Saturday, October 8, 2016

Student Power

Student Union located in the heart of campus

In addition to the early voting times and places approved by the Board of Registrars last week they met again on Thursday and added UMass to the list.

Early voting will be held in these locations on the following dates from 10 AM to 4:00 PM:

10/25 – The Spot
10/27 – Cape Cod Lounge
11/1 – Cape Cod Lounge
11 /3 – The Spot


Out of about 20,000 total registered voters in town upwards of 30% are students and although they normally don't bother with our local election in the spring they do come out in droves for the Presidential contest.

Of course the big question is whether they will take any interest in Question 5, the new $67 million Mega School that will forever alter the way elementary aged children in town are educated.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is why teachers union dues are sooooo treacherous - Amherst will be " Gifted " a multi- million mega project less " for the kids " than fly by night incomplete degree vanity - Go Figure !!$&@??

Anonymous said...

I plan on posting No on 5 posters at Umass

Anonymous said...

Also a pot vote...

Anonymous said...

5:42 -- emphasize how it will increase student's rents.

Anonymous said...

No on 5 doesn't stand a chance.

Anonymous said...

8:10
The "No on 5" argument has nothing to do with taxes. In fact, the small school supporters are favoring a solution that will cost taxpayers more.

In any case, the proposed tax increase will be $371/year for the median house in Amherst. That equals $1/day.
Pretend that house is rented to 4 students. That equals 25 cents/day per student.

Larry Kelley said...

Yeah but legal pot will be expensive.

A quarter here, a quarter there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

Laura Quilter said...

Anon 8:51 am -- Actually, a lot of "No on 5" people would have been happy with the dual K6, which was estimated to cost less. And there are many other ways to slicing the apple that would cost less.

Anonymous said...

Why is the Select Board, School Committee and whoever is left in central admin supporting an expensive big school project not supported by the elementary school teachers? What's that about?

Anonymous said...

To Anon 10:09 They KNOW this mega-school is NOT good for children!

Laura Quilter said...

School Committee would have supported whatever recommendation Administration put forward. Select Board would have supported whatever recommendation came out of SC & School Administration.

So the real question is why did Administration pick out the (most expensive, least popular, pedagogically & logistically problematic) the solution they did. You would have to ask them. Almost all of the "YES on 5" reasons would have been completely applicable to any of the other solutions, including the dual K6, staged renovations, etc. The arguments in favor of reconfiguration and consolidation basically boil down to Geryk et al actively supporting consolidation. Geryk argued publicly that there is no way to have equity without having all kids in one grade at one place. I just fundamentally disagree with that, and think it is a deep misunderstanding of "equity".

Anonymous said...

Laura I believe it was simply because she "Maria" could make the decision and felt it was the right decision even if the parents in teachers`of our town "didn't think it was the right decision". Admin in this town has been pushing an agenda for a long time regardless of what the public wants or needs.. Bigger is Better?? Maria and crew had their minds made up long before they even surveyed the parents. Just like during her reign there is a pattern of disregarding parents opinions and concerns. Look at the Aisha's situation same thing. Ignore the parents.. One of the arguments this model will cost us less.. I think they really should clarify.. This is the best way to get the most money from the state even if it costs us the most to build we will get more for our money. Is that a fair statement? I think with a new superintendent coming starting a project without their input is irresponsible. Maybe we should stop hiring so many consultants instead use the home grown talent we have. Many residents love Amherst and would lend some advice for free.

Anonymous said...

5 o's, eh? Must you?

Anonymous said...

