New Boundaries Announced

[proschool]

Builta (Timber Creek and Kinloch) Spring Brook 201
Clow (Rivercrest) Spring Brook 26
Cowlishaw (Plaza on New York) Watts 2
Longwood (Railway Plaza) Watts 30
Longwood (Townhomes of Country Lakes) Brookdale 34
McCarty (Chesapeake Landing) Cowlishaw 36
Young (Legacy Fields) Steck 23

Are they going to move 201 from Builta to Springbrook? Can Springbrook handle another 201. it might be more because Timber Creek is a relatively young subdivision. I don't know about Kinloch.

[Arch]

steckmom said:

brooksmom said:

Steckmom, I am not in any way impacted by the boundary changes except to have a shiny new school fall in my lap, and I don't think these boundaries are great. I would be willing to support your solidarity effort, but I think the problem will come when you have to support an alternative. If this boundary plan stinks, then you need to show a better one. Someone will get screwed under any option, so how do we all rally around one solution? No one wants their neighborhood to take one for the team like Brookdale was being forced to before and like Peterson and Owen are now.

I'm sure you're right that no area would be willing to take a bad compromise. But I think the district could do better than this if they gave it a second shot and provided options for comment.

The thing is, does Owen have to take one for the team? Would Steck or McCarty be willing to move? Does Peterson? Is there another area would be willing change so they could at least not have a split MS? We don't know because we're getting these boundaries forced on us without any real public input.

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

[casey]

doctorwho said:

youngest is an athlete like my oldest - playing 1 yr at WVHS then not having a varsity program will suck - no matter how you look at it. Yes that was any new location - but 1/ her heart has been set on being a Warrior since she was little and watching her sibling play, 2/ no one wants to travel that distance - not us, not her.

Now many of her closest friends here looking for ways out ( some already found them - some will move) - and her closest club friends will be Warriors ( from Fry and WE ) -

I appreciate the positive spin, I hope it works better for others, but the shoe doesn't fit in this case.

Interesting you bring that up, Doctor. I had a conversation today with a parent of an 8th grade club volleyball player. Apparently several of the HS coaches are quite interested in who's staying at NV/WV and who's moving. Wonder if that would have any affect on who makes JV/V volleyball as opposed to F/S or not at all . You know, along the lines of, well those girls are from WE/FRY so they're moving to WV the following year so maybe they "just don't fit the NV team". It's sad and sounds crazy but it's hard not to believe that it could weigh in on one of those hard "cut" decisions of players.

Unless you have an 8th grader caught up in this mess, I'm not sure that anyone could really understand how these situations really play out. I kinda wish that they'd just start MV with Freshman only and not move any sophomores in 2009. Personally, I think it's wrong to start out at one school and then be forced to move to the other HS. Especially if they are in varsity sports their freshman year and move to MV and then tough luck! Or what about those involved in band/orchestra and lose out when they switch schools. Guess my kid's one that supposed to "take one for the team" (literally!).

I also hate the thought of WV losing its freshman campus (and I said that BEFORE we were slated to go there). IMO, the freshman center is a great transition to the main campus. I"m sad to see any 9th grader lose that opportunity.

[thebeefeater]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

I'm sure you're right that no area would be willing to take a bad compromise. But I think the district could do better than this if they gave it a second shot and provided options for comment.

The thing is, does Owen have to take one for the team? Would Steck or McCarty be willing to move? Does Peterson? Is there another area would be willing change so they could at least not have a split MS? We don't know because we're getting these boundaries forced on us without any real public input.

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

I just don't get the "take one for the team" argue ment. The vast majority of Steck is less than 1.5 miles from Waubonsie, same for Steck. Are you saying that it is fair to throw someone else under the bus so that you do not get splashed? These people are walkers. The MW commute will be 5.7 miles. There are current commutes in excess of 7 miles. Here is the map link to support the numbers.

Distance to MV 5.7 miles
tinyurl.com/2jk495

Distance to WV 4.3 miles
tinyurl.com/3chkw7

True, your commute will increase by 1.4 miles and for that I truely do feel for you. But...

1. You are not on an attendance island
2. Your middle school is not split
3. You go to a new school with all new facilities
4. You are not currently a walker that is being asked to move
5. Your commute is much shorter than the longest commute currently in the district

Again, we are talking about 1.4 miles. I do feel for you, Fry and others because your commute will increase (nobody denies that). However, I can run 1.4 miles in less than 9 minutes. This district needs a new school as smaller schools open the door for all kinds of opportunities for our kids. Do you have a suggestion that is a better option that does not throw someone else under the bus. I am all ears.

[slp]

casey said:

doctorwho said:

youngest is an athlete like my oldest - playing 1 yr at WVHS then not having a varsity program will suck - no matter how you look at it. Yes that was any new location - but 1/ her heart has been set on being a Warrior since she was little and watching her sibling play, 2/ no one wants to travel that distance - not us, not her.

