|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 9, 2008 10:03:32 GMT -5
It occurred to me while reading some archived posts that some folks need to be thanked regardless of the outcome.
This topic is directed specifically to those that worked so hard to get the second referendum passed 2 years ago. When this ref was passed it appeared that many of the variables as to location and boundaries were ironed out. With the passage of this referendum many in the district would rightfully be able to say "What a win win situation". This must have been a very satisfying experience for the army of volunteers that took part in this undertaking.
Fast forward to the current situation and yes we should be content that the third high school is being built, but there is still some lingering disappointment for some that this situation is a far cry from what was the "win -win situation" of 2 years ago.
I can do very little to solve the lingering feelings of disappointment that are still prevalent in our district. I can only say this: As a "yes voter" for the second referendum and a "no voter" for the first, I want to thank all those that worked so hard to get the positive result with the passage of the second referendum.
The subgroup of people that worked on this referendum and today feel that they would not do it again should be aware of the following. Even with the disappointing results with third high school location and boundaries I would still vote yes today to the referendum. What I am really saying to those disenfranchised volunteers is "I can understand your disappointment, just realize there are those of us that feel your work did indeed better the district."
I can only hope that those disenfranchised by the short term results of the previous year will not only read these words but take them to heart.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 9, 2008 10:57:26 GMT -5
Can you please elaborate on the reason(s) you changed your vote?
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 9, 2008 11:20:38 GMT -5
Well said, SSSM. I have always been a yes voter and worked hard in the last referendum. It is sad to see so many people that once believed in this now have a different perspective on things. While AME is not my first choice for a site, I too would have voted yes again for a school anywhere. All our kids deserve to be at uncrowded schools.
I would also encourage those that feel that they can no longer volunteer at their new school to also re-consider their feelings. Your volunteer efforts will be sorely missed.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 9, 2008 11:28:50 GMT -5
I too was a NO voter the 1st time, and then became a Yes the 2nd time around. Was not happy with BB, but voted yes anyway...I too was a 3rd HS anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 9, 2008 11:47:23 GMT -5
Reasons for my vote change, well I would love to give the "correct" answer that it was that I truly believed all the published results of massive overcrowding at both middlle and high school levels. That we were in for split shifts and blal bla bla you fill in the gaps. I did the math and figured the high schools with freshman centers could comfortable keep 3500 students at bay. add the stop gap frontier campus of 600 and I arrived at a # of 7600+/-. When adding up 4 of the primary grades it was obvious that a large bubble was coming. I also felt that there was a strong possibility that there would be continued quick growth in district that could bring high school population to around 10,000 students. The idea of Brach Brodie seemed ideal and fleeting as most large tracks of land were being developed at the time.
But the real seller of this ref was a pta officer at our grade school level that really drove home the idea of "this is for the good of the district". This was important in the area we reside in because the overcrowding at the middle school was not to be addressed and high school overpopulation was only going to affect my family for 2 years.
I was the tried and true "what is in for me" type of guy who honestly felt my taxes were high enough. More on how a well functioning district helps families bottom line as our kids go on in their education process, but that is a topic for another day.
|
|
|
Post by sardines on Sept 9, 2008 13:20:09 GMT -5
It occurred to me while reading some archived posts that some folks need to be thanked regardless of the outcome. This topic is directed specifically to those that worked so hard to get the second referendum passed 2 years ago. When this ref was passed it appeared that many of the variables as to location and boundaries were ironed out. With the passage of this referendum many in the district would rightfully be able to say "What a win win situation". This must have been a very satisfying experience for the army of volunteers that took part in this undertaking. Fast forward to the current situation and yes we should be content that the third high school is being built, but there is still some lingering disappointment for some that this situation is a far cry from what was the "win -win situation" of 2 years ago. I can do very little to solve the lingering feelings of disappointment that are still prevalent in our district. I can only say this: As a "yes voter" for the second referendum and a "no voter" for the first, I want to thank all those that worked so hard to get the positive result with the passage of the second referendum. The subgroup of people that worked on this referendum and today feel that they would not do it again should be aware of the following. Even with the disappointing results with third high school location and boundaries I would still vote yes today to the referendum. What I am really saying to those disenfranchised volunteers is "I can understand your disappointment, just realize there are those of us that feel your work did indeed better the district." I can only hope that those disenfranchised by the short term results of the previous year will not only read these words but take them to heart. Great post, SSSM. I have always felt that three smaller schools were better than two overcrowded ones. I also voted yes and didn't care where it went.I just liked (and still do) the idea of kids going to high schools that aren't jam-packed. I am also thankful for all of the hard work folks did to make this happen and I too hope that the disenfranchised will recognize how greatful we are for their efforts. It will take some time for sure, but I do believe that a time will come when we are all glad that this third high school was added to our huge district.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 9, 2008 14:20:01 GMT -5
Well I have to say I was always for the new HS before and now. Also my family doesn't give a hoot about boundarys. We came for a district 204 edcuation and not for a specific school. While I was not pleased with some of the things the SB did I do not hold the rancor that others seem to have had and continue to hold. I also believe the SB has more supporters then the naysayers would like us to believe. The main opposition is coming from the areas that were upset with the final boundarys, namely TG where some people are unwilling to move on and make this a better district. I don't believe these areas need to be appeased at the expense of the district. While I might have prefered to new HS to go in another spot, I am happy we have it.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 9, 2008 15:01:18 GMT -5
Majorianthrax, I am happy that boundaries are not an issue for you.As for certain areas being appeased at the expense of the district -- I beg to differ.
