|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 14:37:35 GMT -5
Arch, you have an advantage over many of us. I don't have an account over there nor does WP. So please, keep the discussions on this board. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 14:38:14 GMT -5
WP always supported BB and in fact felt it was the better location for Metea. He has been supportive of Metea for a very long time, not just because the location changed. ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=ame&action=display&thread=717&page=2warriorpride -- Re: Scenarios « Reply #21 on Jan 2, 2008, 10:31pm » Well, I'm not going to pretend to be 100% altruistic - I am willing to admit I want something (not a lot, but something) out of the deal. I want what's best for my kids, which is what I think most want. I don't see how the kids in 204 are going to be severely damaged, no matter what site is selected.
Nothing wrong with that, or others wanting something out of it too that doesn't amount to being sent to the 3rd farthest MS and now the 3rd farthest HS, not to mention the concern many still have about the p!pelines. interesting quote - and really what I am trying to say also - isn't this what everyone wants ? most everyone ( so I don't get in trouble) , Why is it now so wrong to say somthing like this ?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 14:41:12 GMT -5
Arch, you have an advantage over many of us. I don't have an account over there nor does WP. So please, keep the discussions on this board. Thank you. It should be open to guests and there was never a block on your account name for signing back up after you deleted it nor any ban on your ip or email addr.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 14:44:55 GMT -5
Arch, you have an advantage over many of us. I don't have an account over there nor does WP. So please, keep the discussions on this board. Thank you. It should be open to guests and there was never a block on your account name for signing back up after you deleted it nor any ban on your ip or email addr. I left. No reason for me to go back. Again, dragging stuff from board to board creates situations where we get into board-against-board and I cannot tolerate that. I have no animosity towards the old board as it did some great things in its time and I have some great memories of my friends over there. I would like to think it is still doing a great job of providing a view point and information.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 14:51:21 GMT -5
Don't spit them, send them in their entirety (S/M to MV). No splits at the ES for them. Voilla. As I said before....that splits two more MS's, the 7th MS and Hill. You may say "that doesnt bother me personally" (actually I personally see appeal in split MS's) , but that is one of the established criteria. How fair is it to change the rules? Then for you on one hand to throw out "transportation cost" as an argument, but then on the other hand deny a large number of students the ability to walk to school makes absolutely no sense. I dont see you persuading anybody that this is a better solution than what we have now. Which is where we are at now, in my opinion. There isnt a "better" boundary soluntion out there for Watts and Cowl.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 14:53:40 GMT -5
ok, back on topic.. I did find something that corroborates exactly what you said, GM... sorry for one final reference but it supports exactly what you said: ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=archivedtopics&action=display&thread=929warriorpride -- Re: Gombert/Brookdale Switch a Possibility -- « Reply #6 on Feb 15, 2006, 10:50pm » "I've seen "Vote NO" signs in Brookdale & I can't help believing that at least some of them are due to the unhappiness with the proposed boundaries. I'm not trying to reopen old wounds, but the argument about how the proposed 3rd HS boundaries "isolate" them doesn't make sense to me. I have one kid in middle school and one in grade school and they know a lot of kids that go to other schools, and that will even - gasp - go to other high schools. Kids meet each other in so many ways: church, scouting, sports, and other activities. They don't live in silos and only forge & maintain relationships with kids that they meet in the 3 years of middle school. Plus, ALL kids go to high school with 100's of kids that they don't know. Kids will keep relationships with friends that go to other schools. In fact, I think that this is great, as it can help keep good relationships between schools, as opposed to adversarial relationships. It's wrong if people have swung from YES to NO because of the proposed boundaries. If you ever believed that the 3rd HS is necessary, how can you change to a NO? For the record, my preferred boundary choice was not 5A. Yet, I have been, and always will be, a YES.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 14:55:15 GMT -5
