tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8895200797299787815.post-12566018790913614372007-04-17T06:43:00.000-05:002007-04-17T06:43:00.000-05:00I find it amazing you are able to go through life with such poor reading skills. Mrs. Monte did not say, at any point, that the configuration you are referring to was being looked at.<BR/><BR/>What is on her website is:<BR/>"Thank you, SB, for your insights. The reasoning I have heard for going to 10-12, at least for a few years, was to address freshman failure, high school disparity and overcrowding, and allow enough room for block scheduling.<BR/>The possibility is that with declining enrollment, if the trend holds true, a switch to 10-12 could be temporary as a way to avoid building classrooms that would not be needed in the future. Just a thought."<BR/><BR/>Where is it stated that any other configuration but K-3, 4-8 is being discussed by the committees or administration? Where, anywhere in the thread, are administration or the committees mentioned? <BR/>I have seen that configuration suggested on Oshkonversation as a discussion topic.<BR/><BR/>I want to know, from a so called expert as yourself, why it is okay to build 100+ classrooms, several multipurpose rooms, and rebuilding schools in scenario 7 but not okay to build for any other, possibly less expensive scenario idea? Seems hypocritical.<BR/><BR/>If anyone has a right to complain about misinformation, it is anyone who reads this blog. Don't be a sore loser, Mrs. Thiel. Your constant harping and finger pointing at Mrs. Monte is classless.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to delete this, I am sure you don't want anyone to read something contrary to your opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com