U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-08-2014, 09:11 AM
 
45,265 posts, read 17,960,183 times
Reputation: 18943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlat View Post
But that's your opinion and you don't sit on the bench.... .
You are correct, my opinion means nothing. However, the court has already said the same thing. i.e. The parents failed to demonstrate the harm of redistricting. This is the exact reason they stated for refusing the injunction.

This means that all the other examples you gave, are irrelevant.

Last edited by WaldoKitty; 04-08-2014 at 09:19 AM..

 
Old 04-08-2014, 09:36 AM
 
527 posts, read 637,926 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Given that they have been forced into this action, then it would be inappropriate for them to make further comment on the matter.
If the BOE spent 1/2 as much time focused on our kids as they do lawsuits we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
I'm very surprised the plaintiffs did not take the same approach and instead have made numerous statements to the press while the trial is in progress.
I must have missed it. When did the trial start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
they can't toss trailers at schools and stay within state requirements for common facilities
Incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Nothing has been presented that suggests the pending lawsuit will be successful.
04/11 is when the discovery material will be received. We'll see what that uncovers.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,435,498 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
They are absolutely required to stay within state requirements for educational facilities and they are absolutely required to meet federal guidelines as well. They can't ignore these and do anything they want.

If you do a search you will find the document on facilities online. It specifies minimum requirements for common facilities in terms of lab space, space for impaired students, etc in sq ft/student. It's a long and complex document. IMO, they do not have an unlimited capacity to simply add more classroom space by adding additional trailers without addressing these much more difficult items.
At various times throughout the long storied history of redistricting they have loaded schools with trailers on a temporary basis... so your argument about facilities holds no water. They very easily could have handled next year's enrollment via trailers and not even come close to how many trailers they've used in the past. They didn't do it as a policy decision, not because of "requirements".

We know guidelines are just that - guidelines. So we can debate that it was the right thing not to leave the caps and just add trailers, but you can't argue that they couldn't of done due to some phantom requirements.

The entire strategy around the lawsuit is to get an injunction so there's no change for next year, get a new majority on the BOE via elections in November, and heavily use trailers to keep as many kids in their current schools as possible for the short term.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 09:52 AM
 
1,031 posts, read 2,147,885 times
Reputation: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You are correct, my opinion means nothing. However, the court has already said the same thing. i.e. The parents failed to demonstrate the harm of redistricting. This is the exact reason they stated for refusing the injunction.

This means that all the other examples you gave, are irrelevant.
I guess we'll just have to see what comes out of discovery....
 
Old 04-08-2014, 11:28 AM
 
387 posts, read 841,370 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You are correct, my opinion means nothing. However, the court has already said the same thing. i.e. The parents failed to demonstrate the harm of redistricting. This is the exact reason they stated for refusing the injunction.

This means that all the other examples you gave, are irrelevant.
Actually, my understanding is this is incorrect. The only thing that has been heard by the courts was a temporary injunction request which would have only stopped the process for 10 days. And the court denied this based on no "immediate" harm in allowing it to continue while waiting for the next step. There has been nothing else done by the courts for the long term.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 11:50 AM
 
985 posts, read 1,653,606 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
I would have no issue with the earlier morning wake up for HS or MS kids. I don't understand how you think it is normal and prudent to have a elementary school children up at 5:30 in the morning? I'm glad we are out of this UCPS mess but I couldn't refrain since my nieces and nephews will be subjected to the early morning nonsense.
I prefer high school start first BUT many schools across the country have elementary start first because of the "sleep cycle" of teems saying that they need to sleep in.

My friend in Missouri was thrilled when they just switched her high school kids to the last school to start in the mornings and get out later. She cited the studies.

So it is not just a Union County thing at all. And to compensate some of the high schools offer flex scheduling if you have enough credits so you can get out for a job or come in late or however you want to work it, in Union County.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 11:55 AM
 
985 posts, read 1,653,606 times
Reputation: 377
so what does everyone think they will find in the "discovery"? I am curious.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,435,498 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
I would have no issue with the earlier morning wake up for HS or MS kids. I don't understand how you think it is normal and prudent to have a elementary school children up at 5:30 in the morning? I'm glad we are out of this UCPS mess but I couldn't refrain since my nieces and nephews will be subjected to the early morning nonsense.
I'm not sure where you live, but I'm hearing Meck (specifically AK and Providence area) will go through this same exact process next year.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:24 PM
 
45,265 posts, read 17,960,183 times
Reputation: 18943
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
At various times throughout the long storied history of redistricting they have loaded schools with trailers on a temporary basis... so your argument about facilities holds no water. They very easily could have handled next year's enrollment via trailers and not even come close to how m....
My theory holds water as long as they haven't already exceeded the limitations. Is this known?
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:46 PM
 
547 posts, read 537,254 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlat View Post
The people that have brought this lawsuit are taxpayers in this county too and they have a right to air their grievance. They also have the right, as any citizen does, to hold their elected official accountable for the decisions that they make.
People can't bring lawsuits every time they disagree with a government decision. Government would be shut down by disgruntled mobs like CAPS . In a representative democracy, we elect people to represent us when making decisions. If we don't like the decisions they make, we don't reelect them or we run for office against them. We don't sue our representatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlat View Post
I tihnk we will also see some pretty interesting reaction the next time the BOI comes hat in hand asking the taxpayers to fund any major capital projects. (Schools, stadiums, technology etc.). Their inability to see the bigger picture and total lack of any type of visionary leadership at the superintendent/admin level is going to cost them in the longer run. They won't have near the support that they once had.
So you supported UCPS and were okay with funding capital projects as long as they benefited you? A majority of the county's taxpayers have been funding capital projects that were of no benefit to their areas of Union County for the past two decades. You are probably right though; the actions of many residents in particular areas of Union County do seem a bit selfish. They will probably balk now that all of the funding is no longer flowing in their direction
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:43 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top