Don't spit them, send them in their entirety (S/M to MV). No splits at the ES for them. Voilla. As I said before....that splits two more MS's, the 7th MS and Hill. You may say "that doesnt bother me personally" (actually I personally see appeal in split MS's) , but that is one of the established criteria. How fair is it to change the rules? Then for you on one hand to throw out "transportation cost" as an argument, but then on the other hand deny a large number of students the ability to walk to school makes absolutely no sense. I dont see you persuading anybody that this is a better solution than what we have now. Which is where we are at now, in my opinion. There isnt a "better" boundary soluntion out there for Watts and Cowl. Figure out the cost $$ difference. Does sending them up the road where they are walkers now cost more or less than running double busses from both Cowlishaw and Watts areas all the way to MV ? Let the numbers speak for themselves. Many of us have asked the administration for the routes and costs, but have never been given byte one about it.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 14:56:12 GMT -5
ok, back on topic.. I did find something that corroborates exactly what you said, GM... sorry for one final reference but it supports exactly what you said: ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=archivedtopics&action=display&thread=929warriorpride -- Re: Gombert/Brookdale Switch a Possibility -- « Reply #6 on Feb 15, 2006, 10:50pm » "I've seen "Vote NO" signs in Brookdale & I can't help believing that at least some of them are due to the unhappiness with the proposed boundaries. I'm not trying to reopen old wounds, but the argument about how the proposed 3rd HS boundaries "isolate" them doesn't make sense to me. I have one kid in middle school and one in grade school and they know a lot of kids that go to other schools, and that will even - gasp - go to other high schools. Kids meet each other in so many ways: church, scouting, sports, and other activities. They don't live in silos and only forge & maintain relationships with kids that they meet in the 3 years of middle school. Plus, ALL kids go to high school with 100's of kids that they don't know. Kids will keep relationships with friends that go to other schools. In fact, I think that this is great, as it can help keep good relationships between schools, as opposed to adversarial relationships. It's wrong if people have swung from YES to NO because of the proposed boundaries. If you ever believed that the 3rd HS is necessary, how can you change to a NO? For the record, my preferred boundary choice was not 5A. Yet, I have been, and always will be, a YES.Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 5, 2008 14:59:23 GMT -5
WP always supported BB and in fact felt it was the better location for Metea. He has been supportive of Metea for a very long time, not just because the location changed. I know he voted yes, so again poor choice of words from me -- I know he would always have preferred anothe site - sorry for any mis statement... ya got me confused with someone else, sir - I vote yes in 05, would have voted yes in 06 regardless of boundaries - thought BB was the best location - when the jury price came out, I supported trying to figure out how to stay at BB - then when the SB started looking for other options, I supported them - I would have been angry if Macom were selected, but I think I would have gotten over it, as the key to me was getting MV opened in 09. All I ever asked for was some balance across the schools and I am satisfied with what was selected for BB and I am satisfied with the MV boundaries, from that perspective. I will not have it easy, if you will, as I will have a child in MV and a child in WV for 2009-2010 AND 2010-2011. There are others in my shoes, too. It will stink. And, obviously, my youngest will have the fortune to open a new school, with no established programs, or extracurriculars - I've heard it's not easy opening a new school. I'm ok with it, though.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 5, 2008 15:07:48 GMT -5
WP always supported BB and in fact felt it was the better location for Metea. He has been supportive of Metea for a very long time, not just because the location changed. ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=ame&action=display&thread=717&page=2warriorpride -- Re: Scenarios « Reply #21 on Jan 2, 2008, 10:31pm » Well, I'm not going to pretend to be 100% altruistic - I am willing to admit I want something (not a lot, but something) out of the deal. I want what's best for my kids, which is what I think most want. I don't see how the kids in 204 are going to be severely damaged, no matter what site is selected.
