Disappointment

[we4]

thebeefeater said:

lacy said:

I thought I had seen it all.... But this takes the cake.

My child is NOT a Brand name.

Up yours, Beefeater.

Well since we are going to get nasty...

Oh, I guess I'll restrain myself.

If you read the post it clearly states that the neighborhoods are positive brand names. Meaning they are well respected and a positive influence on the schools in terms of parental support, financial support, etc. Nowhere in the email did I mention your kids being brand names.

Given the nature I your response and the applause from your neighbor, perhaps I should evaluate my opinion of the area. Up mine? Come on, is that really necessary?

Come on dude, it was funny. Many of us are trying to figure out what the heck has happened with this whole boundary thing and Lacy's comment was a much needed comedy break, even if that was not what was intended. It was still funny.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

We turned in a plan that not only balances achievement, but places WVHS 2nd - and it moves no walkers, and no ES goes to the 3rd furthest HS, but it obviously was not good enough. It can be done.....

I see some valid complaints about long commutes and the Peterson triple-split, but pointing out that WV would be 2nd (i.e. not last/worst) makes it hard to see it presented as a "best for 204" solution - I am in support of suggesting some tweaks to reduce the maximum commutes, but let's not get into the game of trying to "not be last" - the numbers between WV and MV are close enough to be considered statisically insignificant. Who honestly thinks that an estimated 1 or 1.5 points difference on a 100 scales is meaningful?

What would not be fair would be having one HS that is sinificantly lower than the other two (for example 94, 94, 87 - which would have been a likely outcome with Hamman, for example) - that is what the SB was referring to as the albtross ---> They were not taking shots at past, present, or future Warriors. They were doing their best to protect all 3 HSs in the future.

the comment was not meant to do anything but show that our plan did what the SB is claiming they want to do -- not to make anyone look bad. I just thought if they were going to pontificate on how they were going to fix the 'percepton issue' we'd actually show them a way to fix that part of it.

As for Hamman or MACOM - we can only 'speculate' on the boundaries -- heck with the current plan they could have sent the 3 most northern schools to the furthest HS from their house, like they did to the central area of the district now -- obviously it was a clean slate and geography only mattered for some schools, not all.


Yet I am reading posts now that MV will be the one with declining scores in the near future, and since it already suffers badly from a safety and aesthetics perspective issue ( remember just like with WV - one doesn't have to agree with it for it to be a 'perception' issue, ) - and the lack of proximity to 1/2 of it's population not going to be viewed as a plus either.

[slp]

thebeefeater said:

From Dr. Who

as it stands today

WV 89.8 MV 91.2 NV 93.6

I can confirm your numbers. I completed the same analysis ealier today and came up with the exact numbers. However, I did not work it out to the decimal place I just cam up with 90, 91, and 94 respectively. I then went back and plugged in the ISAT scores from the previous year and low and behold the numbers reversed.

WV 90, MV 89, NV was still at 94

How? you ask could it change like this? Well you can attribute this change to 2 schools. Both Young and Colishaw saw their numbers improve by approximately 6 full points. Colishaw, if you remember from the last go around was a title 1 school with scores near the bottom of the list. They are now sqarely in the middle of the pack. Young was right around 90 and saw its scores jump to be number 1 in the district. This is just to show that things change and schools improve. If you use an average of the last 2 years you will see that both MV and WV are on identical footing and isn't that what we want?

The bottom line is that WV is now much stronger and very much an equal to MV. Without some drastic bussing, we can't fix the NV outperformance but at the very least, WV and MV should be balanced and these boundaries do just that. If you pull Owen, or Watts, or even Colishaw for that matter, you will really hurt MV giving it a real perception issue beacuase of lower scores.

Another thing to remember is that the growth in WV is all comming from high end homes in ashwood while the growth at MV will be comming from new appartments being built around the mall. While WV will be getting stronger through its growth, MV continue to get weaker. Nothing you can do about it, it is just a fact. The only thing you can do is to make sure that MV is not penalized right at the starting gate. Make it an equal as the current boundaries do and lets get it done.

I am thrilled to hear from You (DoctorWho) and Arch and other from MW that your community is strong and supportive. That gives me a good feeling about the future of MV even though the growth will not be as productive as the WV growth.

I do agree with your point on the future growth sources for WV and MV.

[Arch]

thebeefeater said:

Another thing to remember is that the growth in WV is all comming from high end homes in ashwood while the growth at MV will be comming from new appartments being built around the mall. While WV will be getting stronger through its growth, MV continue to get weaker. Nothing you can do about it, it is just a fact. The only thing you can do is to make sure that MV is not penalized right at the starting gate. Make it an equal as the current boundaries do and lets get it done.

