April 25, 2007
Darcy Burner's views on the local school system

By popular demand, albeit from 2 people, here are the email musings from Darcy Burner and several of her neighbors concerning a recent failed school levy.

Caveat#1: This poster does not have any school aged children, and therefore has no opinion as to who is right or wrong in the following exchanges concerning the quality/or lack there of, of the SVSD.

That being said, I would, however have investigated the quality of the local school system and impact on resale value of a home, if I indeed did have young children, or was young enough to be planning a family. I would not, as Darcy Burner seems to be doing, move into an area without research, and after the fact, try to manipulate the school district to fit her selfish, and possibly ill informed motives.

Caveat#2: I was also out of the country when this election took place, and therefore do not know the details of the measure voted on.

In other words - I report, you decide.

On 02/14/2007 Darcy Burner wrote this (BTW - Happy Valentines Day Mike)

After the discussion last month about the levy, I spent some time
looking into what it would take to get Ames Lake moved into the Lake
Washington School District. It IS possible to do. I can see several
potential benefits:

(1) Dramatically shorter commutes to and from school for Ames Lake
students at every grade level;

(2) We would be moving them out of a school district that is facing
severe overcrowding and into one with much better capacity
(especially since the school bond issue for Snoqualmie Valley just
failed); and

(3) It would probably make it easier to sell homes and increase
values, as the Lake Washington School District is considered a
significant selling point.

If people think it's a good idea, there are two approaches to getting
it done: we can either work with the school boards to agree to it and
submit a plan to the state, or we can petition to have it done, which
effectively forces the school boards to make it happen. (A petition
requires the signatures of 50%+1 of the registered voters in the area
in question.)

I will freely admit my bias, which is that I'd love to send my soon-
to-be-a-kindergartener son to the Explorer School at Emily Dickenson,
but since it's a choice school for Lake Washington it's unlikely I
can waiver him into it. So I have a personal motivation, though
there's no guarantee I could get him into the program even if we
succeeded in changing school districts.

That being said, I'm interested in knowing how people feel about it.
Pros? Cons? Anyone excited enough about the idea to want to help
organize a petition drive? Anyone adamantly opposed? (It seems
likely that any agreement reached could be done so that kids
currently in the SVSD would have the option of staying there...)

Darcy


The following day several of her neighbors responded.

One wrote:

Moving out of the SVSD in my opinion would not just be
a big mistake but more importantly a major disservice
to our kids.

While it is true we are looking at overcrowding (at
SOME schools) You can hardly say not passing one levy,
and failing by a very small margin I might add, means
we won't find a solution, it's not anywhere near time
to jump ship!

As far as housing values going up by being in LWSD
though I would have to state your facts are outright
wrong. In fact SVSD is regularly rated as a better
district than others on the Eastside as has been noted
in various newspaper stories in the past few years.

Bottom line, we are much better where we're at... and
that's coming from a home that has three boys who have
spent their entire education in the SVSD with one
graduated, and another to graduate this year!

False hope is nicer than no hope at all...

Another wrote this:

My daughter went through K-5 at Fall City Elementary. We have been renting here for 14 years. We are finally buying the home we are in and one of the reasons we have stuck it out here is because of Fall City Elementary and the education they provide. The school is one of excellence and the staff and teachers are irreplaceable. I would be very upset if they transferred the children. The commute time is the price we pay to get the education our children get and it's one that doesn't bother me because I KNOW they are going to the best school around. But if there is an option on which school district, I really don't care. I just know for my best interest in my children's education, Fall City can't be beat.

Poster Editorial:

To be "Fair and Balanced" on this post, I also must post 2 emails from people who agreed with Darcy Burner on this issue.

One wrote:

I strongly agree with all the pros to moving into Lake Washington District.
Several years ago I tried to get a petition going (about 10 yrs ago), but
there was a lot of negative feedback so I dropped it. We have been looking
into variances, private schools, etc. and we could get our kids into Emily
Dickenson on Variance but then we have to reapply every year, etc.

If you need any help in the effort to make the move, I would be more than
happy to help. The schools are much closer and their WASL scores are much
better then ours. They have more funds, better equipment and pay their
teachers more which helps make it a good school district.

And another wrote this:

Count me all the way IN, I am definitely able to help organize. I have a 10
year old who will be moving up to the middle school next fall. These 11
year old children ride a bus with the high school kids (up to 18 yrs old)
and then arrive at the school 30 mins or more before the school day begins.
Once he hits high school age, he will be bussed to Mt. Si, which is at least
25 miles from the Ames Lake community (as the bus flies). The distance
alone is a negative, but the travel is on a dangerous road (especially once
they become new drivers). These are cons that would remain a constant in
our district, even if the bond had passed. Now we are facing extreme
crowding on top of the issues I mentioned. I have to assume that extreme
crowding would mean something worse than the 28 students currently in my
son's 5th grade portable classroom. So, again, I say Yes to taking steps
toward providing our children a better educational option.

So there you have it. Make out of it what you may.

Posted by ameslaker at April 25, 2007 06:42 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thank you for the post Ameslaker.

As I thought, Darcy was not motivated to help make the SVSD better by supporting the Bond, or volunteering in the schools or fundraising for the Schools Foundation. Apparently she just wants a shorter commute and "feels" that her property would be valued better by being a part of the LWSD. She even admits that she "may" not be able to get her child into the program that she wanted even if she went to the trouble of successfully petitioning the State for redistricting.

I do have to wonder why she didn't come to a board meeting and bring up her concerns. She could have volunteered to help develop a program similar to the one she wants to attend, maybe even help to secure funding for it, but that doesn't appear to be the type of team environment and collabrative process that she is comfortable working in. What was that position she was running for again?

Posted by: Huh? on April 26, 2007 08:28 AM
2. I may only be a simple man, but the key issue here seems to be that Burner and the others want to send their kids to a different school.

Why don't they just admit that and work to support a school vouchers system that would give the parents the choice of where their kids attend school?

Posted by: Smoley on April 26, 2007 08:46 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?