|
Post by momto4 on Jun 14, 2008 11:19:02 GMT -5
Then they shoudn't of have the kids vote on the color and mascot before the land was secured. GM I feel your child is in the minority. When adults make mistakes they should apologize just like we would make our kids do the same if they made a mistake. There were other ways to get the school off the ground and running without voting on the color/mascot. They Should NOT of dragged the kids into this until everything was a done deal!!!! It is too bad that our SB and admin were so confident that we could get the land for a price in line with comparable sales in our area. In hindsight it is easy to say that the mascot and colors should not have been chosen until the land and opening date and boundaries were known for sure. I would prefer that boundaries had not been done in 2006 nor this year before the land was secured. I wonder in 2006 if the ref would have had the attention that it did had boundaries not been brought up? That was one of the biggest differences between 2005 and 2006 (and the fact the land was no longer a sure deal). I remember being very upset too, that only HS boundaries were dealt with at the time. I think either all of K-12 should have been done together, or boundaries not done at all (which would have been better if the ref could still have passed).
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 14, 2008 12:09:33 GMT -5
I am truly sorry for what I said and I was not thinking in the terms that you mentioned. I should have rephrased my words. It is amazing how easy it is to put the foot in ones mouth. The truth is I am a stay at home Dad myself. I had to take early retirement to help out with our special needs kids. What I was referring to were the shrills at the SB meetings who had nothing constructive to offer except their anger. In any case I am sorry for what I wrote. It was not meant to be hurtful. Thanks for the apology. It's easy to write things and have them be taken out of context.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 14, 2008 12:47:24 GMT -5
They were not confident in getting the land for comparable sales; they were hoping/praying to get it for LESS than market value.
Hindsight? Not really...it is quite reasonable to wait until you know the site location and boundaries before making these types of decisions.
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Jun 14, 2008 14:59:53 GMT -5
M-anthrax, apology accepted and not a problem.
This whole next election will be racist because the racial division will be where you live. You will be labeled by where you live, and will spend your time digging yourself out of a hole. That being said, people from the south end of the district should not be intimidated by being labeled. They should not be bullied by others who will try to label them. The power is in the numbers and population wise there are more people living in the south than the north and that's why everyone should get out and vote. As far as healing is concerned, from what I am reading there is no healing to be done for quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 14, 2008 15:20:23 GMT -5
I personally think we do need more representation in the south. With BG possibly not running again, that leaves us with AT. I would love to see NV have more representation since that will be the biggest school, and I would like to see a neutral party from the south that has no agenda on the board next year. Let's say, someone from River Run or Ashbury or High Meadow, or the Bolingbrook area. IMHO there might be more objective people from these areas that weren't affected by the boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 14, 2008 15:29:30 GMT -5
I personally think we do need more representation in the south. With BG possibly not running again, that leaves us with AT. I would love to see NV have more representation since that will be the biggest school, and I would like to see a neutral party from the south that has no agenda on the board next year. Let's say, someone from River Run or Ashbury or High Meadow, or the Bolingbrook area. IMHO there might be more objective people from these areas that weren't affected by the boundaries. Not all agendas are bad. I'd vote for someone with an agenda. The agenda of re-optimizing all of the ES, MS and HS boundaries to be the quickest/cheapest possible would be a good fiscal platform to run on. That one would be hard to beat.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 14, 2008 18:00:44 GMT -5
I personally think we do need more representation in the south. With BG possibly not running again, that leaves us with AT. I would love to see NV have more representation since that will be the biggest school, and I would like to see a neutral party from the south that has no agenda on the board next year. Let's say, someone from River Run or Ashbury or High Meadow, or the Bolingbrook area. IMHO there might be more objective people from these areas that weren't affected by the boundaries. Not all agendas are bad. I'd vote for someone with an agenda. The agenda of re-optimizing all of the ES, MS and HS boundaries to be the quickest/cheapest possible would be a good fiscal platform to run on. That one would be hard to beat. Sorry Arch - too many people afraid of exactly this. It seems the SB only has to be fiscally responsible in 'some' of their decisions, others don't seem to matter. We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 8:57:41 GMT -5