I am thrilled to hear from You (DoctorWho) and Arch and other from MW that your community is strong and supportive. That gives me a good feeling about the future of MV even though the growth will not be as productive as the WV growth.

"Growth will not be as productive"? "penalized from the start"? "MV continue to get weaker"?

What on earth are you implying here?

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

I see some valid complaints about long commutes and the Peterson triple-split, but pointing out that WV would be 2nd (i.e. not last/worst) makes it hard to see it presented as a "best for 204" solution - I am in support of suggesting some tweaks to reduce the maximum commutes, but let's not get into the game of trying to "not be last" - the numbers between WV and MV are close enough to be considered statisically insignificant. Who honestly thinks that an estimated 1 or 1.5 points difference on a 100 scales is meaningful?

What would not be fair would be having one HS that is sinificantly lower than the other two (for example 94, 94, 87 - which would have been a likely outcome with Hamman, for example) - that is what the SB was referring to as the albtross ---> They were not taking shots at past, present, or future Warriors. They were doing their best to protect all 3 HSs in the future.

the comment was not meant to do anything but show that our plan did what the SB is claiming they want to do -- not to make anyone look bad. I just thought if they were going to pontificate on how they were going to fix the 'percepton issue' we'd actually show them a way to fix that part of it.

As for Hamman or MACOM - we can only 'speculate' on the boundaries -- heck with the current plan they could have sent the 3 most northern schools to the furthest HS from their house, like they did to the central area of the district now -- obviously it was a clean slate and geography only mattered for some schools, not all.

Yet I am reading posts now that MV will be the one with declining scores in the near future, and since it already suffers badly from a safety and aesthetics perspective issue ( remember just like with WV - one doesn't have to agree with it for it to be a 'perception' issue, ) - and the lack of proximity to 1/2 of it's population not going to be viewed as a plus either.

The SB has multiple goals with the boundaries. Just because you can come up with boundaries that meet one goal doesn't mean other goals are also met.

You aren't calling both MV AND WV as both being slighted here, or are you?

[ogden]

eagledad said:

wvhsparent said:

OK now that everyone is disappointed, what reasoned presentations is everyone planning on making to the SB advocating changes?

Fair enough. Here is my simple suggestion - Swap McCarty and Owen - it balances achievement while simultaneously rectifying the most aggregious commute.

It could also make enough attendance difference to keep Gombert together at WVHS.

As a McCarty parent, I would prefer to stay at WVHS.
That said, I think ED's suggestion makes sense to reduce Owen's commute, especially since it avoids splitting any grade schools.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

the comment was not meant to do anything but show that our plan did what the SB is claiming they want to do -- not to make anyone look bad. I just thought if they were going to pontificate on how they were going to fix the 'percepton issue' we'd actually show them a way to fix that part of it.

As for Hamman or MACOM - we can only 'speculate' on the boundaries -- heck with the current plan they could have sent the 3 most northern schools to the furthest HS from their house, like they did to the central area of the district now -- obviously it was a clean slate and geography only mattered for some schools, not all.

Yet I am reading posts now that MV will be the one with declining scores in the near future, and since it already suffers badly from a safety and aesthetics perspective issue ( remember just like with WV - one doesn't have to agree with it for it to be a 'perception' issue, ) - and the lack of proximity to 1/2 of it's population not going to be viewed as a plus either.

The SB has multiple goals with the boundaries. Just because you can come up with boundaries that meet one goal doesn't mean other goals are also met.

You aren't calling both MV AND WV as both being slighted here, or are you?

short of even worse geographical splits than already proposed - there is little way to address the NV score vs the other 2 -

I think someone here already explained - the proposal that got sent in addressed all the goals they set forth - within the guildines to 'minimize' certain thing . Trust me we read very carefully what was asked of the proposals.

What I am saying if I beliee the posts being made is that although MV is slightly higher now all signs point towards itbeing the lowest very soon ( makes one want to sign up right away for that) - and coupling it with the perception issues it already has -- what is the end game for that? I'm asking the question based on what others are saying

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

warriorpride said:

The SB has multiple goals with the boundaries. Just because you can come up with boundaries that meet one goal doesn't mean other goals are also met.

You aren't calling both MV AND WV as both being slighted here, or are you?

short of even worse geographical splits than already proposed - there is little way to address the NV score vs the other 2 -

I think someone here already explained - the proposal that got sent in addressed all the goals they set forth - within the guildines to 'minimize' certain thing . Trust me we read very carefully what was asked of the proposals.

