|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 24, 2009 13:27:36 GMT -5
"fence it off" referred to fencing off the area that needed to be mitigated - what's that have to do with divisiveness or trivializing people's concerns? You haven't really provided much to back up your statement. Your opinion. From you not mentioning entitled in your post; I am assuming you think that was out of line and was one of the seeds that others seemed to use as a defacto Admin condonement for "others" to continue on with other labels. As for the "fence it off baby" I must preface that I was not hugely concerned with the safety issues (except the pipes) but I was at the meeting when Dr. D made the statement. it wasn't just his words "fence it off Baby" it was the WAY he said it so joyfully/gleefully and with a laugh and giggle. Perhaps he was trying to lighten the mood (I didn't think it was appropriate. if you were there perhaps you did and we can have a different interpretation of the event and delivery of the statement) or perhaps he was trying to slap down those with valid concerns and trivialize their concerns. We will never know what was the intent of the delivery. If he just wanted to communicate that the area could be quarenteened; why not just say "we can fence off any area deemed to be a potential risk until a permanent fix can be put in place. This should allay any short term fears/concerns for student safety" Instead he woohoos and laughs "just fence it off Baby" I took his comment and delivery as marginalizing and attempting to demean those parents that had concerns. you can view it any way you wish to. Actually, I can believe that people acted in entitled ways (via emails, phone calls, in person, etc.). I see people acting entitled all of the time, in various ways: in restaurants, on the streets (driving), in stores, in youth sports, etc. And calling a spade a spade is appropriate, and sometimes necessary.
|
|
fasttimes
Junior
Dean Wermer, When is the Parade?
Posts: 113
|
Post by fasttimes on Mar 24, 2009 16:06:38 GMT -5
fast, I was there too when he said it. It's probably my bias too, as I have always preferred The Eola site from way back. But I knew what he meant, when he said it, and I took no offense to it. I was there, too. I knew what he meant and took no offense, though I preferred the BB site all along. This is just his mannerism and I can see where people take it the wrong way but this one seems obvious. Yes, he could have said it more professionally but the meaning would have been the same. [/quote everybody is different and we all view things with our own preconceived ideas and the baggage (bias) we tote around with us. I am sure there would be lots of folks that took it at face value and discounted the delivery as "just his style" and/or an attempt at levity. many others (including me) would not. I think what he said and how he said it was an error in judgement. No big deal, it happens to all of us. On some of the other (IMO) errors in judgement in terms of communication TO (and with?) parents/taxpayers. If someone felt they did error in judgement, I would like/expect that person to be Adult enough to admit it and apoligize. M2 wrote an apoligy email for his "slip of the fingers" granted that was far more blatent than "entitled" "selfish" "nincoompoos" etc, etc, etc. Anyways to each his/her own. The original topic that brought about this substrand was "cause of the divide" I think I have illustrated that parents are not 100% culpable for any divide that exists and that some was cultivated/fostered by comments made by our leadership which then people took that bal and felt it was ok (since our leaders did it) and ran with it. If you disagree and SB/Admin had no part in that, then we can agree to disagree.
|
|
fasttimes
Junior
Dean Wermer, When is the Parade?
Posts: 113
|
Post by fasttimes on Mar 24, 2009 16:23:33 GMT -5
Your opinion. From you not mentioning entitled in your post; I am assuming you think that was out of line and was one of the seeds that others seemed to use as a defacto Admin condonement for "others" to continue on with other labels. As for the "fence it off baby" I must preface that I was not hugely concerned with the safety issues (except the pipes) but I was at the meeting when Dr. D made the statement. it wasn't just his words "fence it off Baby" it was the WAY he said it so joyfully/gleefully and with a laugh and giggle. Perhaps he was trying to lighten the mood (I didn't think it was appropriate. if you were there perhaps you did and we can have a different interpretation of the event and delivery of the statement) or perhaps he was trying to slap down those with valid concerns and trivialize their concerns. We will never know what was the intent of the delivery. If he just wanted to communicate that the area could be quarenteened; why not just say "we can fence off any area deemed to be a potential risk until a permanent fix can be put in place. This should allay any short term fears/concerns for student safety" Instead he woohoos and laughs "just fence it off Baby" I took his comment and delivery as marginalizing and attempting to demean those parents that had concerns. you can view it any way you wish to. Actually, I can believe that people acted in entitled ways (via emails, phone calls, in person, etc.). I see people acting entitled all of the time, in various ways: in restaurants, on the streets (driving), in stores, in youth sports, etc. And calling a spade a spade is appropriate, and sometimes necessary. Agreed Entitled is not necessarly a bad word. I guess it depends on if you agree with who is entitled and for what they are entitled for and the delivery of said message. I can find many words to describe something, someone, that might be accurate in my mind (but not necessarily in others folks minds) that would be of a similiar nature as entitled, but would garner a very negative reaction from the intended person/group etc. I can agree with calling out an individual or several individuals that were/are acting entitled in Dr/ D's mind along with his reasons (statements/emails/phone calls). Let them have that discussion. I would probably agree that there are folks that act entitled throughout the district for one thing or another. However, call it out dont generalize. Mr. Smith has a sense of entitlement becasuse of XZY. NSFOC has a sense of entitlement because of XZY. Dont generalize, be specific and you wont alieniate entire areas or wrongly labeled groups and be a part of the divide we were talking about. Good Entitled: I (and all Taxpayers) are entitled to the best SD we can possibly have Our kids are entitled to the best enducation the collective group can provide. We are entitled to a SB that is committed to the above two points We are entitled to these things by the fact that we pay taxes to help drive these initiatives, we volunteer our time and donate our money, and we vote for the SB members we think best illustrate the committment to the above two entitlements. That is a good Entitlement in my opinion. SomePeople may or may not agree with it based on their own opinions There are negative conotations to entitlement and it may fit and it may not. AGAIN depending on persons opinion and point of view.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 24, 2009 16:41:05 GMT -5
Actually, I can believe that people acted in entitled ways (via emails, phone calls, in person, etc.). I see people acting entitled all of the time, in various ways: in restaurants, on the streets (driving), in stores, in youth sports, etc. And calling a spade a spade is appropriate, and sometimes necessary. Agreed Entitled is not necessarly a bad word. I guess it depends on if you agree with who is entitled and for what they are entitled for and the delivery of said message. I can find many words to describe something, someone, that might be accurate in my mind (but not necessarily in others folks minds) that would be of a similiar nature as entitled, but would garner a very negative reaction from the intended person/group etc. I can agree with calling out an individual or several individuals that were/are acting entitled in Dr/ D's mind along with his reasons (statements/emails/phone calls). Let them have that discussion. I would probably agree that there are folks that act entitled throughout the district for one thing or another. However, call it out dont generalize. Mr. Smith has a sense of entitlement becasuse of XZY. NSFOC has a sense of entitlement because of XZY. Dont generalize, be specific and you wont alieniate entire areas or wrongly labeled groups and be a part of the divide we were talking about. Good Entitled: I (and all Taxpayers) are entitled to the best SD we can possibly have Our kids are entitled to the best enducation the collective group can provide. We are entitled to a SB that is committed to the above two points We are entitled to these things by the fact that we pay taxes to help drive these initiatives, we volunteer our time and donate our money, and we vote for the SB members we think best illustrate the committment to the above two entitlements. That is a good Entitlement in my opinion. SomePeople may or may not agree with it based on their own opinions There are negative conotations to entitlement and it may fit and it may not. AGAIN depending on persons opinion and point of view. Yes - sounds reasonable, and I don't recall people, SB or otherwise, generalizing. I recall specific people or groups being called out for specific actions. ETA: I do recall people from some areas taking things the wrong way, and extrapolating things inappropriately. For example, if someone said: "some people from <area X> are behind <plan Y>" or, "some people from <area Z> were acting entitled", some people turned around said "hey I'm from area X and I'm not involved" or "I know some people in area Z and they are not like that". These people were reacting to something that wasn't directed at a generalized group. The majority of people are smart enough to know that you just can't generalize about people that live in a specific subdivision, live in a specific regional area, or attend a particular ES, MS, or HS.
|
|
fasttimes
Junior
Dean Wermer, When is the Parade?
Posts: 113
|
Post by fasttimes on Mar 24, 2009 18:15:19 GMT -5
Agreed Entitled is not necessarly a bad word. I guess it depends on if you agree with who is entitled and for what they are entitled for and the delivery of said message. I can find many words to describe something, someone, that might be accurate in my mind (but not necessarily in others folks minds) that would be of a similiar nature as entitled, but would garner a very negative reaction from the intended person/group etc. I can agree with calling out an individual or several individuals that were/are acting entitled in Dr/ D's mind along with his reasons (statements/emails/phone calls). Let them have that discussion. I would probably agree that there are folks that act entitled throughout the district for one thing or another. However, call it out dont generalize. Mr. Smith has a sense of entitlement becasuse of XZY. NSFOC has a sense of entitlement because of XZY. Dont generalize, be specific and you wont alieniate entire areas or wrongly labeled groups and be a part of the divide we were talking about. Good Entitled: I (and all Taxpayers) are entitled to the best SD we can possibly have Our kids are entitled to the best enducation the collective group can provide. We are entitled to a SB that is committed to the above two points We are entitled to these things by the fact that we pay taxes to help drive these initiatives, we volunteer our time and donate our money, and we vote for the SB members we think best illustrate the committment to the above two entitlements. That is a good Entitlement in my opinion. SomePeople may or may not agree with it based on their own opinions There are negative conotations to entitlement and it may fit and it may not. AGAIN depending on persons opinion and point of view. Yes - sounds reasonable, and I don't recall people, SB or otherwise, generalizing. I recall specific people or groups being called out for specific