|
Post by sportsmom on Jul 24, 2009 19:59:50 GMT -5
I was driving by the school today to pick up a baseball teammate. There is a nasty portable right smack dab in the front of the building. I spoke with 2 Young parents that are on the team. They will put 2 4th grade classes into the portable. There is a divider. Art and music will have its own room.
Is anybody else as frustrated as I that our district is spending money on this - and sticking it out for all to see - when we have probably an excess of 1,000 seats at the elementary school level?
This will not be addressed by the admin as KB was part of the riduclous elementary school building boom and I imagine she will not acknowldege capacity in other schools.
What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jul 24, 2009 21:22:57 GMT -5
I was driving past when the portables were delivered. They are ugly and very obtrusive.
I am mostly angry that we went forward with ADK when space was still an issue at ANY of the schools. They should either have addressed the space issues by redrawing Young's boundaries or they should have made Young's kindergarten half day and allowed the parents wanting full day to have their kids bussed to Brooks or Steck or another school with kindergarten capacity. Having half day kindergarten at Young rather than full day would free up at least 2 classrooms.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jul 25, 2009 8:11:58 GMT -5
I was driving past when the portables were delivered. They are ugly and very obtrusive. I am mostly angry that we went forward with ADK when space was still an issue at ANY of the schools. They should either have addressed the space issues by redrawing Young's boundaries or they should have made Young's kindergarten half day and allowed the parents wanting full day to have their kids bussed to Brooks or Steck or another school with kindergarten capacity. Having half day kindergarten at Young rather than full day would free up at least 2 classrooms. That is frustrating. The district didn't bat an eye when they sent the Ashbury kindergartners to Builta for awhile. Do you think they are just too burnt out from the last boundary war to start a new one? They really should be utilizing other nearby schools instead of getting a portable. I think they need another half day kindergarten option in the north. But then that would mess up the almighty ADK scheme and actually give residents options.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jul 25, 2009 9:07:15 GMT -5
I was driving past when the portables were delivered. They are ugly and very obtrusive. I am mostly angry that we went forward with ADK when space was still an issue at ANY of the schools. They should either have addressed the space issues by redrawing Young's boundaries or they should have made Young's kindergarten half day and allowed the parents wanting full day to have their kids bussed to Brooks or Steck or another school with kindergarten capacity. Having half day kindergarten at Young rather than full day would free up at least 2 classrooms. That is frustrating. The district didn't bat an eye when they sent the Ashbury kindergartners to Builta for awhile. Do you think they are just too burnt out from the last boundary war to start a new one? They really should be utilizing other nearby schools instead of getting a portable. I think they need another half day kindergarten option in the north. But then that would mess up the almighty ADK scheme and actually give residents options. I agree completely. I don't know why they are keeping half day K from being a viable option for most of the district, nor why this space problem had to be created at Young.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Jul 25, 2009 18:45:18 GMT -5
That is frustrating. The district didn't bat an eye when they sent the Ashbury kindergartners to Builta for awhile. Do you think they are just too burnt out from the last boundary war to start a new one? They really should be utilizing other nearby schools instead of getting a portable. I think they need another half day kindergarten option in the north. But then that would mess up the almighty ADK scheme and actually give residents options. I agree completely. I don't know why they are keeping half day K from being a viable option for most of the district, nor why this space problem had to be created at Young. Because in the minds of Admin it really isn't a "viable option". From what I understand we are an ADK district. Period. The ONLY reason 1/2 day is offered is because they are legally mandated to do so. They will make it as difficult as possible for parents to exercise this legally mandated option, because they are striving to have every kid enrolled in all day kindergarten.
|
|
|
Post by sportsmom on Jul 25, 2009 20:50:37 GMT -5
I sent an e-mail to Board of Directors on the Portables and got an immediate response from DDS. So thankful I did not vote for her. Below text copied directly from the e-mail.
" I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to educate our children, the future of America.
I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to keep students at their "home, or neighborhood, school" when possible.
Yes, there is an over-crowding issue at Young this coming school year, therefore the need for the temporary classrooms.
ADK is only one minor issue in the big scheme of the community elementary school. In fact, last year, Young was up 60 students from the previous year, with a total of 782 students.
Since we are a "unit" (or "building" district), before you pass judgement on your "tax dollars at waste," may I suggest that you call Young's principal to ask for specifics at 630-375-3800.
Thank you.