What I am saying if I beliee the posts being made is that although MV is slightly higher now all signs point towards itbeing the lowest very soon ( makes one want to sign up right away for that) - and coupling it with the perception issues it already has -- what is the end game for that? I'm asking the question based on what others are saying

Taking what one or two people say on this board probably isn't the best way to get insight into the SB's reasoning. My guess: the boundaries achieve their goals, and an ongoing goal is to keep all 3 HSs continuing to achieve at a very high level.

[gatordog]

I got to start by saying WarriorEagledad, I see a lot of this way differently

eagledad said:

One of the biggest issues I have is in justifying the recommendation on lies. I am sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who says that the average commute from Steck, an elementary area that surrounds WVHS to WVHS is 29 minutes is being purposely deceitful - nothing less. ...... It is indefensible. I place total responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett ..... She bears the resposibilioty for recognizing the ridiculousness that it contains. Until now, I have held her in the highest respect, but now I question her competence.

I am very disappointed in this.

So you are questioning, for example, Steck bus times? And this leads you to make some very serious accusations on on particular administrator?

Before going there....do you know what the current Steck/WV Average Bus Route Times are? 27 minutes. Is it plausible and believable for proposed Steck to WV that it would be 29 minutes. Uhhhh....absolutely.

I think you and I are reading the handout way differently. By definition the bus route is the beginning and end time. To me, the average means to and from. Look at two (only two I believe) current Steck area bus routes, Route 18/218 and 29/229. These routes averge to 27 minutes.

I see no inconsistancy at all in what KB stated or signed on to. None. It makes sense to me. I dont see lies and incompetency here at all. To me, the dissapointment is making those claims without considering or inquiring about the interpretation of the handout first, as there seem to be very plausible explainations.

I see a 3-way split of Peterson that does not make one iota of sense to me. Likewise the selective split of a small portion of Cowlishaw and Gombert have made no sense to me no matter how long I stare at them. Why are we doing this to those communities? What is the gain?

I am very disappointed in this.

I agree with this. And I think this is where the focus of district-wide dissappointment should be. Right here.

Now I see before me a "New Waubonsie" which has has an ISAT achievement score of 88.1 - even lower than today, and this is before accounting for the low-mobility areas of Gombert that are being removed. This will very likely pull the ISAT scores into the 87.X range.
....

I am very disappointed in this.

I dont see the hangup on a few % points on bulk WV ISATs. (Does it matter in terms of individual students. Heck yes! THAT is where it matters.) Consider your WV test score possiblities. Lets see, if WV clocks in w/ ES feeder test scores of 87 or 13% not meeting standards as ES students, then about ~360 HS students or 90 per school year class are below standards. But if SD really drives hard on this issue with boundaries somehow and ups this number to say 89, then its only ~310 HS students or 80 per class. Does this really matter? How? Does the character of the school change in some way based on standardize test taking skills of 10 students per class? Instead, lets work on getting 10 students per year per class doing better on the testing! And by the way for reference, NV with its very fine 94% ISAT, still unfortunately has 230 studens in this category or 60 per class.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

short of even worse geographical splits than already proposed - there is little way to address the NV score vs the other 2 -

I think someone here already explained - the proposal that got sent in addressed all the goals they set forth - within the guildines to 'minimize' certain thing . Trust me we read very carefully what was asked of the proposals.

What I am saying if I beliee the posts being made is that although MV is slightly higher now all signs point towards itbeing the lowest very soon ( makes one want to sign up right away for that) - and coupling it with the perception issues it already has -- what is the end game for that? I'm asking the question based on what others are saying

Taking what one or two people say on this board probably isn't the best way to get insight into the SB's reasoning. My guess: the boundaries achieve their goals, and an ongoing goal is to keep all 3 HSs continuing to achieve at a very high level.

as far as I am concerned- when you have 3 ES's going to the furhest HS from their home- and some of the nonsense with Peterson - and adding ES satellites far away from some ES' when the goal was to minimize that - I would disagree they met the goals set.

Our GAP was smaller than the one they have created, no ES went to the furhest school - and most splits were along the lines of locations in ES already land separated from their ES -- ES's boundaries needed to be changed if they want to stop that.

the words used by the SB were - minimize - not eliminate anything.


If they somehow created the perfect plan the first time out - and there is no need to listen to input that could improve it - then they maybe need to open a consulting business to do it for others ( you know like the professional ones out there who do that for a living) - that's a pretty good track record. One proposal - perfect.

