|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 17, 2008 22:57:36 GMT -5
...there is no good reason the boundaries can't be open to tweaking between now and next spring.... I totally disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to not touch the boundaries. For example: - not opening what is the most emotional topic in any SD - people having already going through 2 sets of boundary processes for MV and plenty of kids having the HS that they were assigned change 2 times already - letting things settle down around here - the slippery slope of "well, they made tweak, why can't they make tweak B now" - the fact that boundaries are subjective and any changes that are "good" for some group of people are just as likely to be "bad" for another group?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 17, 2008 22:58:23 GMT -5
good point - were those allegations false? but my point was that there seemed to be an inference that some of the SB members are "corrupt" I don't know if they were true or not and I didn't speculate they were true, but many here did and never put up any evidence to support it that I could find other than innuendo and supposition. what kind of evidence would you like?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 17, 2008 23:21:47 GMT -5
I don't know if they were true or not and I didn't speculate they were true, but many here did and never put up any evidence to support it that I could find other than innuendo and supposition. what kind of evidence would you like? An actual video tape of a meeting or audio of a phone call would be hard to refute as long as it was done with permission and notification of all parties involved. Do you have such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 17, 2008 23:23:19 GMT -5
...there is no good reason the boundaries can't be open to tweaking between now and next spring.... I totally disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to not touch the boundaries. For example: - not opening what is the most emotional topic in any SD - people having already going through 2 sets of boundary processes for MV and plenty of kids having the HS that they were assigned change 2 times already - letting things settle down around here - the slippery slope of "well, they made tweak, why can't they make tweak B now" - the fact that boundaries are subjective and any changes that are "good" for some group of people are just as likely to be "bad" for another group? - So if it's an emotional issue, you're afraid of it? To listen to many here, the district's relations are at an all-time low anyway. (By the way, I don't subscribe to that theory.) - The fact that the process has gone on twice already was a mistake. Providing them to the public before the Ref was mistake #1 considering it turned out they were ruled "extraneous" by the judge. And coming up with a quick set for AME was not necessary, as there is still plenty of time to finalize them. But that doesn't mean we can't still review/tweak them. I keep hearing about the resilient kids...they won't be affected by further discussion. - Let things settle down? No valid reason for that at the expense of not doing the best job we can in the time frame we still have. - No slippery slope, except for those worried about losing what they already have. - No one is arguing that boundaries are not subjective to a certain degree, but that has nothing to do with setting them in stone right now.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 17, 2008 23:23:43 GMT -5
...there is no good reason the boundaries can't be open to tweaking between now and next spring.... I totally disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to not touch the boundaries. For example: - not opening what is the most emotional topic in any SD - people having already going through 2 sets of boundary processes for MV and plenty of kids having the HS that they were assigned change 2 times already - letting things settle down around here - the slippery slope of "well, they made tweak, why can't they make tweak B now" - the fact that boundaries are subjective and any changes that are "good" for some group of people are just as likely to be "bad" for another group? As has been pointed out, the public does not have to be involved. The district could always just plop out a notification, BOOM.. here they are at anytime they wish. Then, there's no emotional roller coaster. It's just done. Everyone has to just deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 17, 2008 23:52:16 GMT -5
I totally disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to not touch the boundaries. For example: - not opening what is the most emotional topic in any SD - people having already going through 2 sets of boundary processes for MV and plenty of kids having the HS that they were assigned change 2 times already - letting things settle down around here - the slippery slope of "well, they made tweak, why can't they make tweak B now" - the fact that boundaries are subjective and any changes that are "good" for some group of people are just as likely to be "bad" for another group? As has been pointed out, the public does not have to be involved. The district could always just plop out a notification, BOOM.. here they are at anytime they wish. Then, there's no emotional roller coaster. It's just done. Everyone has to just deal with it. And in many school districts, this is the way it is done.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 18, 2008 0:15:59 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, the public does not have to be involved. The district could always just plop out a notification, BOOM.. here they are at anytime they wish. Then, there's no emotional roller coaster. It's just done. Everyone has to just deal with it. And in many school districts, this is the way it is done. Along those lines, I wonder what the typical schedule is for announcing boundaries when building a new school. Are they normally frozen 1.5 years ahead of time?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 0:20:36 GMT -5
