|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 22:44:52 GMT -5
So the SB members should rework the boundaries just for you because you don't feel the site is "worth it?" Again, I understand the situation stinks for you. What I can't understand is everyone with their "me" attitude when there are others (ie: Gombert, Owen West) who don't think the site is "worth it" either in terms of commute,splits etc. but aren't demanding a boundary redo. The site (ame) was chosen because it was 'cheaper' and we could 'afford it' versus the BB site... the whole fiduciary angle. I'm merely taking that mantra and applying it also to transportation costs. Many on here said people shouldn't just look at one area for saving money, they should look at all. I happen to agree with that statement and am doing just that.. yet many now don't want to 'go there' for whatever reason. When you can show that a majority of 204 families with 1 or more kids in ES or MS are interested in re-visiting boundaries, then it's probably worth discussing. In addition, as I've stated several times today (so it's clearly not sinking in, and may not be worth stating again) - you can't put those other boundary criteria into an XLS, and out pops a ranking of each boundary scenario. There's no real way to "prove" that one set of boundaries is better than another. In the end it's subjective. But, if you want to 'go there', feel free.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 22:49:50 GMT -5
The site (ame) was chosen because it was 'cheaper' and we could 'afford it' versus the BB site... the whole fiduciary angle. I'm merely taking that mantra and applying it also to transportation costs. Many on here said people shouldn't just look at one area for saving money, they should look at all. I happen to agree with that statement and am doing just that.. yet many now don't want to 'go there' for whatever reason. I am not that opposed to 'going there' as you put it, just not with you leading. I don't trust your motives - I think your motive is not to save money but to use any analysis you may do build a case to change boundaries. Your analyses are onesided and only highlight the points that support your case, and you exploit the lack of technical expertise in your audience to make them believe that it is a balanced view of the facts. Sorry to be blunt. If this came from someone else who's motives were beyond reproach, I might consider it a worthwhile exercise. Cheers. That is the beauty of verifiable data. Motives are irrelevant but any viewer can be as prejudicial as they wish about trying to understand why the numbers say what they do. At the end of the day, verifiable data stands on its own two feet without anyone's help to prop it up or to ensure it's only viewed from a particular point of view.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 22:59:23 GMT -5
..... If so, that would eliminate JC, CB, M2, CV, AT (closest assignments) and JS (switched from 3rd to 2nd closest) and even BG who is now (as the crow flies) closer to his HS tucked up in that NW corner of WE. Yikes. If any of the existing SB members stood for elections this time on a platform of changing boundaries, I would hold them to the same standards, and not vote for them. Motives I judge from peoples track record. I haven't seen evidence for any for the existing SB members that indicates that they voted to favor themselves. I am open to examining the evidence, if you have any. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 23:00:50 GMT -5
That is the beauty of verifiable data. Motives are irrelevant but any viewer can be as prejudicial as they wish about trying to understand why the numbers say what they do. At the end of the day, verifiable data stands on its own two feet without anyone's help to prop it up or to ensure it's only viewed from a particular point of view. Not if the data is incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:03:11 GMT -5
..... If so, that would eliminate JC, CB, M2, CV, AT (closest assignments) and JS (switched from 3rd to 2nd closest) and even BG who is now (as the crow flies) closer to his HS tucked up in that NW corner of WE. Yikes. If any of the existing SB members stood for elections this time on a platform of changing boundaries, I would hold them to the same standards, and not vote for them. Motives I judge from peoples track record. I haven't seen evidence for any for the existing SB members that indicates that they voted to favor themselves. I am open to examining the evidence, if you have any. Cheers. Since we're on motives, I'll use a similar litmus for you if you run. Does your HS assignment stay the same or move closer? Either can be perceived as a 'benefit' and thus a personal agenda to 'keep the board frozen'. If it moves farther and you're OK with that, I'll vote for you. Which is it? I can only think of one on here in the farther but OK boat on this board, and you are not them. Are you in the same boat as them or a different one?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 23:05:19 GMT -5
Your Emperor is wearing no clothes, Dr. Who. You don't fool me one bit. I would oppose anyone running on that platform, regardless of the area they come from. But, really, its people who think like you that I oppose - who couch a self-serving political agenda under a seemingly altruistic veil of district welfare. And I will do my level best to stop such people from getting into political office. I want to elect people who care about the putting the welfare of the District first, not themselves. Cheers. I think if Doc wanted MW to go to NV (the closest school) I would have to agree with you. Alas, he has not spouted that mantra. So how do you determine the difference between the two above...? "Well, he *might* have some benefit from it...." Is that the litmus test? If so, that would eliminate JC, CB, M2, CV, AT (closest assignments) and JS (switched from 3rd to 2nd closest) and even BG who is now (as the crow flies) closer to his HS tucked up in that NW corner of WE. Yikes. (typo fix) Interesting that you find WE going to WV as a "benefit" to that area. Based on postings on some of these forums, it seems that at least a few people from that area might disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:05:45 GMT -5
That is the beauty of verifiable data. Motives are irrelevant but any viewer can be as prejudicial as they wish about trying to understand why the numbers say what they do. At the end of the day, verifiable data stands on its own two feet without anyone's help to prop it up or to ensure it's only viewed from a particular point of view. Not if the data is incomplete. All routes all miles all areas covering all students. That sounds complete to me. I admit I would do nothing for those who live in another district and get 'dropped off' at a fringe bus stop to attend a D204 school. They are on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:07:19 GMT -5