Nothing wrong with that, or others wanting something out of it too that doesn't amount to being sent to the 3rd farthest MS and now the 3rd farthest HS, not to mention the concern many still have about the p!pelines. hey, no gaming the wordlist Regarding my post that you quoted: What I wanted for my kids (13 and 15) was less crowding, all I ever asked other than that was for was some balance across the 3 HSs - I don't recall asking for any more than that - If you feel like looking over the X thousand posts that I made on the other board before my account was deleted (without notice) and show that I asked for anything other than that, I will apoligize - I believe that I have been consistant in my support of a 3rd HS since 05.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 15:12:27 GMT -5
sad there has to be a word list where 'f.u.rthest' is replaced with scenic and p.i.pelines is replaced by straws.. but hey.. not my site.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 5, 2008 15:14:03 GMT -5
ok, back on topic.. I did find something that corroborates exactly what you said, GM... sorry for one final reference but it supports exactly what you said: ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=archivedtopics&action=display&thread=929warriorpride -- Re: Gombert/Brookdale Switch a Possibility -- « Reply #6 on Feb 15, 2006, 10:50pm » "I've seen "Vote NO" signs in Brookdale & I can't help believing that at least some of them are due to the unhappiness with the proposed boundaries. I'm not trying to reopen old wounds, but the argument about how the proposed 3rd HS boundaries "isolate" them doesn't make sense to me. I have one kid in middle school and one in grade school and they know a lot of kids that go to other schools, and that will even - gasp - go to other high schools. Kids meet each other in so many ways: church, scouting, sports, and other activities. They don't live in silos and only forge & maintain relationships with kids that they meet in the 3 years of middle school. Plus, ALL kids go to high school with 100's of kids that they don't know. Kids will keep relationships with friends that go to other schools. In fact, I think that this is great, as it can help keep good relationships between schools, as opposed to adversarial relationships. It's wrong if people have swung from YES to NO because of the proposed boundaries. If you ever believed that the 3rd HS is necessary, how can you change to a NO? For the record, my preferred boundary choice was not 5A. Yet, I have been, and always will be, a YES.fine - my point was that boundaries, alone, aren't going to isolate people - and my main point was that I felt that you either felt that we needed a 3rd HS, or we didn't and boundaries shouldn't change your mind about your support for the Ref - I feel the exact same way today, and now, given the events of the last 6 months, I feel the same way about the location of the school (shouldnt decide whether or not you support a 3rd HS).
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 15:14:35 GMT -5
I dont see you persuading anybody that this is a better solution than what we have now. Which is where we are at now, in my opinion. There isnt a "better" boundary soluntion out there for Watts and Cowl. I've never witnessed you throwing in the towel on boundaries or number crunching before. In fact, I was always impressed with how you could shuffle them around and come up with really cool ideas from what appeared to be left field.
|
|
|
Post by stmom on Jun 5, 2008 15:17:11 GMT -5
At the risk of making a different group of people upset? I don't think that anyone on this forum can help you with that. Anything that we can actually help with? What's there to be upset about making a quick run up Eola to a shiny new school for Steck and McCarty? It's far closer and by many people's assertions, they should be happy and thrilled about it. The SB president sending his area there would be the right thing to do, IMO. I'm pretty sure MM is in the 10% (or whatever) that are actually true walkers to WV that also attend Steck.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 15:18:59 GMT -5
As I said before....that splits two more MS's, the 7th MS and Hill. You may say "that doesnt bother me personally" (actually I personally see appeal in split MS's) , but that is one of the established criteria. How fair is it to change the rules? Then for you on one hand to throw out "transportation cost" as an argument, but then on the other hand deny a large number of students the ability to walk to school makes absolutely no sense. I dont see you persuading anybody that this is a better solution than what we have now. Which is where we are at now, in my opinion. There isnt a "better" boundary soluntion out there for Watts and Cowl. Figure out the cost $$ difference. Does sending them up the road where they are walkers now cost more or less than running double busses from both Cowlishaw and Watts areas all the way to MV ? Let the numbers speak for themselves. Many of us have asked the administration for the routes and costs, but have never been given byte one about it. I am not doing the calculation. Again, the burden of proof in my mind and for the district I am sure, is: does somebody have a "better" boundary plan? Since in my mind, such a plan clearly is not better (violates criteria!) , I wont be wasting my time doing any such calculations. Arch, how can you seriously talk about optimizing one and only one criteria (transportation costs...MAYBE, you think ) at the expense of all other criteria? We are talking about multiple criteria here. Not just the ones you or I or anybody deem important to them.
|
|