[UCGal]

I’ve been thinking about this since I read it yesterday. Aren’t school districts funded, in part, by property taxes within their boundaries.

I don’t think this plan is about race – it’s about $$$.

If you carve off the coast (more expensive real estate) then the per-student allotment can be higher. Too bad for those folks who live in less expensive areas.

Demographics also suggest that more expensive areas have higher numbers of college educated professionals than less expensive neighborhoods – so you’re also selecting, in a broad statistical way, a potentially higher performing student population.

Eugene mentioned UC – which is my ‘hood… I noticed he didn’t mention Spreckel’s demographics. Spreckels is a Spanish Language Magnet – so it draws from the entire district – and has a MUCH higher ratio of hispanic compared to the other 2 elementaries that feed into UCHS. (Which might be a factor for why UCHS student body is more hispanic than the neighborhood at large.)

Personally, I like diversity. I also see this plan as dead, politically… not going to happen. But, realistically, it might improve Standley MS and UCHS – which is where my kids will be attending.

[UCGal]

I’ve been thinking about this since I read it yesterday. Aren’t school districts funded, in part, by property taxes within their boundaries.

I don’t think this plan is about race – it’s about $$$.

If you carve off the coast (more expensive real estate) then the per-student allotment can be higher. Too bad for those folks who live in less expensive areas.

Demographics also suggest that more expensive areas have higher numbers of college educated professionals than less expensive neighborhoods – so you’re also selecting, in a broad statistical way, a potentially higher performing student population.

Eugene mentioned UC – which is my ‘hood… I noticed he didn’t mention Spreckel’s demographics. Spreckels is a Spanish Language Magnet – so it draws from the entire district – and has a MUCH higher ratio of hispanic compared to the other 2 elementaries that feed into UCHS. (Which might be a factor for why UCHS student body is more hispanic than the neighborhood at large.)

Personally, I like diversity. I also see this plan as dead, politically… not going to happen. But, realistically, it might improve Standley MS and UCHS – which is where my kids will be attending.

[UCGal]

I’ve been thinking about this since I read it yesterday. Aren’t school districts funded, in part, by property taxes within their boundaries.

I don’t think this plan is about race – it’s about $$$.

If you carve off the coast (more expensive real estate) then the per-student allotment can be higher. Too bad for those folks who live in less expensive areas.

Demographics also suggest that more expensive areas have higher numbers of college educated professionals than less expensive neighborhoods – so you’re also selecting, in a broad statistical way, a potentially higher performing student population.

Eugene mentioned UC – which is my ‘hood… I noticed he didn’t mention Spreckel’s demographics. Spreckels is a Spanish Language Magnet – so it draws from the entire district – and has a MUCH higher ratio of hispanic compared to the other 2 elementaries that feed into UCHS. (Which might be a factor for why UCHS student body is more hispanic than the neighborhood at large.)

Personally, I like diversity. I also see this plan as dead, politically… not going to happen. But, realistically, it might improve Standley MS and UCHS – which is where my kids will be attending.

[UCGal]

Um we are at war, on two fronts. It’s not the same scale as WWII – but we are at war.

No comment on the bond thing. I don’t know enough on the topic to have an opinion.

[UCGal]

Um we are at war, on two fronts. It’s not the same scale as WWII – but we are at war.

No comment on the bond thing. I don’t know enough on the topic to have an opinion.

[UCGal]

Um we are at war, on two fronts. It’s not the same scale as WWII – but we are at war.

No comment on the bond thing. I don’t know enough on the topic to have an opinion.

[UCGal]

Um we are at war, on two fronts. It’s not the same scale as WWII – but we are at war.

No comment on the bond thing. I don’t know enough on the topic to have an opinion.

[UCGal]

Um we are at war, on two fronts. It’s not the same scale as WWII – but we are at war.

No comment on the bond thing. I don’t know enough on the topic to have an opinion.

[UCGal]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy
[/quote]

Fully agreeing with Dave and Xbox on this.
I’ve read the emails, watched part of Lewis’s testimony this morning… There was wrong doing all around – Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke overstepped. Ken Lewis screwed the shareholders for personal gain. As did his BOD.

And just to clarify for the Obama bashers – this happened last year, 2008, pre-Obama. I’m not letting Timmy off the hook since he was Gov. of the NYFed and deeply involved. (I’m NOT a Geithner fan.) I don’t mind bashing BO for things that happened when he was running things – but the timeline doesn’t fit for this incident. Its like blaming Obama for the invasion of Iraq – it doesn’t fit the timeline.