I think if Doc wanted MW to go to NV (the closest school) I would have to agree with you. Alas, he has not spouted that mantra. So how do you determine the difference between the two above...? "Well, he *might* have some benefit from it...." Is that the litmus test? If so, that would eliminate JC, CB, M2, CV, AT (closest assignments) and JS (switched from 3rd to 2nd closest) and even BG who is now (as the crow flies) closer to his HS tucked up in that NW corner of WE. Yikes. (typo fix) Interesting that you find WE going to WV as a "benefit" to that area. Based on postings on some of these forums, it seems that at least a few people from that area might disagree with you. I don't doubt there are a lot of people in any area who may want to go to different schools of the three. Someone once said the section he lives in was the NW portion and as the crow flies and the car drives, it's closer to WV than to NV. Gas savings and lower travel time is a benefit to many. I believe the current topic is now about someone's perceived 'benefit' from a situation.. either wanting to change current or keep it where it is.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 23:20:37 GMT -5
Since we're on motives, I'll use a similar litmus for you if you run. Does your HS assignment stay the same or move closer? Either can be perceived as a 'benefit' and thus a personal agenda to 'keep the board frozen'. If it moves farther and you're OK with that, I'll vote for you. Which is it? I can only think of one on here in the farther but OK boat on this board, and you are not them. Are you in the same boat as them or a different one? Sorry to disappoint you - I am not running for SB. Save your energy for someone who is running. I don't have to answer your silly 20 questions - only candidates do. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:22:43 GMT -5
Since we're on motives, I'll use a similar litmus for you if you run. Does your HS assignment stay the same or move closer? Either can be perceived as a 'benefit' and thus a personal agenda to 'keep the board frozen'. If it moves farther and you're OK with that, I'll vote for you. Which is it? I can only think of one on here in the farther but OK boat on this board, and you are not them. Are you in the same boat as them or a different one? Sorry to disappoint you - I am not running for SB. Save your energy for someone who is running. I don't have to answer your silly 20 questions - only candidates do. Cheers. I don't plan on running either, so touche'. Now, which boat are you in?
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 23:27:12 GMT -5
Not if the data is incomplete. All routes all miles all areas covering all students. That sounds complete to me. I admit I would do nothing for those who live in another district and get 'dropped off' at a fringe bus stop to attend a D204 school. They are on their own. Exactly why I wouldn't trust your analysis. It will be one sided as you will only be able to look at miles from what you describe as complete data. There are other criteria than just miles to decide what boundaries should be. Your analysis would only look at miles. For me, miles alone, no matter how accurate is not sufficient, and therefore incomplete data. I don't like unbalanced analyses. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:31:54 GMT -5
All routes all miles all areas covering all students. That sounds complete to me. I admit I would do nothing for those who live in another district and get 'dropped off' at a fringe bus stop to attend a D204 school. They are on their own. Exactly why I wouldn't trust your analysis. It will be one sided as you will only be able to look at miles from what you describe as complete data. There are other criteria than just miles to decide what boundaries should be. Your analysis would only look at miles. For me, miles alone, no matter how accurate is not sufficient, and therefore incomplete data. I don't like unbalanced analyses. Cheers. What other empirical and non-emotional data is there aside from building capacity and future growth (which can also be said to be speculative/opinion based) ?
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 23:37:44 GMT -5
Sorry to disappoint you - I am not running for SB. Save your energy for someone who is running. I don't have to answer your silly 20 questions - only candidates do. Cheers. I don't plan on running either, so touche'. Now, which boat are you in? My current assignment and former assignment are the same from a school bus route perspective. As the crow flies, my current is closer by a maybe 1-2 miles. It was a non-issue where we went for my family, and as a result, we did not spend months complaining about why our old assignment was a couple of miles more. Now, if I had spend countless number of posts whining about why my old assignment was horrible, and the new one is so desirable because of distance, yeah, you could ascribe a hidden motive to what I support. But, I didn't have a problem with either. But I am sure you will play your games and twist this to your benefit, won't you? Would be par for the course.... wouldn't expect anything less. Gingerwoods and Butterfield have had longer commutes to WV for ever - never heard anyone from there whine even once. Different strokes,... I suppose. Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 23:42:31 GMT -5
Exactly why I wouldn't trust your analysis. It will be one sided as you will only be able to look at miles from what you describe as complete data. There are other criteria than just miles to decide what boundaries should be. Your analysis would only look at miles. For me, miles alone, no matter how accurate is not sufficient, and therefore incomplete data. I don't like unbalanced analyses. Cheers. What other empirical and non-emotional data is there aside from building capacity and future growth (which can also be said to be speculative/opinion based) ? And somehow, "speculative/opinion based' input is worthless? Maybe you should run for office if you don't understand that. I have managed many people in my career, as I sure others have too. If all my decisions were based on spreadsheets, I would have no employees, and my company would fail. In fact, most of the good decisions I have made have had significant components of 'speculative/opinion based' input, which your tone derides. Others on this board have posted eloquently and extensively on what these other criteria are, so please read their posts. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 23:53:33 GMT -5
What other empirical and non-emotional data is there aside from building capacity and future growth (which can also be said to be speculative/opinion based) ? And somehow, "speculative/opinion based' input is worthless? Maybe you should run for office if you don't understand that. I have managed many people in my career, as I sure others have too. If all my decisions were based on spreadsheets, I would have no employees, and my company would fail. In fact, most of the good decisions I have made have had significant components of 'speculative/opinion based' input, which your tone derides. Others on this board have posted eloquently and extensively on what these other criteria are, so please read their posts. Cheers. And this is where many assume that if they believe it or feel a certain way then everyone else (or a majority of everyone else) does too. That door swings both ways. At the end of the day everyone has a different gauge as to what sits best for them on a personal level. The element of fairness is the hard facts you can point to and say "See, no exceptions, it's fair" or "Yup, I took the data and did the same calculations and arrived at the same result". Things like "We had the worst, now it's someone else's turn" doesn't get anyone there.
|
|