|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 12:14:18 GMT -5
It's a common tactic when the answer is inconvenient too. Oh, are you talking about his contract not being renewed in his old district? I thought that was covered pretty well in both press and by the SB when he was hired but I have been wrong before. The Supreme Court verdict against his previous employer on the (de)segregation case happened after he was hired here, if I recall correctly. We announced him replacing HC in Feb 2007, verdict was June 2007 after the SCOTUS agreed to take the case in summer 2006. I've been trying to find out how much that lawsuit cost the JC system but can't pin down a dollar figure. Best I can find is speculation that insurance would cover the cost after a deductible, but no final dollar figure.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jul 7, 2008 12:22:49 GMT -5
Oh, are you talking about his contract not being renewed in his old district? I thought that was covered pretty well in both press and by the SB when he was hired but I have been wrong before. The Supreme Court verdict against his previous employer on the (de)segregation case happened after he was hired here, if I recall correctly. We announced him replacing HC in Feb 2007, verdict was June 2007 after the SCOTUS agreed to take the case in summer 2006. I've been trying to find out how much that lawsuit cost the JC system but can't pin down a dollar figure. Huh? What does that have to do with the first question? Are you saying they got rid of him because of that? He was not fired or asked to leave, they did not renew his contract. I thought there were more internal politics involved in his leaving but again, I could be wrong. I still don't understand how that would answer how he ended up here. I believe he applied for the job and our district hired him, very well documented as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 12:26:39 GMT -5
He never answered the first question. He gave an answer to a question not asked. Yes, and it bothers me when people do that. Most notably in political debates. Get ready for about 90 days of that now on TV - I hate this time of year before elections. I am thrilled I can immerse myself in the Olympics on TV and tune out both political parties, neither of whom will likely say much of substance before November, and if they do, they will say they were misinterpretted.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 7, 2008 12:32:04 GMT -5
I am thrilled I can immerse myself in the Olympics on TV and tune out both political parties, I love the Olympics too, drwho! Here's to hoping the coverage sticks to the sports and not too much of the politics behind the Olympics!
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 12:32:41 GMT -5
And again I speak for far more than myself. Most others who feel as I do are not on these boards- what about those who are - Arch , yeson321, jb ,d204mom. How many do you need as a microcosm of the issue here ? I can tell you there was a block party here on the 4th and a MAJOR topic was the boundaries and how they suck for us - yet you choose to highlight a random person here or there in Watts who doesn't care. This issue will get worse here and become more of a thorn. No I cannot heal because we get tired of reading what others think for us, instead of what people here actually think. I get tired of hearing it also, at the Jewel, when I get my hair cut, at block parties, from my children's freinds parents and at Ribfest etc. .... At the block parties, Ribfest, at store etc after all these people talk about "how much thing suck for your neighborhood"....does anybody ever talk about an actual alternative boundary plan that better meets the criteria? Probably not, since nobody on these message boards has been able to do so either. Does anybody every talk about how great and fortunate it is that your neighborhood children move through their entire 204 career with no splits at all? I know people are interested in this important topic. And because of that importance, I hope these conversations actually go a little beyond more than just "how bad things suck for us". People can't understqand how the location was chosen in the first place - that is the overriding issue as it does make it difficult to fill a HS where there are not enugh children to do so. No people here are not just whiners as alluded to here. yes the thoughts are to move those who are closer - much closer to MV there and leave us at Waubonsie so that no one is going to the furthest HS from their home. Seems simple enough. We didn't choose the site - Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's - and as far as splt ES - no - we don't split, but each year we add another sattelite from somewhere 5 miles + away to the school.We're also lucky to have a long commute to MS- but then, heck we're just whiners.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 12:33:57 GMT -5
The Supreme Court verdict against his previous employer on the (de)segregation case happened after he was hired here, if I recall correctly. We announced him replacing HC in Feb 2007, verdict was June 2007 after the SCOTUS agreed to take the case in summer 2006. I've been trying to find out how much that lawsuit cost the JC system but can't pin down a dollar figure. Huh? What does that have to do with the first question? Are you saying they got rid of him because of that? He was not fired or asked to leave, they did not renew his contract. I thought there were more internal politics involved in his leaving but again, I could be wrong. I still don't understand how that would answer how he ended up here. I believe he applied for the job and our district hired him, very well documented as a matter of fact. Begs the question, why was he job hunting and what were the 'internal politics'. I must have missed those articles that went into the specifics.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 12:35:23 GMT -5
