Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jun 3, 2008 13:12:14 GMT -5
I agree smom. Even if a candidate campaigned with promises of redoing boundaries and managed to get elected, I can't see enough SB members agreeing with her/him to get the boundaries back under consideration so I think this is an unproductive discussion. Wouldn't it take at least 5 people to get this back on the table? I can only think of 1 SB member who might be willing to open the door, and IIRC, her area isn't upset so even she is doubtful. Why open the door to all the abuse they would get heaped on them?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 3, 2008 13:37:35 GMT -5
I don't really get why are we talking about boundaries again at this point. No reason...just something to talk about........who knows someone may actually come up with a brilliant plan that no-one else thought of before. I know I am in the minority on this, but personally I don't see ES splits as a big deal. IMHO it's a bigger deal to split MS.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 13:50:37 GMT -5
Boundary "do overs"? Well, show me, and everybody in the district that its clearly better than what we have now. The burden of proof, I do believe is extremely high for anybody that claims to have a "better" boundary plan. Simple. Hand over the current analysis/costs for what the District put out down to the dollar with a variable in there for fuel cost. We will gladly go through the trouble of the routes w/ Laidlaw for the rest of the comparison. You can PM me that information or PM me a link to where you have it online. Thanks. 'splitting' Watts main area from Lehigh (as an example) is not a bad thing. Due to geography (the original sin if you will) it actually solves the problem where no area goes to the farthest high school. These locations have already endured 6 years at a ES clear across town going with kids who only a handful ever see each other outside of school due to geography and by then only due to parental commitment to make play dates happen. Now, according to the district's proposal, it's the 'other halfs' turn to feel the pain? We agree to disagree there. I think it 'rights the original wrong' for ESs with large geographical splits in their final school years. Repeat this with Owen East, Owen West (both go to their closest HS). Please tell me what areas are punished, made less, inconvenienced, etc by this and why. Dude, many people on here worked together to get a HUGE tax hike passed after it was defeated a year prior. I think we can all sharpen our pencils and figure out a better middle school solution, don't you? Put out the numbers then. We used the District's neighborhood breakdown with kid count. If you have more detailed updated data, post it. A solution that makes everyone throughout the district feel more on equitable footing in the 'solution' can only make it better and lessen the chances for failed referendums in the future. Pretend problems don't exist and it breeds resentment. In a down economy, I wouldn't want to roll the dice on an operating referendum with large amounts of unhappy people out there. Would you? There is a 'stick it to them' buzz going on out there; I'm trying to head that off before it's too late. Your help would be good to have because you have a good knack for numbers.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 3, 2008 13:57:56 GMT -5
Parent, what's with the Cardinal hat, huh?
|
|
|
Post by rural on Jun 3, 2008 14:05:53 GMT -5
I don't really get why are we talking about boundaries again at this point. No reason...just something to talk about........who knows someone may actually come up with a brilliant plan that no-one else thought of before. I know I am in the minority on this, but personally I don't see ES splits as a big deal. IMHO it's a bigger deal to split MS. I agree with Parent. My daughter has some friends from ES that she knows from the neighborhood and some she's kept because they are very close, but most of her friends at MS are new kids she met this year.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 14:11:47 GMT -5
See...That is a good proposal IMHO, and should have been seriously considered. How is the MS breakdown with this? Boundary "do overs"? Well, show me, and everybody in the district that its clearly better than what we have now. The burden of proof, I do believe is extremely high for anybody that claims to have a "better" boundary plan. First, I am with wvhsparent....the above proposal is meaningless without showing MS assignments. My experience tells me....its easy to divvy up ES to HS, the hard part is assigning MS's! Right off the bat, though, its a step backwards in terms of ES splits. This has more than current plan. Not less. To match established criteria concern splits (a criteria that could be debated) this plan is in wrong direction, in that regard. Second, some ES details are wrong in that as others said, more of MCC are walkers. The entire neighborhood surrounding MCC ES, all the way to the railroad tracks has no bus service. That is much more than 10% of the school. Another big problem is the Peterson area east of 59 are walkers to NV. As somebody said, there is no perfect plan. I have a question, where is the burden of proof that the SB did due diligence to this ( including transportation costs) -? Why is it many people here who would question any other investment of their money in their lives ( I believe) are willing to trust that this is the best plan ? I am sorry but my trust the the SB is long gone - and their history of dealing with boundaries is the basis for a lot of that. If they release how they got here ( not a chance IMHO)- then maybe they can put to rest sittuations like how Owen E & W got split but yet only people in one area knew it was coming - and at the boundary meeting supposedly it was a new thought ? And if they want to avoid the heapin' helpin' of grief over this, do what should have been done this time- hire a professional boundary firm... there are plenty of them. Objective and best return for ou money transportation wise would be one of the criteria. No blame on the SB or SD. The company would have no vested interest in cutting deals with any area.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 14:13:52 GMT -5
