|
Post by momto4 on Oct 22, 2008 13:25:40 GMT -5
Was he supposed to lie? Or was he supposed to make up a reason that wouldn't garner any reaction? I don't think he could have said anything without there being a negative backlash from some that will never "get over" it. I hear what you're saying and you're right about the negative backlash - it would be there no matter what he said, but he would not have to make up a reason for no excpetions as there are other very good reasons that are not so emotionally charged. I still believe he chose to speak about the lawsuit to deliberately p*ss some people off. It's very difficult to "get over it" - on both sides. I certainly haven't forgotten about the lawsuit and won't for a long time. The reality is that there are many good reasons and perhaps this one now trumps the others in his mind. It seems likely that he had much more to say than what wound up quoted in the paper. People will be ticked no matter what he does or doesn't say, so trying to carefully word every statement does not seem like it would be worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Oct 22, 2008 13:58:33 GMT -5
To me, the point is that from the beginning, we all knew there would be no exceptions. We even voted on this at the referendum. This was known when it was at BB as well. So nothing new. The question is "Should we all of a sudden change the rules now?" The only reason I can think of is that certain people feel really mad now and they want some sort of consolation prize from the district- that they want to be heard and not ignored. Is this a good enough reason? To some, yes, but is it worth the possible consequences? Are the pros greater than the cons? I don't mind exceptions being made but if it turns into a free-for-all, I don't think that would be good either.
Personally, I don't know why MM brought the lawsuit up again but maybe it is because there should be a darn good reason to all of a sudden make an exception to a rule which was announced to the public 2 years ago. The lawsuit is a new occurence since the plan before the referendum and may be a strong reason in MM's mind to not rock the boat.
It's interesting that the lawsuit mentioned the SB changing things around after we voted for the ref. Certain wording was not on the ballot. Yet now people feel it would be OK for the SB to change things around and make exceptions for the boundaries after we voted knowing about this rule. Kind of ironic. Obviously, from the lawsuit, we found that the SB can pretty much do anything they want in the best interests of the district so they certainly could make exceptions. I personally don't care if they did make exceptions. There have already been 2 people petition and everyone has the right to do so. Maybe there will be some compelling cases that could be granted exceptions. I can't help but look at d203 and see that they gather input from everyone, be it on the superintendent position, to Mill St school to the rehab of Naperville Central. I would like to see the d204 at least do the same thing and put out a survey to see what kind of numbers we are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 22, 2008 14:04:38 GMT -5
To me, the point is that from the beginning, we all knew there would be no exceptions. We even voted on this at the referendum. This was known when it was at BB as well. So nothing new. The question is "Should we all of a sudden change the rules now?" The only reason I can think of is that certain people feel really mad now and they want some sort of consolation prize from the district- that they want to be heard and not ignored. Is this a good enough reason? To some, yes, but is it worth the possible consequences? Are the pros greater than the cons? I don't mind exceptions being made but if it turns into a free-for-all, I don't think that would be good either. Personally, I don't know why MM brought the lawsuit up again but maybe it is because there should be a darn good reason to all of a sudden make an exception to a rule which was announced to the public 2 years ago. The lawsuit is a new occurence since the plan before the referendum and may be a strong reason in MM's mind to not rock the boat. It's interesting that the lawsuit mentioned the SB changing things around after we voted for the ref. Certain wording was not on the ballot. Yet now people feel it would be OK for the SB to change things around and make exceptions for the boundaries after we voted knowing about this rule. Kind of ironic. Obviously, from the lawsuit, we found that the SB can pretty much do anything they want in the best interests of the district so they certainly could make exceptions. I personally don't care if they did make exceptions. There have already been 2 people petition and everyone has the right to do so. Maybe there will be some compelling cases that could be granted exceptions. I can't help but look at d203 and see that they gather input from everyone, be it on the superintendent position, to Mill St school to the rehab of Naperville Central. I would like to see the d204 at least do the same thing and put out a survey to see what kind of numbers we are talking about. You want to know how many might request the exception for the 2009-2010 school year? What about the following years? That's the slippery slope (and people could argue it's just as valid as it is for the 2009 year) - OK, I'm done belaboring my point.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Oct 22, 2008 14:43:21 GMT -5