[UCGal]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy
[/quote]

Fully agreeing with Dave and Xbox on this.
I’ve read the emails, watched part of Lewis’s testimony this morning… There was wrong doing all around – Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke overstepped. Ken Lewis screwed the shareholders for personal gain. As did his BOD.

And just to clarify for the Obama bashers – this happened last year, 2008, pre-Obama. I’m not letting Timmy off the hook since he was Gov. of the NYFed and deeply involved. (I’m NOT a Geithner fan.) I don’t mind bashing BO for things that happened when he was running things – but the timeline doesn’t fit for this incident. Its like blaming Obama for the invasion of Iraq – it doesn’t fit the timeline.

[UCGal]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy
[/quote]

Fully agreeing with Dave and Xbox on this.
I’ve read the emails, watched part of Lewis’s testimony this morning… There was wrong doing all around – Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke overstepped. Ken Lewis screwed the shareholders for personal gain. As did his BOD.

And just to clarify for the Obama bashers – this happened last year, 2008, pre-Obama. I’m not letting Timmy off the hook since he was Gov. of the NYFed and deeply involved. (I’m NOT a Geithner fan.) I don’t mind bashing BO for things that happened when he was running things – but the timeline doesn’t fit for this incident. Its like blaming Obama for the invasion of Iraq – it doesn’t fit the timeline.

[UCGal]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy
[/quote]

Fully agreeing with Dave and Xbox on this.
I’ve read the emails, watched part of Lewis’s testimony this morning… There was wrong doing all around – Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke overstepped. Ken Lewis screwed the shareholders for personal gain. As did his BOD.

And just to clarify for the Obama bashers – this happened last year, 2008, pre-Obama. I’m not letting Timmy off the hook since he was Gov. of the NYFed and deeply involved. (I’m NOT a Geithner fan.) I don’t mind bashing BO for things that happened when he was running things – but the timeline doesn’t fit for this incident. Its like blaming Obama for the invasion of Iraq – it doesn’t fit the timeline.

[UCGal]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]But, alas, he apparently was more concerned about losing his job than about protecting shareholder interests. In my view, for this reason alone he should be fired. [/quote]

I second this view. I mean where is this man’s integrity? I know, I know, integrity, how quaint.

And besides, what kind of negotiator can he be if he caved on the threat of losing his job? Seriously, if the man had any ability as a real negotiator he should have said the heck with you guys. Fire me if you like. How’s that gonna look when I give an interview to the Wall Street Journal telling my side of the story. Hey, sorry, I have a responsibility to my shareholders.

As it stands now, everyone knows he’s a poor negotiator without any integrity. Lots of luck in the future with that reputation.

XboxBoy
[/quote]

Fully agreeing with Dave and Xbox on this.
I’ve read the emails, watched part of Lewis’s testimony this morning… There was wrong doing all around – Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke overstepped. Ken Lewis screwed the shareholders for personal gain. As did his BOD.

And just to clarify for the Obama bashers – this happened last year, 2008, pre-Obama. I’m not letting Timmy off the hook since he was Gov. of the NYFed and deeply involved. (I’m NOT a Geithner fan.) I don’t mind bashing BO for things that happened when he was running things – but the timeline doesn’t fit for this incident. Its like blaming Obama for the invasion of Iraq – it doesn’t fit the timeline.

[UCGal]

[quote=David J]Not sure if it is a good idea or not, but it is a bit suspicious that Scripps Ranch would be welcome to be part of the San Diego Coastal Unified School District. I guess it would depend on where I lived if I would be for it or against it.[/quote]

That jumped out at me, too.

And I think the point about breaking up the district so that LJHS doesn’t get as many NCLB kids is valid. Top rated schools are obviously choices for kids who’s schools flunk No-Child-Left-Behind. And I’m pretty sure that kids from failed schools jump to the front of the “choice” list.

[UCGal]

[quote=David J]Not sure if it is a good idea or not, but it is a bit suspicious that Scripps Ranch would be welcome to be part of the San Diego Coastal Unified School District. I guess it would depend on where I lived if I would be for it or against it.[/quote]

That jumped out at me, too.

And I think the point about breaking up the district so that LJHS doesn’t get as many NCLB kids is valid. Top rated schools are obviously choices for kids who’s schools flunk No-Child-Left-Behind. And I’m pretty sure that kids from failed schools jump to the front of the “choice” list.

[Author]

Posts