Jump to content
Yeah, but the Commerce Clause “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” is a very extensive sweeping authority delegated to the federal government.
SCOTUS has ruled that some rancher that grew his own feed for his cattle was affecting the interstate market of cattle feed by not needing to buy it on the free market. And thus that rancher fell under USDA rules for growing his feed. Based upon similar analysis, SCOTUS has also ruled that a person growing a few MJ plants for personal use is affecting the illegal interstate trade of MJ and thus is violating federal law.
And Scott B in his above response states his reasoning which proves that it was made upon bad data. He stated that a Whistler school would need students from Fish Creek area to be big enough to be viable and that would be a longer, unpopular trip.
It proves that they never counted up the number of students that are closer to a Whistler elementary than Strawberry Park. His analysis was based upon the info in the Dec demographics report which failed to consider what would be closest school for 462 "county" students and the 70 Soroco students attending as out of district students.
The Whistler school could be K-8 to relieve pressure on Strawberry Park Middle School.
I think the near future could be very interesting for local school enrollment. Maybe we will be swamped by location neutral workers. Maybe expensive housing pricing will reduce the number of young families. Maybe location neutral workers will consider location neutral schools for their kids old enough to not need daycare. I have just been made aware of a couple dozen local home schooled students that ski and spend evenings taking their online classes. Boulder school district has an academically rigorous online school available to all Colorado students. The options for online learning from accredited Colorado schools is extensive.
If you dig deeper into SB demographics then the local school test scores is about as expected for students with parents typically with college degrees. SB schools are not so special that the typical student is scoring significantly better than expected based upon the student's family background.
Seems entirely plausible that today's kids that are so adept with their personal electronics can learn online with friends.
So are we building schools for grades 6+ just as the same trends that are greatly reducing office workers being in cubicles from 9-5 M-F are about to do the same for those students? Or maybe something else entirely different will take hold such as SB changing zoning in some fantastic way that creates a huge amount of affordable housing.
The pot dispensary part is a bit over the top because the students cannot go inside and how is that any different than driving by liquor stores and bars?
I think you could add another entry quoting from Scott B's post above of his 1-5 areas that appears to be referencing pages 4-5 of the Dec 2014 demographics report. But how his post demonstrated making decisions based upon incomplete information because the 462 students mentioned as "county" are not evenly distributed in the county. Most of those students are south and east of the circled areas describing SB neighborhoods. Include the Soroco out of district students and there appears to be 450-500 elementary students that would be closer to a Whistler Elementary than the downtown elementary schools.
Thus, the analysis provided by a school board member can be shown to be false as it would not require Fish Creek Falls area students to fill out a Whistler elementary.
I also grant you permission to quote freely from my post that the school district does not have to accept out of district students into overcrowded schools. Or send me a message and I'll make that argument again.
Do you think the authorities waited until later in the growing season so that the growers spent all summer working on it and now it is too late for their sponsors to grow another crop this year?
And law enforcement should offer them US citizenship if they provide evidence leading to prison time for those that paid them to grow the pot. If that policy were to become known then every illegal grower starts collecting evidence to put their bosses in jail.
Are you a lawyer and is that an official legal opinion?
I have never heard of such a silly argument that "or" has the same meaning as "and". The word used multiple times is "or". "Or" when listing requirements or conditions means meeting any one is sufficient to make the statement true. It is not that "schools" is more important that "classrooms", but that if a school district finds that either schools or classrooms are full then they don't have to accept more students.
And Aspen School District has used the "or" meaning so that they call a school overcrowded and don't care if a particular classroom might have room. That policy has cut their out of district students nearly in half and prevented them from needing to build additional schools. So that "or" has the meaning of "or", not "and" is not some theoretical argument, but has been effectively put into place at a real school district that also had overcrowded schools.
Take about 500 students out of existing elementary schools and into a Whistler Elementary creates room in the other elementary schools.
Note the shifting reasons to justify the Kool-Aid decision. We hear that a Whistler school wouldn't be viable due to a lack of students. Then that data is shown to be wrong. So now the reasoning has nothing to do whether Whistler would be a 500 student elementary school of kids south and east of Angler's Drive, aka for those whom it would be a closer school.
My references are the 2014 demographics hosted on Scott B's website and census data.
CensusViewer provides an easy way to draw your own boundaries and tell you number of people of different ages within those boundaries.
