Changes coming to CSISD

31,953 Views | 148 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Stupe
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for your reply and looking at the numbers. Unfortunately what you are reporting above are the numbers that reflect ALL the sophomores and juniors (now juniors and seniors) switching schools. I doubt many/any of those will chose to switch for their last year (or two) of HS. I totally understand now why you have reacted the way have. I do wish your numbers were accurate, I just believe that most (all?) juniors and seniors will chose to finish at their respective school.

The numbers that reflect the juniors and seniors staying where they are are as follows (these are online too, just buried of course)
2019-20
Consol: 1856
CSHS: 2081

They didn't/wouldn't report it out for further years, probably to hide the real situation and be able to pretend they were effective in the 2019 rezone. Doing the math myself, 2020-21 will continue to see CSHS increase and remain over capacity (seniors at that point will likely chose to stay and finish at their HS) and then 2021-2022 will look stable across the two schools (with CSHS still over capacity) and then 2022 CSISD is over capacity across the high schools. My belief (supported by the numbers) is they put a lot of families and the community (and themselves on the board!) through a lot of pain for basically no real effect. But we can disagree on whether it was worth it.

My point about the grandfathering not mattering is just that.... CSHS remained over capacity and consol under regardless of grandfathering or not those freshman/fate 58 kids. It never had an effect. But I also see beyond the numbers (& think about the kids affected); it's just that the numbers didn't play out either.

Oh, one last thing (in regards to watching the video)... Green is the only board member willing to go on record/draft policy allowing kids to stay at a HS once they start at a HS, so I can see why they are reporting numbers where no kids are allowed to grandfather. That might be what the board plans for the future given they are unwilling to commit to it. I know some board members have had that stance in the past. Nolan for example discussed during her campaign the value of a student switching high schools multiple times. Maybe that's the new csisd way. You get an "opportunity" to go to every HS and who knows where you'll actually graduate from (?!)

I'm done for the day. I just wanted to correct the inaccuracies in the numbers floating around as it wasn't easy finding the real numbers.
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
After looking through the powerpoints from Spring of 2019, though, at least the ones I could find, every option appears to have the bond for Phase II (CSHS Addition to increase capacity to around 2400) coming in 2021/2022. So, that would mean not this fall or next fall but two years from now.

I suppose they really won't know until students walk through the doors this fall since some folks who may move one way or the other may not have yet done so.


One final thing: congratulations to all of the seniors from Bryan, College Station, and area private and public schools. Good luck in your future endeavors!

And good luck to Mr. Wesson in your future endeavors as well.



TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieMom_38 said:

And, Harris' view is we shouldn't have a policy because some future board could just change the policy. Ummm... What???? Ok, that's brilliant, let's get rid of all policies given the risk of a policy being changed

No, what he is stating is flexibility is more important that rigidity. He gave the example of the elementary rezone being pushed back (from spring to the fall) to take into account the opening of the charter school. The current policy allowed for the board to have the flexibility to do that.

And at any time a board can change any policy. That is a statement of fact. A board can decide to have 1, 2, 3, 4 steps and be bounded to make decisions by said steps in the rezoning process or they can have a more fluid policy.

Sorry, Green is definitely green. And it's very obvious when she speaks about "community" she is speaking about her constituency. It's lunacy to tie the hands of future boards with a policy of 8th graders can't be rezoned because they are making plans. Why not 7th graders too? Aren't they making plans by starting their extra curricular careers? This kind of stuff is worse than not have the guts to make the tough decisions.

We have had three high school rezones this decade. And in all three we decided originally to not grandfather freshmen. One could argue the decision to change that in 2016 contributed to the fast turn around in 2018 to fix what the committee politically could not do. The board knew the committee wasn't aggressive enough. They should of rejected the committee's work and reworked the rezone in 2016. They buckled and created the FC Local policy to fix the problem of committees.

You are correct - the board should of been more aggressive in the 2018 rezoning but received pushback and buckled. I think they should at least took all of the area from Wellborn to Castlegate 2. That scenario should of been considered.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
So Creek Meadows wasn't enough.
You think that we should rezone a bunch of other people that used school proximity...or logic... when buying their homes and make them drive to 2818 & Welsh instead of 5-7 minutes down the road, increase traffic on Wellborn road each morning, and extend bus ride times?


Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

Sorry, Green is definitely green. And it's very obvious when she speaks about "community" she is speaking about her constituency.
What in the world do you think that the current school board lineup has been doing?
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oogway said:

After looking through the powerpoints from Spring of 2019, though, at least the ones I could find, every option appears to have the bond for Phase II (CSHS Addition to increase capacity to around 2400) coming in 2021/2022. So, that would mean not this fall or next fall but two years from now.


Question on this (and maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment Oogway). If the bond would come around 2021/22 (based on your reading and insights), the new school would then be ready 2 (or more?) years later (given time to build and all the processes involved). So high schools would be projected to be over capacity for 2-3 years. Personally, I think that's fine but it strikes me as interesting given capacity was such a concerning issue last year that they needed to address CSHS IMMEDIATELY and not allow a net 58 kids to stay out of the extreme safety issue and detriment to the educational process of having a school over capacity. In other words, it was dire last year, the kids safety at risk, horrible learning environment, yadda yadda we gotta fix it NOW (move those 58 kids!). But now CSISD can wait until both schools are over capacity to even start to bond (and put the kids safety at risk and educational performance at risk for several years)? That's why I assumed they'd need to bond this year with the expectation to be proactive about building a new school (or building out CS HS), otherwise, we have a big concern with kids safety and academic performance that comes with over capacity schools. Or, maybe that is only a concern when the board sees it fit to appease their "constituents"?

Not being argumentative Oogway, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that given your insights (and maybe I am misunderstanding your perspective and the bonding would occur in time to actually address capacity issues)

Edit to add: And have you see some discussion about building out CS HS versus build new school? I have been curious as to which approach is likely? I know they have land for a new high school, but perhaps building out CS would come first?
Turf96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My issue with the whole rezone thing is the board would rather force change than fix a problem. Real or not many folks feel one school is better than the other. When we moved here we were heavily pushed to look into both of the schools. As any family we want not what is good but what is best for our children. We chose purple and decided to pay the extra price to live there even if we had to cut other things in life to make it work. I have said many times both schools are above the average curve for public schools. I don't want above average I want what is the best I can possibly afford for my kids.

We were heavily warned about the discipline issues of one school. They were having problems with disrespect of teachers in classrooms and very serious bullying issues. Some of our friends had a child involved and felt they didn't receive the attention that it warranted. Now I'm sure a couple will come along to dismiss this but isn't this the real issue addressed in the smear campaigns that started this whole rezone mess? Wasn't it asked for over and over to help add more resources to manage "our burden"? That didn't happen so the burden was asked to be moved.

If I open a place to eat and it gets a reputation of being unclean, no matter if true or not, wouldn't I need to do something about that? I would have to work to address the cleanliness of the restraunt and do some damage controls so to speak. This is very similar to what happened with the two schools. True or not one school got a rap of being unruly and having no discipline. Instead of trying as a board and administrator to fix that issue they chose just to force the people at Pizza Hut to come eat at my restraunt. How happy do you think folks will be having to come eat with me? To me instead of the school board and admin working to address the potential issue and put folks minds at ease, they choose to just force people to change schools and expect nobody to have any concern.

Just a few visits to the two schools and I think you will see a difference. May or may not still be this way but a couple of years ago we had to go over to maroon gym for VB game and there was old gum spots stuck all over the sidewalk and walls. Over at purple a couple of spots at most. It wasnt the age or design that was off putting, it was the respect and maintenance of the two buildings that would make me want to be one school over another. Before you get on here and make fun of gum it is just one of many examples I could give. I just chose that as you should be able to see it from outside.

Bottom line is the school has, real or not, perceived issues in differences in school quality. Nobody said one school sucks. I said in my mind one school is better for my children. If we had a voucher system do you really think one school would not have a larger waiting list than another? Just like the eating place scenario above if I don't want Pizza Hut to have a long line just maybe I should mop the floors, clean my counters, and wash my windows instead of grabbing a gun and forcing folks over to my place. Fix the issue at hand and things will even out. Until that happens expect continued nashing of teeth and fights of all kinds. People want the best they can get not just acceptable. That is just Human nature. Why are we not addressing the perceived issues? Why do we feel we can just herd the cattle over to the next pasture and they just enjoy it? We will continue to fight here and in our community until we address the root cause. I may be only one that feels this way.
Tigermom84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just to clarify your question Jim: the charter gets zero local dollars from property taxes, it gets all its taxpayer funding from the state of Texas. I think what Wendy meant (apologies Wendy if I'm misinterpreting), was that as long as there's another option out there to help with capacity, and csisd parents are choosing it for their students, then it keeps the population at csisd from growing so fast. Then, we can delay the building of more schools and postpone bonding which usually adds a penny or so to the tax rate. The charter is actually helping keep taxes down locally by alleviating the growing pains.
JimInBCS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for the reply.