But again, for those getting the closest HS - and some of those getting the closest MS and HS - hey, great plan !


As for the SB reasoning - let's hope we get it in gory detail --

[confused]

eagledad said:

One of the biggest issues I have is in justifying the recommendation on lies. I am sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who says that the average commute from Steck, an elementary area that surrounds WVHS to WVHS is 29 minutes is being purposely deceitful - nothing less. To list that at the same time next to average commutes of 30 and 35 minutes for Cowlishaw/Watts and Owen respectively to MWGen is to outright disregard their very valid concerns and dismiss the new burden they would have to carry. I can not stand by and not call it out for what it is. It is a carefully crafted impossibility, created by our administrators to misrepresent reality. It is indefensible. I place total responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. I do not want to hear the excuse that "Laidlaw provided the data". Kathy put it on district letterhead and sent it to every family in the district. She bears the resposibilioty for recognizing the ridiculousness that it contains. Until now, I have held her in the highest respect, but now I question her competence.

I see a 3-way split of Peterson that does not make one iota of sense to me. Likewise the selective split of a small portion of Cowlishaw and Gombert have made no sense to me no matter how long I stare at them. Why are we doing this to those communities? What is the gain?

I am very disappointed in this.

Then at the very end of the proposal, I see the "Bridge Memo". I have to ask myself, was this so very important a point to be made that you had to deliver it in this vehicle? It was entirely inappropriate to single out this one issue and one subdivision while trying to unify the district. You might as well have just left a page blank and put 24-point font saying: "Oh yeah, and also... screw you Tallgrass!!!" at the end. I also place responsibility for this on Kathy Birkett who was leading the preparation and presentation of this proposal. It was unneeded and it served no good. This information is valuable - it should have been provided in another vehicle.

I am very disappointed in this.

Until I see our district stop giving misleading data, realistically consider the huge commute of some (Owen, Watts, Cowlishaw), address achievement imbalance rather than magnify it, and stop maliciously splitting subdivisions, I can not be a proud new Warrior. We will of course go where they tell us, but I can not support launching these new schools under these criteria. I will not support any referendum or current board member if this gets rubber stamped as proposed.

I don't want some of ED's great points to get lost in the shuffle. That transportation map was a joke - trying to make everyone's commute look roughly the same, give or take 5 minutes, is an absolute joke. And I appreciate the SD's plan to add more routes in the more outlying areas, but I would have to imagine this would add more cost to transportation, rather than reduce or maintain costs. How is that being explained? Aside from the financial, look at the time costs to these students. This is a huge commute for Owen, Fry, Watts & Cowlishaw. There was definitely a way to slice it where these commutes would not be necessary.

The 3-way split for Petersen and all the little splits at the ES's. Let alone Fry & Owen not only got the longest commutes but they're also the ones being asked to be the minority in their schools going off to a different high school. Middle school is the age when kids are getting geared up to support their high school. At Neuqua they have a whole section at the football games dedicated to Middle School students. So on Friday nights, when the Owen kids are getting ready to go sit in the MV section and Fry is getting ready to go sit in the WV section their friends will say, "Sorry, we're going to the WV game (or the NV game), respectively."

So, per the ridiculous transportation map, Owen & Fry get the longest commutes AND they get the joy of split middle schools.

[oldmanpotter]

I still can't figure out the Peterson split in particular Ashwood North going to Still. They look out their south windows at Crone, Scullen is just down the road. The Sherlock Holmes in me says that something else had to be involved in making such a blatently insane move like screw Macom or something along those lines.

[confused]

The Peterson split absolutely looks like that. Just like the fact that they never even considered the Macom site or did any investigation of how they could possibly make it work. It's all so personal...and makes this all so unprofessional.

[Arch]

confused said:

The Peterson split absolutely looks like that. Just like the fact that they never even considered the Macom site or did any investigation of how they could possibly make it work. It's all so personal...and makes this all so unprofessional.

Who on our side has the pull or authority to make it 'personal' assuming what you said is correct?

[hmmm]

archwinsome said:

confused said:

The Peterson split absolutely looks like that. Just like the fact that they never even considered the Macom site or did any investigation of how they could possibly make it work. It's all so personal...and makes this all so unprofessional.

Who on our side has the pull or authority to make it 'personal' assuming what you said is correct?

I have been pondering what recourse we all have for the last 2 days. Could we involve the State of Illinois? Attorneys? Class action lawsuits?

It seems to me that an investigation into the practices of this district are long overdue.