There are people who don't want to get over it and I confess I will never forgive the nine individuals who were willing to sue either get their way at BB or put the kabosh on the school entirely. Taking a new school away from the kids that so need it is not only despicable but shows just what bad individuals those nine are. Anyway back to the thread subject, two of my kids are special needs and have had to attend schools all over the district. We have attended WE, Wheatland, Brooks, Gombert, Still, Scullen, WV. Rarely have any of my kids been in the same school together and because they attend outside their assinged school there is no bus service and my wife and I have to drive. From personal experience having siblings split is tough but as was shown when NV first opened it can be done smoothly.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Oct 22, 2008 15:26:46 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1235067,2_1_AU22_204BRD_S1.article Metea boundaries may mean split allegiancesOctober 22, 2008 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com . . . But board member Curt Bradshaw argued Monday that it doesn't have to be this way if families can present compelling cases for keeping their kids together. Bradshaw cited the example of a family that will have one freshman and two twin juniors in the district. The students, he said, would ultimately end up on two different schools' swim teams instead of being teammates. "They thought it would be a better situation for the family ... to next year have all of the family able to compete together and be at one school for 5 a.m. swim practice instead of two," Bradshaw said. . . . Bradshaw said he understands providing for exceptions to this policy creates a "slippery slope," but said he would still like to explore ways in which the district can be a bit more flexible. Is CB one of SB up for re-election in April?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 22, 2008 15:27:52 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1235067,2_1_AU22_204BRD_S1.article Metea boundaries may mean split allegiancesOctober 22, 2008 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com . . . But board member Curt Bradshaw argued Monday that it doesn't have to be this way if families can present compelling cases for keeping their kids together. Bradshaw cited the example of a family that will have one freshman and two twin juniors in the district. The students, he said, would ultimately end up on two different schools' swim teams instead of being teammates. "They thought it would be a better situation for the family ... to next year have all of the family able to compete together and be at one school for 5 a.m. swim practice instead of two," Bradshaw said. . . . Bradshaw said he understands providing for exceptions to this policy creates a "slippery slope," but said he would still like to explore ways in which the district can be a bit more flexible. Is CB one of SB up for re-election in April? Nope - CB, MM, and AT were re-elected last time
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Oct 22, 2008 15:31:18 GMT -5
Thanks warriorpride. The thought had occurred to me that he was breaking ranks with the SB/Administration on this one as a means of damage control before April rolled around. I guess I am too big of a cynic!
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Oct 22, 2008 15:59:27 GMT -5
To me, the point is that from the beginning, we all knew there would be no exceptions. We even voted on this at the referendum. This was known when it was at BB as well. So nothing new. The question is "Should we all of a sudden change the rules now?" The only reason I can think of is that certain people feel really mad now and they want some sort of consolation prize from the district- that they want to be heard and not ignored. Is this a good enough reason? To some, yes, but is it worth the possible consequences? Are the pros greater than the cons? I don't mind exceptions being made but if it turns into a free-for-all, I don't think that would be good either. Personally, I don't know why MM brought the lawsuit up again but maybe it is because there should be a darn good reason to all of a sudden make an exception to a rule which was announced to the public 2 years ago. The lawsuit is a new occurence since the plan before the referendum and may be a strong reason in MM's mind to not rock the boat. It's interesting that the lawsuit mentioned the SB changing things around after we voted for the ref. Certain wording was not on the ballot. Yet now people feel it would be OK for the SB to change things around and make exceptions for the boundaries after we voted knowing about this rule. Kind of ironic. Obviously, from the lawsuit, we found that the SB can pretty much do anything they want in the best interests of the district so they certainly could make exceptions. I personally don't care if they did make exceptions. There have already been 2 people petition and everyone has the right to do so. Maybe there will be some compelling cases that could be granted exceptions. I can't help but look at d203 and see that they gather input from everyone, be it on the superintendent position, to Mill St school to the rehab of Naperville Central. I would like to see the d204 at least do the same thing and put out a survey to see what kind of numbers we are talking about. You want to know how many might request the exception for the 2009-2010 school year? What about the following years? That's the slippery slope (and people could argue it's just as valid as it is for the 2009 year) - OK, I'm done belaboring my point. That is true that this could affect the system for years to come. If someone had a big family...say a junior, an 8th grader, a 5th grader and a 3rd grader, we are talking major exceptions for this family vs. someone that just has one more child in the pipelines. That's why it would be interesting to see a survey and figure out how complicated the issue really is. If 12 families want the exception and 12 children would be affected, maybe something could be done. If 150 families want an exception and 200 kids would be affected, then maybe it couldn't or shouldn't be done. Don't know until you try. Just because they do a survey doesn't mean they have to make exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 22, 2008 16:36:23 GMT -5
His comments may have been deliberate, but in the sense that he's calling attention to something that has happened before when they tried to make things fair and equitable. There's a saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me", which basically means don't let the same thing happen again. By mentioning the mere idea that someone might sue because we allowed Jimmy to stay with Johnny, but Susie couldn't stay with Sally, he's making sure this doesn't happen again. As SB president, he's expected to stand up and make those statements to remind fellow board members and administration what's happened before, regardless of how unpopular it might be or how sensitive people are. He didn't speak of any one group, subdivision or anything like that. He's not saying it will be someone from the NSFOC that will sue again, but the fact that they did may give someone else the idea to do so just because they didn't get their way in this situation.