Any idea if the local school district receives the same amount of federal funding per student as the charter school? If the charter is able to operate on fed funds only, and the ISD gets our local taxes plus the fed funds, it appears the charter is operating MUCH more efficiently. I'm missing something, I just don't know what.
Tigermom84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, you're not missing anything. Charter gets about $2-3k less per student than the district.
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieMom_38 said:

Oogway said:

After looking through the powerpoints from Spring of 2019, though, at least the ones I could find, every option appears to have the bond for Phase II (CSHS Addition to increase capacity to around 2400) coming in 2021/2022. So, that would mean not this fall or next fall but two years from now.


Question on this (and maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment Oogway). If the bond would come around 2021/22 (based on your reading and insights), the new school would then be ready 2 (or more?) years later (given time to build and all the processes involved).
The bond in 2021/2022 would be to expand CSHS to its full capacity. This is according to the plan the current school board adopted which includes Creek Meadows et al. The way I understand it is they used the numbers based on current students enrolled at the campus to which they are zoned. Meaning they subtracted the just graduated seniors and included the rising freshmen (who just completed 8th). That would also preclude any 7th graders moving from their newly zoned AMCHS to change to CSHS. The Phase II build out would not take as long to complete as a full on hs from the ground up
So high schools would be projected to be over capacity for 2-3 years.
Like you have mentioned before, the charter school numbers would have an effect, but I would be surprised if it had enough of an effect to extend the bond for a third hs much past the projected need. That bond is proposed for around 2024/2025 and by then both hs (if everyone followed the zoning to the letter and nobody moved, etc ) would be over capacity probably even with both schools using portables. Anyone who had a student prior to 2013 can remember just how many students a district can cram into the buildings and just how many portables can fit on a campus. Goodbye parking! Is it comfortable? No, but if not one but both schools are that crowded, it often gets people out to vote.
Personally, I think that's fine but it strikes me as interesting given capacity was such a concerning issue last year that they needed to address CSHS IMMEDIATELY and not allow a net 58 kids to stay out of the extreme safety issue and detriment to the educational process of having a school over capacity. In other words, it was dire last year, the kids safety at risk, horrible learning environment, yadda yadda we gotta fix it NOW (move those 58 kids!). But now CSISD can wait until both schools are over capacity to even start to bond (and put the kids safety at risk and educational performance at risk for several years)? That's why I assumed they'd need to bond this year with the expectation to be proactive about building a new school (or building out CS HS), otherwise, we have a big concern with kids safety and academic performance that comes with over capacity schools. Or, maybe that is only a concern when the board sees it fit to appease their "constituents"?
It would depend upon the numbers. It always depends on the numbers. Even if all the voting populace of the southside that is zoned for CSHS rises up and votes, bonding for even the build out would require both schools to be approaching capacity and until the numbers come in- - real numbers and not projections- -, and I would be surprised to see that overcapacity at both schools happen prior to at least 2020/2021. So maybe they will bump it forward a year.
As far as the capacity issue, as each class size (zoned for CSHS) grew, it was my understanding that by adjusting the boundary they could address that prior to it getting completely out of control but the main driver was the socioeconomic disparity but that topic was one that had so much rancor that no one could reach a compromise. So they focused on capacity. It was a lose-lose situation.


Not being argumentative Oogway, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that given your insights (and maybe I am misunderstanding your perspective and the bonding would occur in time to actually address capacity issues) If the board has done away with all committees and not just the boundary committees, then they will be able to act a little more quickly to get a bond out. There are still steps that have to be taken and it gets frustrating because there are the usual political landmines among the citizenry (and if readers think I am only referring to east side, then they are naive because the personal agendas come out and it can be fun and a little sad to watch. Sometimes people will surprise you and be an inspiration and other times you just have to shake your head and move on)

Edit to add: And have you see some discussion about building out CS HS versus build new school? I have been curious as to which approach is likely? I know they have land for a new high school, but perhaps building out CS would come first? I haven't had a chance to ask around lately, but the last I heard was that Phase II would precede any discussion of a third hs. Believe me, they were really overcrowded when they bonded for CSHS and the growth mushroomed from there but at that time, there were other factors at play. Had they made the zone for CSHS much smaller when they started and then increased it a little at a time (instead of the reverse) this might have stemmed the tide a little.
*Bolds mine (containing reply).


