lena
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lena on Feb 20, 2008 20:38:56 GMT -5
okay, I have a question for everyone...When they presented their proposal at the meeting I thought she said that the transition zones should not be used for at least 3-4 years. Now I don't see that in the proposal. Just that the transitions zones are available whenever the board feels they need to use them. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
|
|
tdodd
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by tdodd on Feb 20, 2008 23:20:49 GMT -5
I recall that at the presentation of there final proposal, Susan Simms said that she hoped that the board would not utilize the transition zones for at least two to three years, but they have the option to do so when ever they deem it necessary, as I understood it.
|
|
lena
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lena on Feb 20, 2008 23:42:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. That wasn't exactly the answer I wanted though Makes me a little nervous with it so vague like that. Wish they would have had the guts to set a 3 or 4 year time line on it.
|
|
psund
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by psund on Feb 21, 2008 0:33:27 GMT -5
I totally agree. They obviously want to have as many options as possible at their disposal. It can definitely be assumed that ALL specified neighborhoods listed are still on the "chopping block." I am in favor of CFKF's proposal of MEASURING the implementation of an "actively managed open enrollment policy" FIRST, before ANY Cedar Falls children are moved from their current schools!
|
|
lena
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lena on Feb 21, 2008 0:37:29 GMT -5
I think whenever you change a policy it takes time for the full effects of that policy change to be realized. The board needs to make sure they give enough time to allow for that.
|
|
tdodd
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by tdodd on Feb 21, 2008 0:48:43 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I believe the board has an agenda and it won't matter what the committee proposes.
|
|
|
Post by kperez on Feb 21, 2008 9:26:26 GMT -5
I hope you meant Orchard Hill and NOT North Cedar. I don't recall any discussions of El Dorado going to North Cedar!
|
|
lena
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lena on Feb 21, 2008 10:10:33 GMT -5
tdodd, you really think they won't make any open enrollment changes? How would they explain that to the community? I think it would be a hard political sell. They may move neighborhoods as well (which is what I'm concerned about) but I can't see how at this point they can get away with not changing the open enrollment policy.
|
|
tdodd
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by tdodd on Feb 21, 2008 10:23:38 GMT -5
Did you read what Dr. Stoakes said on the KWWL web site? He said there is a small group of organized parents that are pushing for open enrollment changes only, but the board will do what is in the best interest for the community as a whole. I take that to mean, yes there are a few people mad at us, but not enough to change what we really want to do. I believe we need a much bigger showing of people at the board meeting when they make their proposal. Cedar Falls Kids First will be making an alternative proposal at that meeting.
|
|
lena
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lena on Feb 21, 2008 10:52:35 GMT -5
your right, I did see that. Thought that was funny. We need a lot of signitures on those petitions to show him this is not a small group!!!
|
|
lulu
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by lulu on Feb 21, 2008 13:07:37 GMT -5
being a lifelong resident of cedar falls and now a grandmother and greatgrandmother i am interested in continuing the outstanding educational enviorment that cedar falls has always been known for and taken great pride in. as one drives around the city, it can't help but be noted that the majority of growth is to the south and the west, hence the problem that started all this: the over crowding at southdale. i commend the parents, students and faculty for fighting to keep north cedar school open. it is very understandable. i believe in neighborhood schools. at the same time one has to take a giant step back and look at the community as a whole. as a taxpayer, it only makes sense to me to increase classroom size to the south and west. this may not be "politically correct" and everytime it has been brought up, there has been a big outcry, but other schools in cedar falls have been closed due to enrollement shifts. things change, nothing stays the same except things that stagnate. move on to what is best for the entire community.
|
|
bud
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by bud on Feb 21, 2008 16:33:15 GMT -5
I agree with lulu. If North Cedar is going to be closed in a few years anyway it would be ridiculous to move kids to North Cedar and then move everyone from N. Cedar a few years later. Close it now and get it over with.
|
|
lulu
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by lulu on Feb 21, 2008 18:57:45 GMT -5
can anyone tell me if they are using auxillary classrooms at southdale, and if so, how long they have been using them? thanks.
|
|
tdodd
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by tdodd on Feb 21, 2008 19:29:38 GMT -5
No, they don't use them anymore. They have new classrooms, but they need to have a separate lunchroom and gym. That is where the bottleneck is.
|
|
lulu
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by lulu on Feb 21, 2008 19:45:14 GMT -5
since i am kinda new to all this, let me see if i have it straight. you are telling me there are enough classrooms at southdale, but if they fill them, there is no where for the students to have lunch? ? OMG! as i understand it, the school board is willing to put three million dollars into north cedar to bring it up to speed, but not willing to spend the money to add a gym/lunchroom to southdale to solve the problem? the school board would rather disrupt students from all over the city? gee, and all this time i thought the schools were supposed to be for the students. this just gets curiouser and couriouser.
|
|