We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. First, apolgies for even responding to this post - I don't know if this is really connected to the thread topic, but it is connected to the post above. I heard so much about the famous 9% that BB would have saved that was "lost" because of AME, and so I did some digging. The quote from IPSD's website is: "Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school." (emphasis mine) This quote was written prior to the 2006 referendum, so "current" means the 38,282 miles is for 2 HS, NV and WV serving the whole district. This indicates that the 9% was compared to No 3'rd HS, not a new boundary option with 3 High Schools like you are suggesting here. The SB and Laidlaw are on record saying that the transportation cost is the same for AME compared to BB with the respective boundaries as they stand today. The $500K-$1M savings each year is a result of using the 9% number applied to the ENTIRE districts transportation costs - wrong logic on many fronts. This is the logic the NSFOC has been using to argue that BB is cheaper that AME because transportation costs could have been 9% cheaper if BB were the site. That claim is extremely disingenuous. Taking a number so out-of-context and claiming savings based on that flabbergasts me. The fact that this urban myth survived so long is even more amazing. So any assertions made (by someone running on an election platform) that tweaking the boundaries would save a bunch of money are an attempt to bamboozle the community. I will challenge any such irresponsible posture if any candidate espouses it. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 15, 2008 9:15:35 GMT -5
I think you are definitely on topic player as school board candidates may indeed use "transportation cost savings" as a platform in which to run. I also found that $1Million figure questionable when you have areas like Ginger Woods and Butterfield substantially saving driving distances. Thank you for claifying that.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 15, 2008 9:27:12 GMT -5
I think you are definitely on topic player as school board candidates may indeed use "transportation cost savings" as a platform in which to run. I also found that $1Million figure questionable when you have areas like Ginger Woods and Butterfield substantially saving driving distances. Thank you for claifying that. If 9% was the BB savings over no 3'rd HS, I would expect that AME would be comparable. In fact, any location for a 3'rd HS should yield savings with sensible boundaries. I would have bought a 1-2% savings for BB over AME, but 9% is gross misrepresentation. I can't wait for a candidate to actually try to use this bogus logic. ;D Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 15, 2008 9:36:51 GMT -5
I'm sure there will be a lot of spinning by many candidates. We'll need to decide on what we believe to be true and what is simply FUD. I'm not sure I can say "truth" here as many will have their version of the truth that they believe. It has become apparent that even the truth is not thought of as the truth, hence my "what we believe to be true" comment.
We'll also need to decide what is a priority to us. For example, for me, re-designing the boundaries for the sake of making certain groups happy (and therfore making others unhappy) in unproductive, IMO. Now if an ES, MS, or HS becomes too crowded,or not crowded enough, (for the fans of "no 3rd HS is needed), then a boundary change would certainly need to be looked at. But I don't see this happening for some time. To look at re-doing boundaries once new people are in office is a self-serving motive, IMO.
I honestly don't think I'd vote for anyone who wants to change the boundaries for this reason. Even if that person could promise me that I'll have less of a commute to either ES or HS. I've said before that I'm disappointed in my commute times, but don't see it as a reason to bring it up again. If there is a cost savings, then yes, it could be looked at, but I don't believe the "cost savings" that are being thrown out there. Again, the reason for my comment about voting based on what we believe to be true.
Whoever decides to run - You will have to convince people with some REAL facts and not spin what is already out there. My advise to anyone running is to focus on educating our kids. This school board has currently not been able to focus on that. Boundaries and land aquisitions and everything else related to MVHS has taken over. As a candidate, tell me what you are going to do to put the focus on education. Quite frainkly, anyone running on a platform of "we shouldv'e done this with Metea" will not get my vote, regardless of what subdivision they live in. I really don't care where you live, just tell me what you will do for the FUTURE of this district in terms of providing these kids with the best education possible.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 15, 2008 9:43:21 GMT -5
I'm sure there will be a lot of spinning by many candidates. We'll need to decide on what we believe to be true and what is simply FUD. I'm not sure I can say "truth" here as many will have their version of the truth that they believe. It has become apparent that even the truth is not thought of as the truth, hence my "what we believe to be true" comment. We'll also need to decide what is a priority to us. For example, for me, re-designing the boundaries for the sake of making certain groups happy (and therfore making others unhappy) in unproductive, IMO. Now if an ES, MS, or HS becomes too crowded,or not crowded enough, (for the fans of "no 3rd HS is needed), then a boundary change would certainly need to be looked at. But I don't see this happening for some time. To look at re-doing boundaries once new people are in office is a self-serving motive, IMO. I honestly don't think I'd vote for anyone who wants to change the boundaries for this reason. Even if that person could promise me that I'll have less of a commute to either ES or HS. I've said before that I'm disappointed in my commute times, but don't see it as a reason to bring it up again. If there is a cost savings, then yes, it could be looked at, but I don't believe the "cost savings" that are being thrown out there. Again, the reason for my comment about voting based on what we believe to be true. Whoever decides to run - You will have to convince people with some REAL facts and not spin what is already out there. My advise to anyone running is to focus on educating our kids. This school board has currently not been able to focus on that. Boundaries and land aquisitions and everything else related to MVHS has taken over. As a candidate, tell me what you are going to do to put the focus on education. Quite frainkly, anyone running on a platform of "we shouldv'e done this with Metea" will not get my vote, regardless of what subdivision they live in. I really don't care where you live, just tell me what you will do for the FUTURE of this district in terms of providing these kids with the best education possible. Well said, eb204. It's time to focus on our kids. The SB will have some challenges with NCLB as well as focusing on new things. Boundaries should be the last thing on anyone's mind. Like you said, it will end up being unproductive, make other areas angry, and further divide our district. I am looking for a candidate who will unify, not divide.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2008 9:48:54 GMT -5