I am thrilled I can immerse myself in the Olympics on TV and tune out both political parties, I love the Olympics too, drwho! Here's to hoping the coverage sticks to the sports and not too much of the politics behind the Olympics! Once past opening ceremonies it should be fine - the media is obsessed with Bush going to try and make an issue out of it - I agree with you, leave it a sports story - there is plenty of other fodder for politics to intervene on.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jul 7, 2008 12:42:53 GMT -5
Huh? What does that have to do with the first question? Are you saying they got rid of him because of that? He was not fired or asked to leave, they did not renew his contract. I thought there were more internal politics involved in his leaving but again, I could be wrong. I still don't understand how that would answer how he ended up here. I believe he applied for the job and our district hired him, very well documented as a matter of fact. Begs the question, why was he job hunting and what were the 'internal politics'. I must have missed those articles that went into the specifics. Much easier to quote the district's document regarding the hiring of Dr. D. www.ipsd.org/suptsearch/Board_Supt_Statement_021507.pdfThe final source of unease shared with the Board was the fact that the Louisville Board chose, after 14 years, not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract. We know that there are all kinds of reasons that a Board can choose not to renew a contract, particularly on a 4-3 vote. We’ve spoken with Jefferson County Board members, their principals, their parents, the community leaders and many people knowledgeable about the district. We are quite comfortable that the Jefferson County Board’s decision not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract is part of the political reality that comes with a Board elected by geographic divisions and does not speak to his professional abilities in any way.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jul 7, 2008 12:49:15 GMT -5
At the block parties, Ribfest, at store etc after all these people talk about "how much thing suck for your neighborhood"....does anybody ever talk about an actual alternative boundary plan that better meets the criteria? Probably not, since nobody on these message boards has been able to do so either. Does anybody every talk about how great and fortunate it is that your neighborhood children move through their entire 204 career with no splits at all? I know people are interested in this important topic. And because of that importance, I hope these conversations actually go a little beyond more than just "how bad things suck for us". People can't understqand how the location was chosen in the first place - that is the overriding issue as it does make it difficult to fill a HS where there are not enugh children to do so. No people here are not just whiners as alluded to here. yes the thoughts are to move those who are closer - much closer to MV there and leave us at Waubonsie so that no one is going to the scenic drive HS from their home. Seems simple enough. We didn't choose the site - Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's - and as far as splt ES - no - we don't split, but each year we add another sattelite from somewhere 5 miles + away to the school.We're also lucky to have a long commute to MS- but then, heck we're just whiners. The location is something that won't be changed. Questioning how and/or why the location was chosen and belaboring that decision for an extended period of time sure doesn't seem like a healthy/productive thing to do. In addtion, an online definition of whine that I found: "To express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump.". This seems pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 12:49:58 GMT -5
Begs the question, why was he job hunting and what were the 'internal politics'. I must have missed those articles that went into the specifics. Much easier to quote the district's document regarding the hiring of Dr. D. www.ipsd.org/suptsearch/Board_Supt_Statement_021507.pdfThe final source of unease shared with the Board was the fact that the Louisville Board chose, after 14 years, not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract. We know that there are all kinds of reasons that a Board can choose not to renew a contract, particularly on a 4-3 vote. We’ve spoken with Jefferson County Board members, their principals, their parents, the community leaders and many people knowledgeable about the district. We are quite comfortable that the Jefferson County Board’s decision not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract is part of the political reality that comes with a Board elected by geographic divisions and does not speak to his professional abilities in any way.I had quoted plenty of articles previously ( in archives)- the fact of the matter is he left behind a severely divided community ( whether his fault or not none of us will be experts as we don't live there ) - which seems to be a legacy he is doomed to repeat as it stands now. also this comment from a January 2008 in the Village Voice article there ( " Time Doesn't Heal for JCTA) struck me as a clue: " He was completely autocratic. He made decisions and didn't inform us," communication has not improved. Again,I can only comment on what I see since I wasn't a resident there, and have no idea if he was at fault, the SB was at fault, the teachers association was at fault etc.-- they were the battle lines though it appears. The fact of the matter is there was a huge rift which caused the contract to not be renewed. I have read comments on both sides of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 12:52:34 GMT -5