Saying that someone wasn't at meetings and thus there are no answers for that person's questions is the standard defense for Kool-Aid decision making. That answer acknowledges that alternatives ideas were not considered, a fuller view of facts was not considered, but hey, that is the fault of the person not going to the meetings.
If I had an unique idea such as placing a school at 131 at cty rd 14 then it would be fair to say that I would need to have to a board meeting to have that idea considered.
Instead the issue is that school board Scott B gave his reasoning on why a Whistler elementary would not work and that is based upon simply wrong counts of east side students in their demographic report. The report has a big lump of "county" students and does not say where they are generally located. Using census data, it is clear they are more in South Valley than Elk River Valley. So factually, there are enough students that are closer to a Whistler school than Strawberry Park.
$25 per student per drop off.
And don't you love how the school district, reporter and editor all cooperate with the PR by saying this "$30,000 in savings" without stating the actual cost? Best I could find quickly is that it is expected to cost $250,000.
So for 44 to 48 students that is a subsidy of more than $5,000 per kid. The plan to make it more available in the schools as part of the $92M bond issue and with a possible starting age of 2 1/2 implies a future cost easily exceeding $1M. So that would be imply a $750,000 cut to the rest of the budget. So a school district that is harsh on parents of high school athletes and asks the parents to pay for their kid's participation somehow also has $750,000 in the annual budget to pay for preschool programs!
So do we believe that story or it is just yet another lie of the $92M bond to attract voters and then have "financial considerations" prevent a future school board from implementing nearly free daycare?
I will stand up for the overall BOCES program. It wanted to see children with reasons such as being premature or with identified learning issues to prepare them for kindergarten and elementary school. Some kids there had serious issues and some were merely in the at risk category with no substantial issues. But it was nice for all to socially interact
So BOCES for at risk kids was a program that could be justified as probably saving money in the long run by preventing at risk kids from having a troubled elementary school experience. But SSSD's talk of general childcare is very expensive with minimal educational benefits.
Since you have that data then it must be a public record so may I also see it?
The school's district's data appears to be used in a map with circles of number of students neighborhoods that is in the 2014 demographics report. According to the circles, there are not enough students for either a Whistler or west side elementary school. But that same section states there are 462 "county" students, but makes no effort to break down that number by general area.
Turns out that substantially more are south and east than north and west. It is hard to be precise because the demographic map is a low resolution map and I have to guess where they drew their circles.
Anyway, as Scott B indicated in a previous message, they did not consider the number of students that currently live south and east of Steamboat as to whether that would make a Whistler school big enough to be a viable solution. Certainly, the students that live south and east of Steamboat would not be inconvenienced by a school several miles closer to their homes. So they should be counted as students for any potential Whistler elementary school.
There certainly are no charter schools or extremely popular home schooling trend in the South Valley to suggest that census data is fundamentally wrong in estimating number of potential Whistler students. In fact, the opposite trend is true of many further south SOROCO students being enrolled in SSSD.
I don't where you were told those lies. Your description of the law's requirements is fundamentally false and does not match the law's language.
The public has been told of numerous issues due to the school being crowded such as lines to go to the bathroom, lack of cafeteria space, and so on. We are told we need a new high school because the gym cannot seat every student, for instance.
And the classroom by classroom scenario not contributing to overcrowding is a bunch of BS. Because when dealing with overcrowding then accepting students until graduation means out of district students compound crowding issues next year and every subsequent year until graduation. They only way that the classroom by classroom scenario would not compound to overcrowding in subsequent years would be if school district refused to accept returning out of district students if next's year grade is crowded.
School districts such as specifically Aspen School District have interpreted the law and apparently been supported by judicial decisions to not accept additional students into overcrowded schools. Note how the law clearly is not limited to classrooms being full, but multiple times mentions "school".
Exact phrase from the law is:
(a) There is a lack of space or teaching staff within a particular program or school requested, in which case, priority shall be given to resident students applying for admission to such program or school.
Also, there no requirement that if students are accepted one year that they must be accepted the next year. School district is perfectly within their rights to refuse returning enrollment to out of district students if the school or program is full. The open enrollment law only gives out of district students to be there for one school year at a time, not until graduation.
Exact phrase from the law is:
(5) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (5), any pupil who
enrolls in a school district other than the pupil's school district of residence pursuant to this
article may remain enrolled in that school district's school or program through the end of the
SSSD is accepting out of district students because they want the money that comes with those students and they don't think that school overcrowding has any significant impacts.
Last login: Sunday, August 30, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.