We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. First, apolgies for even responding to this post - I don't know if this is really connected to the thread topic, but it is connected to the post above. I heard so much about the famous 9% that BB would have saved that was "lost" because of AME, and so I did some digging. The quote from IPSD's website is: "Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school." (emphasis mine) This quote was written prior to the 2006 referendum, so "current" means the 38,282 miles is for 2 HS, NV and WV serving the whole district. This indicates that the 9% was compared to No 3'rd HS, not a new boundary option with 3 High Schools like you are suggesting here. The SB and Laidlaw are on record saying that the transportation cost is the same for AME compared to BB with the respective boundaries as they stand today. The $500K-$1M savings each year is a result of using the 9% number applied to the ENTIRE districts transportation costs - wrong logic on many fronts. This is the logic the NSFOC has been using to argue that BB is cheaper that AME because transportation costs could have been 9% cheaper if BB were the site. That claim is extremely disingenuous. Taking a number so out-of-context and claiming savings based on that flabbergasts me. The fact that this urban myth survived so long is even more amazing. So any assertions made (by someone running on an election platform) that tweaking the boundaries would save a bunch of money are an attempt to bamboozle the community. I will challenge any such irresponsible posture if any candidate espouses it. Cheers. I called many on this using the same examples, but it fell on deaf ears. I suppose it's now up to those still claiming this as true to provide their proof.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 15, 2008 10:13:39 GMT -5
We hear over and over about how much money the site saved us over the $31M BB cost - so it appears even if they could save $500K - $1M per year for the next 25 years, it is not worth looking into. (remember BG's 5A plan saved 9% est. - but that wasn't worth re doing again ) They did the best they could you know...get with the program. Move on, sit down and shut up. First, apolgies for even responding to this post - I don't know if this is really connected to the thread topic, but it is connected to the post above. I heard so much about the famous 9% that BB would have saved that was "lost" because of AME, and so I did some digging. The quote from IPSD's website is: "Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school." (emphasis mine) This quote was written prior to the 2006 referendum, so "current" means the 38,282 miles is for 2 HS, NV and WV serving the whole district. This indicates that the 9% was compared to No 3'rd HS, not a new boundary option with 3 High Schools like you are suggesting here. The SB and Laidlaw are on record saying that the transportation cost is the same for AME compared to BB with the respective boundaries as they stand today. The $500K-$1M savings each year is a result of using the 9% number applied to the ENTIRE districts transportation costs - wrong logic on many fronts. This is the logic the NSFOC has been using to argue that BB is cheaper that AME because transportation costs could have been 9% cheaper if BB were the site. That claim is extremely disingenuous. Taking a number so out-of-context and claiming savings based on that flabbergasts me. The fact that this urban myth survived so long is even more amazing. So any assertions made (by someone running on an election platform) that tweaking the boundaries would save a bunch of money are an attempt to bamboozle the community. I will challenge any such irresponsible posture if any candidate espouses it. Cheers. Laidlaw and the SB are on record for the claim that this is the most efficient ? Show me the details and explain why they are not available to anyone - Sorry if I am not exactly trusting of what is being said and that there is no spin involved....history tells me otherwise where are the mileage figures as provided above - is that on record also ? This data was requested by someone who does this sort of analysis for a living and the initial response was to provide it - that was many months ago - now no word. why ? Again sorry if I am not falling in line with the fact that we move the site to a location where a much smaller % of the populace lives and yet the transportation costs remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 15, 2008 10:17:51 GMT -5
I think you are definitely on topic player as school board candidates may indeed use "transportation cost savings" as a platform in which to run. I also found that $1Million figure questionable when you have areas like Ginger Woods and Butterfield substantially saving driving distances. Thank you for claifying that. and in the meantime you've replaced their commute with as many as twice the number of people making that same commute inreverse -- how does that not figure in ? I'm glad to hear about their savings yet you take two entire ES's and force them to make the same commute. Their commute's needed to be fixed and were, but spending $150 to make that same commute now in place for Watts and Cowlishaw is wrong.
|
|