I will be interested in seeing who decides to run this fall. I also hope that whomever tosses their hat into the ring keeps their comments mud and stone free.
CS_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This fall's election will be very important. Turnout will be extremely low because there are no national or statewide races on the ballot. Wesson is off to Alabama, so his spot is open. (BTW, doesn't Wesson have a kid in HS? Wesson always said moving high schools makes kids tough and resilient....hope it works out like that when Wesson moves his family to Alabama this summer.) Harris has already served three terms on the board (running unopposed each time). Surely he won't have the gall to run again. If he does, it will be a highly contested race and hopefully the voters will send Harris packing. We've had enough of his arrogance on the school board for the last decade. Then there's one more seat open. It's the guy who never says a word in any of the meetings. Williams? I understand he does not plan to run again. So we should have three wide open seats this fall. What is the deadline for picking up packets? It would be so good for CSISD to see three new faces on the school board in November!
Oogway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CS_Aggie said:

Harris has already served three terms on the board (running unopposed each time). Surely he won't have the gall to run again.
Umm, if someone is running unopposed each time then perhaps there was a need for a school board trustee and he filled it?

Regardless of your or my opinion of particular trustees (positive or negative) the position is a commitment and not an easy one at that. It requires time, attention to detail, and a lot of patience. Some trustees have served the school district for one term, some for many more than that. Some have served during periods of relative calm and many have served during the rapidly growing years of the last decade. Considering the lack of support from the state legislature, the schools here have remained pretty strong. Perhaps having people willing to volunteer their time and money to serve our community has helped to keep them that way.

Agmaker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CS_Aggie said:

Wesson is off to Alabama, so his spot is open. (BTW, doesn't Wesson have a kid in HS? Wesson always said moving high schools makes kids tough and resilient....hope it works out like that when Wesson moves his family to Alabama this summer.) Harris has already served three terms on the board (running unopposed each time). Surely he won't have the gall to run again. If he does, it will be a highly contested race and hopefully the voters will send Harris packing. We've had enough of his arrogance on the school board for the last decade. Then there's one more seat open. It's the guy who never says a word in any of the meetings. Williams?!


They have been very open to everyone that they won't be moving their child to another HS, that would be too disruptive to their child so only Mr Wesson is moving. Odd they don't see the irony. To use his own word - Hypocrite.
The days of the community not paying attention to what the Board is doing and letting ISD Board seats run unopposed is over. There will plenty of interest in running for Harris' seat. That's a good thing.
Williams Who? I heard him speak once in 2018. Same can be said for Schaefer now. Though I guess it's hard to speak when one is eating during the entire meeting. At least he had his microphone off!
Nudgent cracks jokes so at least he adds entertainment value.
CS_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I finally endured the painful experience of watching much of the latest workshop. I have thought for a long time that I could easily convince myself that I'm watching a Saturday Night Live PARODY of a school board meeting whenever I press play. Could these people really be serious?? If this group weren't so completely embarrassing, it would actually be hilarious. Jeff Harris: the smug, self-important, condescending leader. Wesson: the oafish buffoon. Then other than Ms. Green (who is the newest board member but seems more informed, more compassionate toward the kids, and more intelligent than the rest of the people combined), you have a bunch of people who just sit around and nod their heads and defer to Harris and Wesson. The biggest indictment of the board as a whole is that so few people have the fortitude to question all the nonsense that comes out of Harris and Wesson. Scores of EpiPens deployed all over the schools, and not ONE person asks about the cost??? At least Ms. Green questioned WHY this was suddenly a need in the district. I am telling you it could be an SNL parody. Next time you watch a board meeting, watch how many times Harris rushes in to make a comment to protect Ms. Nolan and/or praise her after one of her unintelligible comments leaves everyone else on the board scratching their heads trying to figure out what she even said. Even the way Harris looks at Nolan gives me the creeps. Still hoping for big changes this fall.
JimInBCS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't like their decisions? Then run against them. The post is "Exhibit A" on why it's so difficult to get members of our community to run for school board.

