?! Moving on involves future plans to make things better. Sorry if the squeaky wheel makes it obvious from the get-go where things can be made better in that future. I fail to see where you think I am angry at you for the situation. You're not on the SB nor part of the administration so I really don't understand why you'd personally take that feeling upon yourself. Out of curiosity, if your area got assigned to NV instead of MV a stone's throw away would you be donning the smile and shutting up about it? Would you be singing the happy tune of how great it is for the district that you have that assignment? I won't even bring up my continued concern I have about my kids being in an area with my favorite pieces of metal. Those risks being mitigated further would help take the edge off my uneasiness w/ being assigned there. I just have the feeling in the back of my mind that some years down the road this decision will be looked back upon as a "what the he** were they thinking?" and I hope to God I'm wrong about that. This forum is for sharing ideas and opinions. "I'm unhappy" while technically an opinion, doesn't really add much value to the conversion if it's interjected in every conversation, IMO. I'm not going to answer what-if scenarios that would never happen. If you recall (you can probably find my post on the old board if you want), I did state that with some of the possible BB boundaries, my area would have gone to MV and it would have added, I think, 2 miles to our HS commute - I think that's comparable to the MW situation and I was Ok with that. Regarding site safety - have you contacted the SB? I've contacted them (well, one member) about the p ipelines & options for increasing the safety measures already in place - haven't heard back - I'll post any repsonse I get. Again, it is the time differential more than the mileage - < 10 minutes to at least 25 minutes in rush hour for parents - I don't believe you would have faced the same differential ( I may be wrong) - not having to navigate crossing the Rt 59 corridor at that time until you were already at the school. BTW - I would have viewed that as wrong for your area - to pass WVHS. also it was never the furthest school - that would have been NV ( which is our closest school )
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 6, 2008 9:52:39 GMT -5
District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land.... At one point in the past, I had tried to take what the District said at face value with regards to hazards and unfortunately with some methodical digging to double check that information found out that what they put forth to the public turned out to be false. So, forgive me if I don't fully place my trust in them for my child's safety any longer. So you have two choices, move or do something about it. What can be done?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 6, 2008 9:59:37 GMT -5
"Everyone is thrilled where it's being positioned in my ward," she said. "For them, this is a convenience that they're looking forward to enjoying." ------ Unfortunately, it's also very inconvenient for certain attendance areas. In terms of HS....yes, there is element of inconvenience. But think broader. Specifically for Cambridge Chase, they do not have the convenience of an ES in their neighborhood. They go to Young. Even moreso, the far NW Butterfield area which goes to mostly Brooks but also to Young, also does not have the convenience of a neighborhood ES nor MS for that matter. I am not going to criticize these neighborhoods at all for seeing convenience, when they have been lacking convenience for all these years with other school placements. It is a good thing, though, that Cowlishaw main and Watts main have the convenience of a neighborhood ES. Me, personally, if I had to pick one kind of school to be nearby to, it would be an ES-not a MS or HS. I say this for child/parent "lifestyle" reasons really.....I am NOT talking about spreadsheet mileage optimization given that a student is at ES for 6 yrs, versus 3 or 4 at MS or HS Wow, I 've never seen it sold like that - we should be glad we have 1 school close - when others now have 3. I understand the issue with a group not having one - and that is bad - but I never knew 1 was a bonus. btw not ciritcizing those areas - they are lucky - and I've said before hats off to them - enjoy, just don't force us there. Knowing people that live there I am glad their horrible commute to HS is also coming to and end - that is a good thing - moving it to Cowl & Watts is not.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 6, 2008 10:04:18 GMT -5
In terms of HS....yes, there is element of inconvenience. But think broader. Specifically for Cambridge Chase, they do not have the convenience of an ES in their neighborhood. They go to Young. Even moreso, the far NW Butterfield area which goes to mostly Brooks but also to Young, also does not have the convenience of a neighborhood ES nor MS for that matter. I am not going to criticize these neighborhoods at all for seeing convenience, when they have been lacking convenience for all these years with other school placements. It is a good thing, though, that Cowlishaw main and Watts main have the convenience of a neighborhood ES. Me, personally, if I had to pick one kind of school to be nearby to, it would be an ES-not a MS or HS. I say this for child/parent "lifestyle" reasons really.....I am NOT talking about spreadsheet mileage optimization given that a student is at ES for 6 yrs, versus 3 or 4 at MS or HS Wow, I 've never seen it sold like that - we should be glad we have 1 school close - when others now have 3. I understand the issue with a group not having one - and that is bad - but I never knew 1 was a bonus. btw not ciritcizing those areas - they are lucky - and I've said before hats off to them - enjoy, just don't force us there. Knowing people that live there I am glad their horrible commute to HS is also coming to and end - that is a good thing - moving it to Cowl & Watts is not. This is getting tedious. I think we get it. You are not happy. And what part of your post had anything to do with the topic at hand, most Metea neighbors happy. Lets keep it on topic. Want to continue this discussion, start a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 6, 2008 10:06:43 GMT -5
District doesn't see it is a hazard and to be honest many don't see it as a hazard. If the district perceived any danger, they would be negligent in building a school on that land. I like the idea of seeing what can be done to take even the perception of hazard away. I have no clue what can be done. Any ideas, beyond emailing the SB and district officials of course. On the flip side, I can imagine that some might complain if much additional $ is spent on safetey improvements, calling out the SB/Admin for not being honest/accurate with the trus cost of MV. I wish the BB lawsuit/fees could get over ASAP - the outcome of all that might be the biggest determining factor in how much "excess" there is in the MV budget. If the fees come under what was budgeted, spending some of that on increased site safety might be more feasible, without as much backlash from the fiscally conservative crowd. I agree totally that I hope the BB suits end ASAP so we all know the true cost of the school and what we have to work with. I also feel, that if $$ allows- whatever expedite charges necessary should be spent to open as complete a HS as possible for those kids going there in 2009 - give them the best experience possible. Although I am one who questioned the total cost when done vs having gone ahead and build at BB - the other part of voting for the 3rd HS @ BB was that is was going to be a complete HS when it opened, with no construction going on. The kids attending MV @ AME deserve that also. just my opinion.. on them spending the money if it can be done...