Now many of her closest friends here looking for ways out ( some already found them - some will move) - and her closest club friends will be Warriors ( from Fry and WE ) -

I appreciate the positive spin, I hope it works better for others, but the shoe doesn't fit in this case.

Interesting you bring that up, Doctor. I had a conversation today with a parent of an 8th grade club volleyball player. Apparently several of the HS coaches are quite interested in who's staying at NV/WV and who's moving. Wonder if that would have any affect on who makes JV/V volleyball as opposed to F/S or not at all . You know, along the lines of, well those girls are from WE/FRY so they're moving to WV the following year so maybe they "just don't fit the NV team". It's sad and sounds crazy but it's hard not to believe that it could weigh in on one of those hard "cut" decisions of players.

Unless you have an 8th grader caught up in this mess, I'm not sure that anyone could really understand how these situations really play out. I kinda wish that they'd just start MV with Freshman only and not move any sophomores in 2009. Personally, I think it's wrong to start out at one school and then be forced to move to the other HS. Especially if they are in varsity sports their freshman year and move to MV and then tough luck! Or what about those involved in band/orchestra and lose out when they switch schools. Guess my kid's one that supposed to "take one for the team" (literally!).

I also hate the thought of WV losing its freshman campus (and I said that BEFORE we were slated to go there). IMO, the freshman center is a great transition to the main campus. I"m sad to see any 9th grader lose that opportunity.

Lets also not forget the current White Eagle 6th graders who will be pulled from Scullen in 8th grade and sent to Still with kids they do not know. That is a very fragile time for kids and to pull them after two years at Scullen is REALLY taking one for the team. Not fair for the kids.

The right thing to do for these kids is to allow them to finish up at Scullen. At least allow that as an option and parents would have to provide their child's transportation.

Moving 8th graders is the equivalent , IMO, to moving Seniors in high school from one school to another...not fair and not usually done.

[casey]

slp said:

Lets also not forget the current White Eagle 6th graders who will be pulled from Scullen in 8th grade and sent to Still with kids they do not know. That is a very fragile time for kids and to pull them after two years at Scullen is REALLY taking one for the team. Not fair for the kids.

The right thing to do for these kids is to allow them to finish up at Scullen. At least allow that as an option and parents would have to provide their child's transportation.

Moving 8th graders is the equivalent , IMO, to moving Seniors in high school from one school to another...not fair and not usually done.

I would agree 100%, slp. It's wrong to move kids at 8th grade. I think that you should have a real issue with that and I hope that they do look into that! I'm all for 8th graders finishing out the year. 8th grade is just the WRONG time to be moving kids and as you said it's like moving your senior year.

[Arch]

thebeefeater said:

archwinsome said:

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

I just don't get the "take one for the team" argue ment. The vast majority of Steck is less than 1.5 miles from Waubonsie, same for Steck. Are you saying that it is fair to throw someone else under the bus so that you do not get splashed? These people are walkers. The MW commute will be 5.7 miles. There are current commutes in excess of 7 miles. Here is the map link to support the numbers.

Distance to MV 5.7 miles
tinyurl.com/2jk495

Distance to WV 4.3 miles
tinyurl.com/3chkw7

True, your commute will increase by 1.4 miles and for that I truely do feel for you. But...

1. You are not on an attendance island
2. Your middle school is not split
3. You go to a new school with all new facilities
4. You are not currently a walker that is being asked to move
5. Your commute is much shorter than the longest commute currently in the district

Again, we are talking about 1.4 miles. I do feel for you, Fry and others because your commute will increase (nobody denies that). However, I can run 1.4 miles in less than 9 minutes. This district needs a new school as smaller schools open the door for all kinds of opportunities for our kids. Do you have a suggestion that is a better option that does not throw someone else under the bus. I am all ears.

I have always said walkers to WV stay at WV. Busers of Steck/McCarty take the MUCH SHORTER commute up eola to MV instead of the LONGER drives of MW/COWL/OWEN to MV.

Really now? Throwing them under a bus? What's google say about how close MV is from Steck/McCarty and what travel time does google show to the site up eola?

How is sending them to a new school with a shorter commute than 3 other schools would have throwing them under a bus? Throwing them under a bus would be sending them all the way down to NV, the farthest school.

[doctorwho]

casey said:

doctorwho said:

youngest is an athlete like my oldest - playing 1 yr at WVHS then not having a varsity program will suck - no matter how you look at it. Yes that was any new location - but 1/ her heart has been set on being a Warrior since she was little and watching her sibling play, 2/ no one wants to travel that distance - not us, not her.

Now many of her closest friends here looking for ways out ( some already found them - some will move) - and her closest club friends will be Warriors ( from Fry and WE ) -

I appreciate the positive spin, I hope it works better for others, but the shoe doesn't fit in this case.