Begs the question, why was he job hunting and what were the 'internal politics'. I must have missed those articles that went into the specifics. Much easier to quote the district's document regarding the hiring of Dr. D. www.ipsd.org/suptsearch/Board_Supt_Statement_021507.pdfThe final source of unease shared with the Board was the fact that the Louisville Board chose, after 14 years, not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract. We know that there are all kinds of reasons that a Board can choose not to renew a contract, particularly on a 4-3 vote. We’ve spoken with Jefferson County Board members, their principals, their parents, the community leaders and many people knowledgeable about the district. We are quite comfortable that the Jefferson County Board’s decision not to renew Dr. Daeschner’s contract is part of the political reality that comes with a Board elected by geographic divisions and does not speak to his professional abilities in any way.And I repeat, what were the circumstances surrounding this 'political reality' with regards to these geographic 'divisions' ?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jul 7, 2008 12:53:03 GMT -5
People can't understqand how the location was chosen in the first place - that is the overriding issue as it does make it difficult to fill a HS where there are not enugh children to do so. No people here are not just whiners as alluded to here. yes the thoughts are to move those who are closer - much closer to MV there and leave us at Waubonsie so that no one is going to the scenic drive HS from their home. Seems simple enough. We didn't choose the site - Yeah, we are the lucky ones here without splits, I'llmake sure I bring that up the next time in discussion The split MS waould not have been an issue as most assumed we would be changing MS's - and as far as splt ES - no - we don't split, but each year we add another sattelite from somewhere 5 miles + away to the school.We're also lucky to have a long commute to MS- but then, heck we're just whiners. The location is something that won't be changed. Questioning how and/or why the location was chosen and belaboring that decision for an extended period of time sure doesn't seem like a healthy/productive thing to do. In addtion, an online definition of whine that I found: "To express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump.". This seems pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree? sure there are winners and whiners- we're the whiners - whatever you say. ( we know we're sure as hell not the winners in this) btw - no one is saying the site will change- that still doesn't make it a better decision. The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jul 7, 2008 13:16:32 GMT -5
The location is something that won't be changed. Questioning how and/or why the location was chosen and belaboring that decision for an extended period of time sure doesn't seem like a healthy/productive thing to do. In addtion, an online definition of whine that I found: "To express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump.". This seems pretty accurate, wouldn't you agree? sure there are winners and whiners- we're the whiners - whatever you say. ( we know we're sure as hell not the winners in this) btw - no one is saying the site will change- that still doesn't make it a better decision. The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact. You can choose to look at it as the being winners & losers, winners & whiners, etc. but you're the one choosing to do that, and you're the one chosing to "express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump". Sorry to hear that you can't view getting a 3rd HS built as being a win for everyone in the district.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 13:24:42 GMT -5
sure there are winners and whiners- we're the whiners - whatever you say. ( we know we're sure as hell not the winners in this) btw - no one is saying the site will change- that still doesn't make it a better decision. The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact. You can choose to look at it as the being winners & losers, winners & whiners, etc. but you're the one choosing to do that, and you're the one chosing to "express negative feelings, especially of dissatisfaction or resentment: complain, grouch, grump". Sorry to hear that you can't view getting a 3rd HS built as being a win for everyone in the district. In all honesty, I agree with your point about choice to look at things how one chooses to. However, there are numbers starting to show the actual 'problem' that required this cost for a 'solution' to possibly be a bit disjointed and to be more in line with the original solution brought forth in 2001. 20/20 hindsight, maybe. Fast Forward to Spring 2009 I'm predicting this will come back up again and have more traction than before due to a down economy. I know... we're getting off topic, so I'll stop progressing off the path now.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 7, 2008 13:29:37 GMT -5
The site is what has caused the boundary issue- that part is a fact. What if Macom or Hamman were the site? We all know a very possible scenario would have had Watts going to MV at this location as well. (especially given the demonstrated reluctance to move areas that thought they were staying at NV from NV) You would have approximately the same distance (or maybe longer) to these sites as compared to the Eola road site! (plus its possible that Watts would have been assigned to a split Hill MS) I submit that another site may have made for Watts similar (or even worse) boundaries that what was ended up with. I truly hope the conversations and thinking go beyond the surface of just the boundaries are "bad for us".
|
|