No reason...just something to talk about........who knows someone may actually come up with a brilliant plan that no-one else thought of before. I know I am in the minority on this, but personally I don't see ES splits as a big deal. IMHO it's a bigger deal to split MS. I agree with Parent. My daughter has some friends from ES that she knows from the neighborhood and some she's kept because they are very close, but most of her friends at MS are new kids she met this year. Also in agreement on this as 'arrangments' are made almost entirely by parents in ES ( except for kids that live on one's block )- from MS on the kids start making their own friend arragnements.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 3, 2008 14:14:40 GMT -5
No reason...just something to talk about........who knows someone may actually come up with a brilliant plan that no-one else thought of before. I know I am in the minority on this, but personally I don't see ES splits as a big deal. IMHO it's a bigger deal to split MS. I agree with Parent. My daughter has some friends from ES that she knows from the neighborhood and some she's kept because they are very close, but most of her friends at MS are new kids she met this year. She had to meet someone new in MS. They don't lose the ability to keep doing that when they hit HS, do they? In a real world example, my junior this year is friends from his ES area and ones he met from Georgetown when he got to WV. The only one from MS moved to D203 when they were in 7th grade. My daughter in 8th associated with only a handful from her ES area and none from any other areas. Her extra curricular doesn't really lend to that ability anyway. Everyone's situation is different and some can take or leave it while it matters to others.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 18:58:19 GMT -5
And if they want to avoid the heapin' helpin' of grief over this, do what should have been done this time- hire a professional boundary firm... there are plenty of them. Objective and best return for ou money transportation wise would be one of the criteria. No blame on the SB or SD. The company would have no vested interest in cutting deals with any area. Funny thing, the district hired professionals to investigate the environmental issues and nobody believed them and the SB and district was still at fault for picking a site filled with polutants and environmental hazards, despite what the professionals said. There will be those who complain about the money spent and those who will not be happy with the boundaries a professional comes up with. In the end, no matter what the district did or does in this situation, somebody is not going to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 19:15:09 GMT -5
And if they want to avoid the heapin' helpin' of grief over this, do what should have been done this time- hire a professional boundary firm... there are plenty of them. Objective and best return for ou money transportation wise would be one of the criteria. No blame on the SB or SD. The company would have no vested interest in cutting deals with any area. Funny thing, the district hired professionals to investigate the environmental issues and nobody believed them and the SB and district was still at fault for picking a site filled with polutants and environmental hazards, despite what the professionals said. There will be those who complain about the money spent and those who will not be happy with the boundaries a professional comes up with. In the end, no matter what the district did or does in this situation, somebody is not going to be happy. Did the professionals pick the site ? no Did the professionals opt for the MWGEN land first -? No I believe the responsibility for those decisions is well placed with the SB - they were their choices.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 19:16:15 GMT -5
Funny thing, the district hired professionals to investigate the environmental issues and nobody believed them and the SB and district was still at fault for picking a site filled with polutants and environmental hazards, despite what the professionals said. There will be those who complain about the money spent and those who will not be happy with the boundaries a professional comes up with. In the end, no matter what the district did or does in this situation, somebody is not going to be happy. Did the professionals pick the site ? no Did the porofessionals opt for the MWGEN land first -? No Did the professionals find the site safe for a high school? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 19:21:48 GMT -5
Did the professionals pick the site ? no Did the porofessionals opt for the MWGEN land first -? No Did the professionals find the site safe for a high school? Yes. MWGEN ? If MWGEN was convinced the site was safe, it would be being built there right now.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 19:23:23 GMT -5
Did the professionals find the site safe for a high school? Yes. MWGEN ? Yes. MWGEN was easily remediated, standard in fact. But then, many chose not to believe the professionals there.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 3, 2008 19:24:19 GMT -5
Yes. MWGEN was easily remediated, standard in fact. But then, many chose not to believe the professionals there. If MWGEN was convinced the site was safe, it would be being built there right now.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 3, 2008 19:25:46 GMT -5
Yes. MWGEN was easily remediated, standard in fact. But then, many chose not to believe the professionals there. If MWGEN was convinced the site was safe, it would be being built there right now. You must not have read the same letter I did. IIRC, MWGEN cited political pressure as a reason for backing out and community support, NOT that their site was inappropriate for a school.
|
|