actions. ETA: I do recall people from some areas taking things the wrong way, and extrapolating things inappropriately. For example, if someone said: "some people from <area X> are behind <plan Y>" or, "some people from <area Z> were acting entitled", some people turned around said "hey I'm from area X and I'm not involved" or "I know some people in area Z and they are not like that". These people were reacting to something that wasn't directed at a generalized group. The majority of people are smart enough to know that you just can't generalize about people that live in a specific subdivision, live in a specific regional area, or attend a particular ES, MS, or HS. I hope so (people smart enough to know you cant generalize about people, subdivisions etc). But this would be in a perfect world and not everyone is playing with a full deck and folks come with their own bias baggage.. BTW, IMO Z(aside from learning it at home) this is how sterotyping begins. Bad interaction/experience from somebody from subdivision X/or MS Y and now view everyone from subdivision x/ or MS Y with suspiscion/bad intentions until proven innocent. Just substitute race or religion in there and you have the beginnings of racism or discrimination or whatever other bad ism's are out there. I do recall some generalizing: I cant remember the exact quote and D204 already pulled the SB meeting archives from back them: let me paraphrase; "SOME people in the district have a sense of entitlement". sounds pretty general to me. And for extra impact let me just stare into just one portion of the crowd while I say my general comments. I suggest Dr. D growing a pair and call a spade a spade as you say WP. THEN at least there is dialogue and those he was generalizing about on his pulpit could defend themselves and counter with why that statement is inaccurate. I dont think that is too much to ask? do you? In any case I am not sure how this is relevant unless you are taking the position similiar to SteckDad's and saying the Parents in the district are THE reason for any divide and the SB/SD has NO part of that issue created. Are you taking this position WP? If you are taking that postion please say so and we can possibly probe/discuss some other areas of the potential divide (and causes/culpability)
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 24, 2009 20:58:39 GMT -5
The division created by the SB dates back to the referendum, not the boundary discussions. By refusing to accept the results of the first referendum defeat, by hiring a marketing firm to use every scare tactic in the book, by summarily dismissing enrollment projections that showed lower numbers than their "experts," the SB declared war against anyone who was not in favor. And when it came time for the second ref, it was known that some subdivisions needed to be on board for passage, so the boundaries for BB were discussed and ratified prior to the ref being passed. Then, when BB was totally botched, the SB ended up betraying those very subdivisions that pushed the ref over the top.
|
|
fasttimes
Junior
Dean Wermer, When is the Parade?
Posts: 113
|
Post by fasttimes on Mar 25, 2009 19:08:08 GMT -5
The division created by the SB dates back to the referendum, not the boundary discussions. By refusing to accept the results of the first referendum defeat, by hiring a marketing firm to use every scare tactic in the book, by summarily dismissing enrollment projections that showed lower numbers than their "experts," the SB declared war against anyone who was not in favor. And when it came time for the second ref, it was known that some subdivisions needed to be on board for passage, so the boundaries for BB were discussed and ratified prior to the ref being passed. Then, when BB was totally botched, the SB ended up betraying those very subdivisions that pushed the ref over the top. makes sense and I would agree with you. I really wasn't following all that closely for the first ref. All i knew was that the board gave me no info and asked for a bunch of money for a 3rd HS. Tough to justify. On the second bite at the apple, yeah I saw some major league fan-dangling and propaganda and FUD about split shifts, hallway classrooms etc. and it passed. I didn't buy the NIU numbers and tended to agree with Vickers on the need for a 3rd HS. Unfortunate thing about it, is the NIU enrollment figures were way off other data points. "Our D204" numbers are better than "theirs" I heard that again with the BB land price. The real shame is the updated enrollment numbers that came out last march before we broke ground is 8400 (8900 at the top of the bubble). I think 2 freshmen centers and 2 HS's would have sufficed and we would have just needed to build another MS (much less cost). At this point it is what it is and we are saddled with the 3rd HS whether we need it or not. perhaps some day it will be utilized at optimal capacity, but that is many many years off. I am more worried about how the new board is going to be able to fund the operation of that puppy. If an operating ref doesn't pass, we are up poop creek and everything is going to get whacked across the district to open and run the school. Based on the last referendum and the aftermath; I am sure everyone will have their reading glasses out to know what they are truly voting for. I hope they write up that thing air tight or it wont pass and I sure hope they don't print out alot of flyers with info that WONT be on the REF Ballot. Anything written or said is irrelevant. This is what a portion of the district learned coming out of the 2nd Ref fiasco. I hate to say this, but its the position the previous SB put us in. I didnt vote for the 3rd HS in either ref #1 or Ref #2. Something didnt smell right in ref #2 in terms of the huge spike in enrollment over a relatively short time span and I was more like minded with Vickers on alternate less expensive ways to handle a smaller bubble which everyone knew was there. God help us if the next operating ref does not pass. Forget the marketing consultants. Hire more legal to write airtight ref language.
|
|