Edit: just to be clear one reason why people don't run for office is that it's a thankless job where you get your name disparaged by someone regardless of the decisions you make. I have no issues with criticizing the decisions made. What I do have an issue with is criticizing the character of unpaid volunteers.
Fonzie Scheme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good point. Which of you will run?
CS_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jim, not all of us who choose to engage in the political process can run for office. I'm sure you understand that. Thankfully some of us actually pay attention to the board and their decisions so they can be held accountable. Just because they are "unpaid volunteers" does NOT give them a free pass to do whatever they want when they are in office. If they didn't want to be held accountable, they shouldn't have run in the first place. Calling out elected representatives whose performance is deeply troubling and deeply disappointing is part of the political process. Thankfully, mark my words, there will be several highly qualified candidates this fall who are willing and able to run for the three open school board seats. Saying Harris is smug, self-important, and condescending is not attacking his character. It's an honest observation, and one that I have heard many people in this district agree with. When Wesson writes to the superintendent that most parents in the district are "stupid people that are completely self-centered," why don't you call him out on that?? The selective outrage is very telling.
JimInBCS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fair comments. Good to hear that there are some well qualified applicants considering running during the next election.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the decisions the school board has made, in particular the process that was utilized to make them. Your comments just struck me the wrong way, and wouldn't have been something I would have considered stating in a public forum. I suppose I might feel very differently if I had been on the other end of some of the decisions that were made.

CS_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for your understanding and civility. I believe most of us who comment on the school board simply want the best for all kids in our district. It becomes frustrating when we watch closely and discover some of the members of the school board (esp. Harris and Wesson) are the biggest problems we face.
Three Twenties and A Ten
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Any insight on candidates who may be filing to run for the (3) open seats?
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've heard a couple names of people interested and the names I've heard seem like they would add a lot to the board. So I hope it's true. I would also offer that the board members aren't "unpaid volunteers" (like working at the food bank or at a school carnival), these are elected officials that should be held to a VERY high standard in terms of the knowledge and expertise they bring to the table, and their integrity, professionalism, etc.
befitter
How long do you want to ignore this user?

[People on this board are giving their opinions in a respectful manner and we will not allow name calling or posts that insult groups of posters on this thread. This is the last warning on this thread for everyone. -Staff]
cslifer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They volunteer for the job and are not paid for their time or having their names dragged through the mud by at least half the people in forums like this one for every decision they make. If that isn't an "unpaid volunteer" I don't know what is.
ETA: you want them held to a "VERY high standard" of knowledge and expertise. A school board is made up of volunteers who live in and represent the community. It sounds like you want subject matter experts with experience in school administration who are also public relations experts that share your opinions to appear out of thin air and volunteer their time to be on the school board.
befitter
How long do you want to ignore this user?

[Your post wasn't directed at a single poster but it was directed at a group of posters and we are not going to allow name calling in either instance. We have always moderated this board strictly concerning that and it is not going to change. If you have any other questions about moderation please email us as we will simply delete any other posts concerning this issues in order to keep this thread on track. -Staff]
Agmaker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would really suck to be a poster that all other posters ignore because of their ignorant comments.
AggieMom_38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just heard on the radio that the school board voted to approve some MUCH needed changes to FC Local. Sounds like in addition to some timing changes in reviewing the numbers that could trigger a possible rezone (they said it will now be Nov-Dec... not sure that's early enough to give kids/families enough notice that they might switch schools -- still need to grandfather those kids if any rezone happens past registration and the like for the following year) but they also are now formally adding that kids that start at one high school will be able to stay at that high school. I guess even Nolan voted to approve that despite her belief that kids benefit from changing high schools. And the report said Harris is the one that surfaced these changes (at least he gave Green credit in the quote played on the radio, since she was the one that brought it up before and received ZERO support from the rest of the board). Guess Harris must be planning to run for re-election -- he is flip flopping on his prior stance to not support grandfathering (like a true politician!)

Thank you Amanda Green for pushing for such changes -- you are a much needed change to the board that is a voice for all of our students and families! And good job Texags for keeping these issues alive.
CS_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The flip-flop from Wesson and Harris is indeed mind blowing. Go watch the video of last month's May 2019 CSISD workshop! Wesson practically started hyperventilating when Ms. Green stated that other districts in Texas have successfully implemented a policy that allows all students who start at a particular high school to finish at that high school, even if attendance boundaries are redrawn. Harris and Wesson were both rudely dismissive of Ms. Green's idea, and they suggested such a policy would never work in CSISD. Now they come back a month later, and suddenly they all support Ms. Green's suggested amendment to FC Local?? What a stunning turnaround. I guess that means Harris was against the amendment, before he was for it. I am thankful Ms. Green is already showing true leadership and making a positive difference on the CSISD board. I also want to commend the board as a whole for directing nearly 75% of new funding toward pay increases for teachers and staff. That was a much needed move by the board.