Interesting you bring that up, Doctor. I had a conversation today with a parent of an 8th grade club volleyball player. Apparently several of the HS coaches are quite interested in who's staying at NV/WV and who's moving. Wonder if that would have any affect on who makes JV/V volleyball as opposed to F/S or not at all . You know, along the lines of, well those girls are from WE/FRY so they're moving to WV the following year so maybe they "just don't fit the NV team". It's sad and sounds crazy but it's hard not to believe that it could weigh in on one of those hard "cut" decisions of players.

Unless you have an 8th grader caught up in this mess, I'm not sure that anyone could really understand how these situations really play out. I kinda wish that they'd just start MV with Freshman only and not move any sophomores in 2009. Personally, I think it's wrong to start out at one school and then be forced to move to the other HS. Especially if they are in varsity sports their freshman year and move to MV and then tough luck! Or what about those involved in band/orchestra and lose out when they switch schools. Guess my kid's one that supposed to "take one for the team" (literally!).

I also hate the thought of WV losing its freshman campus (and I said that BEFORE we were slated to go there). IMO, the freshman center is a great transition to the main campus. I"m sad to see any 9th grader lose that opportunity.

One doesn't want to think about that stuff but of course it will cross their minds. Let's take those very skilled athletes - who play key positions on a team - why would a coach invest a lot of time grooming one for a spot they will not play on their team the following year and thereby retard the progress of someone who will ? It may sound like I am being negative towards the coaches on this - but I am not. They have to prepare their younger players to transition to replace graduating kids - and all players bring different skill sets.

Would you move someone to JV or varsity for that matter ahead of someone else- knowing they will be leaving the following year ? Maybe if you thought that player could be the difference between making playoffs or not - but realisitically you groom your future teams from the minute they walk in the door. Most of the HS coaches already know the kids that are coming in - from last years summer camps and from MS play.

It's a bad situation all the way around. Those 8th graders bound for MV have it the worst - as freshman who may be close to but not quite varsity - they have 2 full years to wait.
Also will likely play for a different coach the 2nd year no matter what and maybe even another the 3rd year as what varsity coach is going to move to MV where they have no program for a year?

They would never open with freshman only- although I agree it would make things a lot cleaner.

[jwh]

archwinsome said:

steckmom said:

I'm sure you're right that no area would be willing to take a bad compromise. But I think the district could do better than this if they gave it a second shot and provided options for comment.

The thing is, does Owen have to take one for the team? Would Steck or McCarty be willing to move? Does Peterson? Is there another area would be willing change so they could at least not have a split MS? We don't know because we're getting these boundaries forced on us without any real public input.

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

[doctorwho]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

I do believe this one was already delivered - obviously it was not good enough

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

jwh said:

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

I do believe this one was already delivered - obviously it was not good enough

I am hoping that in the tweaks the applicability of one criteria can be applied that can be said to remain true for ALL areas.

Minimize/maximize/balance is all subjective, so it north/west/south as we have seen.

Everyone can load up google maps or a good old fashioned paper map and see what is the farthest school from their area and confidently say "I am not doing that commute, I am going to something closer".

There is unity. Every other thing they have tried to say is 'fair' isn't.

[204parent]

Trying to optimize boundaries for this site is a waste of time because...

It's the wrong site in the wrong location!!!

[ogden]

jwh said:

archwinsome said:

The math I have seen on this to not have anyone 'take one for the team' involves fry/peterson to WV, steck/McCarty (non walkers) to MV and owen west to wv, owen east to NV, cowl to NV and Watts to WV.. sending the satellite areas for MW/COWL north to MV.

After that, some may still feel that going to close school #2 instead of close school #1 is taking one for the team.. but no one would be taking #3 for the team.

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools.

[doctorwho]

ogden said:

jwh said:

That really cleans things up - - a good proposal.

I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools.

you can blame the boundaries for 3 of those splits -- these are satellite locations - nowhere near the main school-- they were supposed to clean up the ES boundaries - why didn't that happen. Why are kids from rt 59 and the train station and Longwood now attending Watts MS ? Not only wasn't it fixed- they added the LW satellite. How much are those kids from 5 miles north of the area going to feel part of the ES ? That's a long commute for an ES kid. Why was it done...one has to ask?
The MS splits were addressed.I would rather be split from my MS ( which btw is at the north end of the distict also) than from those actual land neighbors.

[ogden]

I disagree. That proposal splits 5 grade schools - Steck, McCarty, Owen, Watts and Cowlishaw. Plus there would be lots of splits associated with the middle schools. [/quote]


you can blame the boundaries for 3 of those splits -- these are satellite locations - nowhere near the main school-- they were supposed to clean up the ES boundaries - why didn't that happen. Why are kids from rt 59 and the train station and Longwood now attending Watts MS ? Not only wasn't it fixed- they added the LW satellite. How much are those kids from 5 miles north of the area going to feel part of the ES ?

The MS splits were addressed.I would rather be split from my MS ( which btw is at the north end of the distict also) than from those actual land neighbors.[/quote]

I too was disappointed the SB did not take the opportunity to clean up the ES boundaries - it was the perfect time and may have prevented the problems with the current HS boundaries.
The most obvious example being Owen.