The plan is not parent or family friendly. Imagine having to pick up your 5 year old in South Amherst drive across town to get your 8 year old and have to be in both places at the same time. Then imagine it is a significant day for UMASS. (move in, homecoming, a concert in town, the fair, graduation. Then imagine double the traffic on strong street and no light on either end of the road.. Better yet imagine the current mess in front of Fort River every day times 3 (no lights, 2 schools, double buses. This is a night mare. Instead let Crocker do what it does best.. Keep the siblings in the same school. It makes a lot more sense we still get a new school. We don't have to renovate Crocker as much.. I don't see why this plan would need to be resubmitted.. Same mega school with different grade configuration, but makes it easier on children, easier on parents, less of an hassle.
The other option .. How many times does a child on the Belchertown line get off the bus at 415 before we are hearing about upset parents.
HOW is the current plan friendly for our families that rely on the PVTA for their primary transportation. Add winter travelling .. sick kids how picking up their kids for whatever reason will be a real hassle .. Has PVTA agreed to changed the route to get closer to WW?? If so are adding PVTA buses to the overloaded residential street? Has anyone got a commitment from the town on adding traffic lights to both ends of Strong St ? As well as a crossing light to get safely to the closest PVTA stop for people headed towards uptown or South Amherst ?
If this has all been discussed`and decisions have been made I would love to know.. All the questions seem logical to me.

Anonymous said...

2:58

The theoretical siblings will be in very close proximity from Grades 2 to 12.

In fact the trip from the the new Wildwood/Ft. River to ARMS to ARHS is virtually all on school property.

No other scenario guarantees all theoretical siblings will be that close for 10 years.

Anonymous said...

Teachers Union statement signed by majority of members is coming out in favor of the new school. This BS about teachers not supporting it is about to be over.

Anonymous said...

Larry, the whole idea of legal (better put, highly regulated, not legal) pot is that it is very similar price to black market pot and this has proven to be true.

This is because the government already recognized the high value in the black market and that the real value in the free market would be very low for weed. The whole regulated weed scheme is designed to keep the price right where it is. The cost of products is moderate (while grown indoors) and moderately low (when grown outdoors). The way it works is that the cost of production goes down, the price is held pretty close to black market, the difference, that could have been our community savings, is diverted to taxes, regulations and fees. The government literally sucks up all the black market profit, the people see little change in price. This is a screw over the people scheme, like most government programs.

Over time the price goes down a little due to competition, but rarely cuts into government profit off weed. Mass also made sure there was little competition, to keep prices and revenue high.

The biggest issue with weed regulations is that weed is forced indoors, which makes very little sense. Grown under lights, it takes 50 gallons of fuel to make one lousy pound of weed. Weed needs to be grown under the sun and needs to have regs to allow this or we are all screwed energy wise. This is the only real issue remaining with pot and no one even talks about it, they pretend kids are at risk.

But be clear, pot pricing is now all about regulations and taxes, otherwise it would be a good value. Actually pot was always about revenue, selling our kids to the legal system in exchange for taxes. It is like cigarettes and booze. Cheap until the govt gets involved. Actually it is like housing, education and most other goods or services....cheap until the govt gets involved.

Anonymous said...

anon@8:31 "Teachers Union statement signed by majority of members is coming out in favor of the new school. This BS about teachers not supporting it is about to be over."
Are you deliberating misleading or just misunderstanding? There is one vote before us Nov 8th: dual 2-6 school and reconfiguration or nothing. It is not surprising they would support a 'yes' vote. However, when given a choice of options the 2-6 model dual school was NOT supported by the majority of teachers (or parents). Let's be transparently honest....(or do you want to mislead?)

Anonymous said...

Seems as though there have been a lot of "misleadings" lately, especially by the schools. Are Amherst taxpayers really this uninformed when they are about to sign a document spending many, many millions of their hard-earned dollars? I sure hope not.

Let's all be a bit more cautious when it comes to being enticed by politics and "spin."

Anonymous said...

The teachers union head told the Amherst School Committee last fall that the teachers did not support the mega school, but the teachers would make anything work, "like they always do." Perhaps this new vote is one of resignation and acceptance that there are no other options left, thanks to Geryk and Company.

Anonymous said...

We need more information...

Is 2nd grade the right time to move children cross town to a new school? Children in need of additional help are sure to fall between the cracks with new teachers/ administration not knowing the child.(wasted time for transition)
Waldorf Schools believe in keeping children with the same teacher year after year. (knowledge and relationship with child and family)

Workspaces of today are open concept. How does going backward help our kids prepare for the future?