Respectfully, Dawn DeSart IPSD 204 Board of Education"
|
|
|
Post by sportsmom on Jul 25, 2009 22:08:33 GMT -5
I sent an e-mail to Board of Directors on the Portables and got an immediate response from DDS. So thankful I did not vote for her. Below text copied directly from the e-mail. " I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to educate our children, the future of America. I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to keep students at their "home, or neighborhood, school" when possible. Yes, there is an over-crowding issue at Young this coming school year, therefore the need for the temporary classrooms. ADK is only one minor issue in the big scheme of the community elementary school. In fact, last year, Young was up 60 students from the previous year, with a total of 782 students. Since we are a "unit" (or "building" district), before you pass judgement on your "tax dollars at waste," may I suggest that you call Young's principal to ask for specifics at 630-375-3800. Thank you. Respectfully, Dawn DeSart IPSD 204 Board of Education" Here is the original e-mail I sent. I noticed that she didn't answer any of my questions. What is up with the ugly portable up at Young right in front and center for all to see??? I do believe District 204 has in excess of 500 seats in it elementary schools. I can't believe there wasn't any other option available. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Did you ever think to bus Young ADK to a location with extra room??? (McCarty K kids went to Georgetown and Bulita K kids went to Patterson - there is precedence.)The ADK in Villages/Chikory already bus 6 miles each day to Owen. Young ADK can bus to May Watts. THanks for wasting my money. EDIT: i do see I made a mistake --- Patterson kids went to Builta...oops Oh, well she probably won't pick it up.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Jul 26, 2009 0:08:02 GMT -5
I sent an e-mail to Board of Directors on the Portables and got an immediate response from DDS. So thankful I did not vote for her. Below text copied directly from the e-mail. " I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to educate our children, the future of America. I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to keep students at their "home, or neighborhood, school" when possible. Yes, there is an over-crowding issue at Young this coming school year, therefore the need for the temporary classrooms. ADK is only one minor issue in the big scheme of the community elementary school. In fact, last year, Young was up 60 students from the previous year, with a total of 782 students. Since we are a "unit" (or "building" district), before you pass judgement on your "tax dollars at waste," may I suggest that you call Young's principal to ask for specifics at 630-375-3800. Thank you. Respectfully, Dawn DeSart IPSD 204 Board of Education" Here is the original e-mail I sent. I noticed that she didn't answer any of my questions. What is up with the ugly portable up at Young right in front and center for all to see??? I do believe District 204 has in excess of 500 seats in it elementary schools. I can't believe there wasn't any other option available. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Did you ever think to bus Young ADK to a location with extra room??? (McCarty K kids went to Georgetown and Bulita K kids went to Patterson - there is precedence.)The ADK in Villages/Chikory already bus 6 miles each day to Owen. Young ADK can bus to May Watts. THanks for wasting my money. EDIT: i do see I made a mistake --- Patterson kids went to Builta...oops Oh, well she probably won't pick it up. Remember they were supposed to revisit the school boundaries from the ES level on up through the HS level - the last good chance at a complete rework with all current facts and projections. However their priorities changed to only focus on the HS boundaries they wanted ( also now saying they are going to study the transportation costs and bus routes which were claimed to have already been done and were not). There is plenty of room @ Owen and Watts ( although they did add a 3rd satelite to Watts - bussing kids from Rt 59 and North Aurora there. There is excess capacity at the ES level yet we are spending money on portables. One day the capacity will have to be addressed- and likely schools consolidated...that day should have been 18 months ago
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 26, 2009 7:53:18 GMT -5
I think most here agree they did a poor job redoing the ES Boundaries. Even after they did them I noticed that Young was going to have a space issue. BTW - My area goes to Young, passing by Brooks to get there.