Unfortunately, any decision made going forward will have to be made with that lawsuit in their minds. It was mentioned long ago that there would be consequences to the NSFOC lawsuit, regardless of the outcome. This is one of those consequences.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 22, 2008 16:54:55 GMT -5
The argument that CB found "compelling" is also a matter of choice in extra-curricular activities. This particular family he spoke of, and other that are similar, I'm sure, made a choice to join an extra -curricular activity and knew of the committments that would be required. If this were an academic issue of keeping siblings together, or keeping them at the same school they started at, it would change things. But I can't come up with any academic reasons that would require these kids to stay at their same school or to simply stay there because their siblings are there.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 22, 2008 21:16:34 GMT -5
The argument that CB found "compelling" is also a matter of choice in extra-curricular activities. This particular family he spoke of, and other that are similar, I'm sure, made a choice to join an extra -curricular activity and knew of the committments that would be required. If this were an academic issue of keeping siblings together, or keeping them at the same school they started at, it would change things. But I can't come up with any academic reasons that would require these kids to stay at their same school or to simply stay there because their siblings are there. By the way did anyone mention to CB that the IHSA rules would prohibit that younger sibling from competing?
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Oct 23, 2008 5:11:55 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/1236952,6_4_NA23_EDITORIAL_S1.article School district has fair policy on split-school pupilsOctober 23, 2008 SUN Opinion It has been a long, difficult road for the board and administration at Indian Prairie School District 204 to get Metea Valley High School on the path of construction. Now, the district must deal with the problem affecting families of two or more high school students who will be split between two schools next fall when Metea is scheduled to open. When that happens many families will find that they have a freshman or sophomore attending Metea while they also have an upperclassman who will stay at either Waubsonsie Valley High School or Neuqua Valley High School. THE ISSUE: With the opening of Metea Valley High School next fall will come requests for families to keep their high school students together in one school. OUR VIEW: We're sympathetic to the problem, but Indian Prairie School District 204 has a good policy in place and should stick to it. To this point, the district has stuck by its transfer policy, which basically says that students go to the school to which they are assigned - unless there are "extraordinary circumstances such as family move, request from an outside agency, family hardship, psychological/emotional health or social needs, or administrator placement per board policies and procedures." The issue came up at Monday's board meeting because board member Curt Bradshaw cited the case of a family that has a freshman and two twin juniors. The students, all swimmers, would end up on two different swim teams instead of being teammates unless they can go to the same school. Bradshaw agreed with the family, which has argued it will be a better situation for the family if the teens can all compete together and be at one school for 5 a.m. swim practice, instead of two. He found the request compelling, but basically he ran into a roadblock from administrators and his fellow board members, who for the most part don't want to bend the policy. Board President Mark Metzger argued that the district can't be flexible because of the litigious nature of the community. We agree with that stance, and with the remarks of school board member Jeannette Clark who said that once the "flood gate" opens more people will come in with requests. There are hundreds of families who conceivably would want to have their kids kept together at one high school. As bureaucratic as it may seem, the bottom line is that if the district sticks to its policy all the split-family problems will be solved in a couple of years as Metea becomes a four-year high school. Before long whatever angst exists now will be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Oct 23, 2008 8:28:04 GMT -5
Despicable? Bad individuals?
Another example of the lameness that is Mark Metzger. A real leader wouldn't hide behind the fear of litigation, especially a fear that is completely unfounded. Claiming that a limited exception for siblings would open up "100s" of other exceptions (as some here have speculated) is nothing but a smokescreen.
|
|
|
Post by sardines on Oct 23, 2008 8:44:15 GMT -5
Despicable? Bad individuals? Another example of the lameness that is Mark Metzger. A real leader wouldn't hide behind the fear of litigation, especially a fear that is completely unfounded. Claiming that a limited exception for siblings would open up "100s" of other exceptions (as some here have speculated) is nothing but a smokescreen. Sorry I have to completely disagree. Unfortunately history proves otherwise. Parent lawsuits against school districts are on the rise whether it's over boundaries,suspensions, expulsions or other situations a parent didn't agree with. They have to always keep this in mind when making difficult decisions. Unfortunate but true.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 23, 2008 9:22:31 GMT -5
Despicable? Bad individuals? That is major's opinion, and he is entitled to it, just as you are entitled to disagree with it.
|
|