In essence then, this can go on behind the scenes no one has to know about it or be concerned and if something is done it is simply announced and everyone should be just fine with it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 18, 2008 0:42:10 GMT -5
In essence then, this can go on behind the scenes no one has to know about it or be concerned and if something is done it is simply announced and everyone should be just fine with it and move on. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I was simply stating that in many school districts this is the way it is done. But yes, in some cases, the public is just expected to be fine with it and move on (your words, not mine). The fact that the public got some input on this is a credit to the district we live in, IMO. Some may not like the outcome or feel that they were not heard, but the point is that there are obviously districts across the state and nation that do it differently. Again, not saying one way is better or more right or more wrong. Just supplying another perspective from someone who hasn't lived in this district as long as others.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 18, 2008 0:44:28 GMT -5
And in many school districts, this is the way it is done. Along those lines, I wonder what the typical schedule is for announcing boundaries when building a new school. Are they normally frozen 1.5 years ahead of time? I'm guessing it depends on the school district and their usual timelines for such things.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 0:49:12 GMT -5
In essence then, this can go on behind the scenes no one has to know about it or be concerned and if something is done it is simply announced and everyone should be just fine with it and move on. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I was simply stating that in many school districts this is the way it is done. But yes, in some cases, the public is just expected to be fine with it and move on (your words, not mine). The fact that the public got some input on this is a credit to the district we live in, IMO. Some may not like the outcome or feel that they were not heard, but the point is that there are obviously districts across the state and nation that do it differently. Again, not saying one way is better or more right or more wrong. Just supplying another perspective from someone who hasn't lived in this district as long as others. My point was there's nothing stopping D204 from doing it that way either going forward.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 18, 2008 3:47:21 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, the public does not have to be involved. The district could always just plop out a notification, BOOM.. here they are at anytime they wish. Then, there's no emotional roller coaster. It's just done. Everyone has to just deal with it. And in many school districts, this is the way it is done. Yes. Boundary changes themselves can be done anytime for any reason the District sees fit. The ruling against the NSFOC filing discussed in this JHB article makes it clear that this is the prerogative of the District, and the public need not be involved. My opposition isn't so much to boundary changes per se, more to a candidate running on a boundary change platform. There may be legitimate operational reasons to change boundaries. But if thats an campaign platform, I consider that a political agenda, and that is pandering for votes. For the record, I was not not at all happy even when candidates ran for pre-2006 referendum elections on such an agenda. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 18, 2008 5:59:45 GMT -5
In essence then, this can go on behind the scenes no one has to know about it or be concerned and if something is done it is simply announced and everyone should be just fine with it and move on. Not really. While the admins reworking of boundaries can be handled that way, the SB must discuss and approve them at a SB meeting. IIRC, boundaries cannot be discussed in executive session. So, no they cannot just change them and announce them.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 18, 2008 8:17:32 GMT -5
For those who were "disgusted" with the lawsuit, I have a question. Will you feel the same way about any lawsuits filed against the City of Chicago in trying to build the Childrens Museum in Grant Park? Let's look at the parallels: The construction of the CCM, like MVHS, will be hugely expensive but arguably necessary and rewarding. The buildings will be permanent -- not likely be moved within a few decades at the least. The approval for the site was given by elected officials. Given those facts, would you be "disgusted" by those who will feel a lawsuit is the only hope for preventing a permanent mistake in Grant Park? Do Chicago (and Suburban) residents have to accept the rulings of possibly corrupt politicans as the final word, even when those decisions will outlast them? I guess the reasons for this are IMHO not at all parallel. #1 The CCM is a Private - for profit entity. (or am I mistaken) #2 There is an ordinance in place to prevent this, which can be modified. Not that I am opposed to this, it may actually be a great idea. A parallel I can think of would be let's suppose Great Lakes Volleyball (Sports Perfomance Volleyball Club) needed an even larger venue. They see this large peice of land owned by a Park Dist (I'll use Frontier Park for sake of arguement) and they want to use the land to put up a large Volleyball stadium....which of course they would "let" the Park Dist use. Would that be OK?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 18, 2008 8:26:47 GMT -5
In essence then, this can go on behind the scenes no one has to know about it or be concerned and if something is done it is simply announced and everyone should be just fine with it and move on. Not really. While the admins reworking of boundaries can be handled that way, the SB must discuss and approve them at a SB meeting. IIRC, boundaries cannot be discussed in executive session. So, no they cannot just change them and announce them. ...and 4 seats in Spring 2009 can pass them.
|
|