The only thing I can think of, and that's a stretch, is that they see this as a 1 time (for next year) solution.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 26, 2009 11:14:26 GMT -5
..... Remember they were supposed to revisit the school boundaries from the ES level on up through the HS level - the last good chance at a complete rework with all current facts and projections. However their priorities changed to only focus on the HS boundaries they wanted ....... First, there were some ES boundaries changed during the boundary decision. They did work on--and make changes on---boundaries at all levels. Most importantly, it is unfair to characterize the HS boundaries (and MS too) as what "they wanted". The admin put out criteria prior to deciding upon boundaries. Then they produced boundaries that met those criteria. Was there a groundswell of public (or message board) complaints that the criteria were wrong? There was not. Did anybody put before the SB a boundary plan that could be accepted as better meeting the agreed-upon criteria? I dont think so. I certainly know this....nobody put on a message board any plan that clearly better met the criteria. Which led many of us to strongly conclude that there wasnt one out there. So yes, lets discuss the causes/consequences/impact of portables at Young. But I think we will find it quite non-productive to continuously mis-characterize the last boundary process.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jul 26, 2009 14:31:06 GMT -5
The boundary discussion will always be tied to the 3rd HS location discussion. Once the decision to build on Eola was made--and most of us have very strong opinions on why the location was good or bad--the boundaries were pretty much going to follow a certain path.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jul 26, 2009 16:20:45 GMT -5
I sent an e-mail to Board of Directors on the Portables and got an immediate response from DDS. So thankful I did not vote for her. Below text copied directly from the e-mail. " I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to educate our children, the future of America. I don't believe it's a "waste of money" to keep students at their "home, or neighborhood, school" when possible. Yes, there is an over-crowding issue at Young this coming school year, therefore the need for the temporary classrooms. ADK is only one minor issue in the big scheme of the community elementary school. In fact, last year, Young was up 60 students from the previous year, with a total of 782 students. Since we are a "unit" (or "building" district), before you pass judgement on your "tax dollars at waste," may I suggest that you call Young's principal to ask for specifics at 630-375-3800. Thank you. Respectfully, Dawn DeSart IPSD 204 Board of Education" Here is the original e-mail I sent. I noticed that she didn't answer any of my questions. What is up with the ugly portable up at Young right in front and center for all to see??? I do believe District 204 has in excess of 500 seats in it elementary schools. I can't believe there wasn't any other option available. What a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Did you ever think to bus Young ADK to a location with extra room??? (McCarty K kids went to Georgetown and Bulita K kids went to Patterson - there is precedence.)The ADK in Villages/Chikory already bus 6 miles each day to Owen. Young ADK can bus to May Watts. THanks for wasting my money. EDIT: i do see I made a mistake --- Patterson kids went to Builta...oops Oh, well she probably won't pick it up.you don't see the tone of your email as a "mistake"?
|
|
|
Post by sportsmom on Jul 26, 2009 17:34:26 GMT -5
Ouch. Learned my lesson from you guys. Once burned, twice shy. Best to you all.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Jul 27, 2009 7:35:10 GMT -5
..... Remember they were supposed to revisit the school boundaries from the ES level on up through the HS level - the last good chance at a complete rework with all current facts and projections. However their priorities changed to only focus on the HS boundaries they wanted ....... First, there were some ES boundaries changed during the boundary decision. They did work on--and make changes on---boundaries at all levels. Most importantly, it is unfair to characterize the HS boundaries (and MS too) as what "they wanted". The admin put out criteria prior to deciding upon boundaries. Then they produced boundaries that met those criteria. Was there a groundswell of public (or message board) complaints that the criteria were wrong? There was not. Did anybody put before the SB a boundary plan that could be accepted as better meeting the agreed-upon criteria? I dont think so. I certainly know this....nobody put on a message board any plan that clearly better met the criteria. Which led many of us to strongly conclude that there wasnt one out there. So yes, lets discuss the causes/consequences/impact of portables at Young. But I think we will find it quite non-productive to continuously mis-characterize the last boundary process. What was wrong with the last boundary go around as I stated was that they stated they would rework ES thru HS - they did not. They focused on HS only - everything else was an afterthought - hence the portables you see now. Why the pass on that part of the process ? And yes they did put out criteria - however many other scenarios fit that criteria also - whether you felt they were better or not is a matter of opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours also. Was this the best solution - for some yes and for some no- but let's not categorize it as if it somehow was the best solution - purely subjective Also critera should have contained not re issuing the same horrid commute they vowed to fix for one area ( and did ) by giving it to another - if you see that as fair - or a good solution then you're right, there's no sense in dialogue on that part The main point here was that the ES boundaries were to be thoroughly addressed and they were not - and the transportation studies (cost) were supposed to be thoroughly done - and it is clear by their actions now- they also were not. Both those issues affect everyone in 204, not just an issue for me or anyone else in particular.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Jul 27, 2009 7:43:06 GMT -5
I think most here agree they did a poor job redoing the ES Boundaries. Even after they did them I noticed that Young was going to have a space issue. BTW - My area goes to Young, passing by Brooks to get there. The only thing I can think of, and that's a stretch, is that they see this as a 1 time (for next year) solution. And that was the main part I was focusing on - because maybe, just maybe had they done the complete job they said they would do - some of the other HS boundary issues would have worked themselves out also. However we'll never know now.. They did almost nothing to address overcrowding at some schools, and other schools with space galore. This was the time to make those adjustments. Remove the 4 satellites from May Watts and let kids go to school as close to their homes as possible, Now Watts and Owen are among the most under utilized - but that was chosen to be ignored also. I would rather go a little bit further to ES ( say Owen) than travel the much more extreme distance change to MVHS. The myopic approach at the time blocked any future thinking - bar one SB member
|
|