Unfortunately, I agree that Mr. Harris' flip-flop on the high school attendance policy seems to suggest he is planning to run for a 4TH TERM this fall. Give me a break. We need TERM LIMITS. It's time for someone new to bring fresh ideas to the CSISD board. If Harris has the gall to run again, I hope we will see some excellent candidates rise up and run against him. Harris has done enough damage in his 9 years on the board. Does anyone know the filing deadline for candidates wanting to run for CSISD board?

Edit: See the WTAW story (and linked video) from the May meeting. Note the WTAW statement that Ms. Green's idea of allowing CSISD students to finish at the high school where they started got "no traction" in the May meeting! Why the sudden Harris-Wesson FLIP FLOP?? Link is here: http://wtaw.com/2019/05/24/college-station-school-board-revisiting-rezoning-policy/
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can't extend the pool of untouchable kids into 8th grade. if a rezone must happen the 8th graders have to be on the table. They haven't even started HS. Why would you even handcuff yourself like that? It's bad enough to take freshmen/sophomores out of the pool. If you need to shift population you won't see any significant differences for 3-4 years after the decision. However, I would expect an aggressive rezone whenever the third HS is built. This new policy almost assured it. I would be surprised if any rezone happened prior to that.

Some of you are obviously new to watching the board - 7-0 votes happen regularly. It's done to provide an unifying presence for the public on most votes.

And some here give the kids no credit - many of them switched schools and they are just fine. The drama is tiresome.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Quote:

It's bad enough to take freshmen/sophomores out of the pool.
No, it is not. It's the right thing to do.

Families with kids that have started a school during a rezoning should not be forced to change schools, they should have a choice. So should siblings if they are going to enter a school that already has a sibling enrolled.
Forcing kids to change schools or forcing families to take kids to two different elementary, intermediate, middle, or high schools just to satisfy some numbers on a piece of paper is not a good policy.

It's asinine.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
[We are not going to pick one or two sentences out of posts when posters resort to name calling or insulting terms to make their points. We are simply going to remove the entire post no matter how long it is just like we always have. Posters will remain respectful on this particular forum. -Staff]
Turf96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wendy 1990 said:


Some of you are obviously new to watching the board - 7-0 votes happen regularly. It's done to provide an unifying presence for the public on most votes.

.


So what you are saying is some
just always blindly follow to give a false impression to the school district voters? Well after my involvement with the board I think you are right. 1 wouldn't vote against the rezone out of fear and 2 refused to even discuss it so I guess you are right. Unity isn't a good think when it is just to follow a dictator and lose your own voice. We need board members who have a backbone and voice. I personally would like a board of leaders not followers. So far Green has been refreshing.

You are right about 7-0 votes that school board members attend a state class and this is highly pushed. Once again not a glowing endorsement for what our community should do. I think we all see clearly how our state education agency is run. Remember how much money they forcibly take from our community and distribute to other lower SES schools? No thanks I'll take a quality think tank environment over a group of sheep all headed to slaughter any day.

Doc4rock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would love for all the people on hear complaining about school board members to sign up and run. Served on a school board for 13 years only did it to help the community. School board members do not get payed and mainly have to deal with people who do not understand the issues. So if you don't like what's going on throw your hat in the ring and see if you can get elected. We had a election in our district were someone ran because all the school board members were crooked when they were elected they realized we had no agenda just trying to do what's right for all the kids in the district.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Give it a rest.

Voicing an opinion is not complaining.
Stupe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
As for the very tired "if you don't like it, run" comment...not everyone has the money, time, or even the desire to run for an office or position. That is why we have elections, to give the people the chance to vote for those that they agree with or vote against those that they don't. Anyone that votes has the right to give their opinion both for and against the decision that are made by that governing body.
Not running doesn't mean that they have to agree with them or that they have to keep their opinions to themselves if the don't.

It's a pity that in an area that is as educated as this one that there are people that can't seem to grasp the basic foundation of a free speech republic.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.