There was much that could have been done to soften the blow regarding boundaries and the subsequent division. A good start would have to do with the word ENTITLEMENT that was spoken at the meeting in January. There is a concept of being "receptive to your audience", this did not happen at that meeting, what a shame because there was such an opportunity for a "win -win" outcome.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 9, 2008 15:33:58 GMT -5
Majorianthrax, I am happy that boundaries are not an issue for you.As for certain areas being appeased at the expense of the district -- I beg to differ. There was much that could have been done to soften the blow regarding boundaries and the subsequent division. A good start would have to do with the word ENTITLEMENT that was spoken at the meeting in January. There is a concept of being "receptive to your audience", this did not happen at that meeting, what a shame because there was such an opportunity for a "win -win" outcome. Agreed. I think the SB could have done a better job is telling people why they were being moved etc. Better communication might have helped.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 9, 2008 15:39:34 GMT -5
Majorianthrax, I am happy that boundaries are not an issue for you.As for certain areas being appeased at the expense of the district -- I beg to differ. There was much that could have been done to soften the blow regarding boundaries and the subsequent division. A good start would have to do with the word ENTITLEMENT that was spoken at the meeting in January. There is a concept of being "receptive to your audience", this did not happen at that meeting, what a shame because there was such an opportunity for a "win -win" outcome. I think you will find just about everyone in agreement with this. No matter your Latitude.....
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 9, 2008 18:10:34 GMT -5
Majorianthrax, I am happy that boundaries are not an issue for you.As for certain areas being appeased at the expense of the district -- I beg to differ. There was much that could have been done to soften the blow regarding boundaries and the subsequent division. A good start would have to do with the word ENTITLEMENT that was spoken at the meeting in January. There is a concept of being "receptive to your audience", this did not happen at that meeting, what a shame because there was such an opportunity for a "win -win" outcome. Agreed. I think the SB could have done a better job is telling people why they were being moved etc. Better communication might have helped. I absolutely agree. Specifically, I wish the SB/admin addressed Tall Grass and told them something like this: "We understand and respect that NV is your traditional school and your strong desire to stay there. Also, we clearly see the proximity to NV and ideally you would go to your closest HS. Unfortunately, any solution to get you assigned into NV either pushes the building to its capacity limits, or imposes the exact same proximity complaints you have onto another subdivision (Welch, Springbrook, etc. Concerning capacity, we dont think its in your interests, or the districts interest, to have NV at 100%+ capacity, while the other schools are significantly under capacity. That is not good use of our common resources. In particular, it would not be fair to the entire NV attendance area to ask them to stretch their school capacity-wise, while the other schools operate at a more efficient capacity. Even so, if you wanted to squeeze into NV now, we dont think its in your interests to have to switch schools in the future when growth returns to our district. There still is a good amount of land in the south for houses. We have to plan for that too. Concerning geography, I guess it would be possible to move Welch or Springbrook into WV, not you. However, you are the closest to WV. And also you have both a ES and a MS in your neighborhood (while those other areas do not). Both of those factors suggests that it is fairest to move Tall Grass to WV, not those other areas. A final point, you will be sending your kids to a HS that is significantly smaller,30%. We think you will come to appreciate the advantages that will entail. We understand and respect your requests to stay at NV. But we hope these points help you see your move to WV is a win-win for you and the district. "
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 9, 2008 18:42:01 GMT -5
Gatordog that sums it up. That would have been a great speech indeed! The irony is that with the new school this is exactly what will happen along with some relief at the middle school level. Thanks again for a great post.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Sept 9, 2008 21:51:34 GMT -5
Well said GD - I do remember Bruce Glawe touching on some of those points at the last boundary meeting especially the part about imposing the same proximity complaints onto other subdivisions.
I think we all agree that so much of what transpired could have been handled so much better than it was. The lack of empathy by some SB members for the TG community was very surprising (to say the least). I have to admit that at one point in time the behavior from some within the TG community made it difficult for me to sympathize, but now when I see that bridge and how it ends so close to the Freshman campus, I do have sympathy as many of those residents are very close to NV. Unfortunately, though, the question posed by one SB member at a boundary meeting way back when is still valid today. "If not them, then who?"
|
|