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 6, 2008 10:09:03 GMT -5
Wow, I 've never seen it sold like that - we should be glad we have 1 school close - when others now have 3. I understand the issue with a group not having one - and that is bad - but I never knew 1 was a bonus. btw not ciritcizing those areas - they are lucky - and I've said before hats off to them - enjoy, just don't force us there. Knowing people that live there I am glad their horrible commute to HS is also coming to and end - that is a good thing - moving it to Cowl & Watts is not. This is getting tedious. I think we get it. You are not happy. And what part of your post had anything to do with the topic at hand, most Metea neighbors happy. Lets keep it on topic. Want to continue this discussion, start a new thread. what part of my post is not a direct answer to the statement quoted ? I really don't get this unless you are saying others can make statement I can't answer. Is that the case ?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 6, 2008 10:11:36 GMT -5
This forum is for sharing ideas and opinions. "I'm unhappy" while technically an opinion, doesn't really add much value to the conversion if it's interjected in every conversation, IMO. I'm not going to answer what-if scenarios that would never happen. If you recall (you can probably find my post on the old board if you want), I did state that with some of the possible BB boundaries, my area would have gone to MV and it would have added, I think, 2 miles to our HS commute - I think that's comparable to the MW situation and I was Ok with that. Regarding site safety - have you contacted the SB? I've contacted them (well, one member) about the p ipelines & options for increasing the safety measures already in place - haven't heard back - I'll post any repsonse I get. Again, it is the time differential more than the mileage - < 10 minutes to at least 25 minutes in rush hour for parents - I don't believe you would have faced the same differential ( I may be wrong) - not having to navigate crossing the Rt 59 corridor at that time until you were already at the school. BTW - I would have viewed that as wrong for your area - to pass WVHS. also it was never the scenic drive school - that would have been NV ( which is our closest school ) If you've ever had the pleasure of being in PM rush hour traffic (which starts aroun 4PM) on southbound Eola, you'd know that driving to BB in the PM would not be a walk in the park. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on which hypothetical scenarios as comparable to Watts situation. I don't think it matters if I have 100 schools within a 3 mile radius that I drive by - adding 2 miles to my WV commute to go to to BB seems comparable to me. I also find it hard to believe that the MW area will give less parental support because of the distance. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, but parents are either going to be involved, or they aren't. I dont' see many parents saying "Susie, I'd love to see your game/concert today, but those extra 20 minutes are holding me back". Plenty of parents drive to away games with unplesant commutes such as Lake Park, Streamwood, and Elgin (why all those schools are in the conference with 204 schools is beyond me - there are plenty schools that are closer) - those are much farther than 6 or 7 miles. And I'm going to make the assumption that many people either take the train to work (the rt 59 train station is minutes from WV), or work north of, say, 75th st. To me, that means they can go to MV straight from work. I don't mean to trivialize this for everyone, but I bet it covers a decent percentage.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 6, 2008 10:12:12 GMT -5
This is getting tedious. I think we get it. You are not happy. And what part of your post had anything to do with the topic at hand, most Metea neighbors happy. Lets keep it on topic. Want to continue this discussion, start a new thread. what part of my post is not a direct answer to the statement quoted ? I really don't get this unless you are saying others can make statement I can't answer. Is that the case ? Stay on topic, everyone. Again, most Metea neighbors happy . . .
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 6, 2008 10:15:31 GMT -5
WP, I appreciate everyone's acknowledgment about the situation. You do, however, make it sound like you only want to read what you wish to read on here and anyone posting to the contrary of the 'happy feeling' might get banned?!?!?! Moving on involves future plans to make things better. Sorry if the squeaky wheel makes it obvious from the get-go where things can be made better in that future. I fail to see where you think I am angry at you for the situation. You're not on the SB nor part of the administration so I really don't understand why you'd personally take that feeling upon yourself. Out of curiosity, if your area got assigned to NV instead of MV a stone's throw away would you be donning the smile and shutting up about it? Would you be singing the happy tune of how great it is for the district that you have that assignment? I won't even bring up my continued concern I have about my kids being in an area with my favorite pieces of metal. Those risks being mitigated further would help take the edge off my uneasiness w/ being assigned there. I just have the feeling in the back of my mind that some years down the road this decision will be looked back upon as a "what the he** were they thinking?" and I hope to God I'm wrong about that. I respect everyones right to express their opinion - just not the same one a 1000 times. If you have something new, I will be happy to listen. Your "truth" may be true for you, not for everyone - repeating it over and over doesn't add anything to a discussion or increase its validity in anyone's eyes. Continuously repeating what you have been saying for months, in each and every thread, whether or not it is relavent to the topic at hand, making every topic deviate from its origin, is not a productive or respectful way to present a viewpoint. At some point, all that does is to get people to tune out at best, and get irritated at worst. I am definitely irritated, not by what you say, but how you say it. And don't patronize me and the rest of this board by saying all we care about is a happy feeling - that is crude and insulting. I did not expect you of all people to stoop to this kind of trash. All of us here are intelligent people, not sheep. Sorry to be blunt, but I got to call it like I see it. And I won't be saying this a 1000 times. Cheers.
|
|