Boundaries - One More Time - Nap. Sun 4/12

[macy]

204parent said:

macy said:

Curt was emotional but was between a rock and a hard place at the last meeting.

Rodman was emotional as well for other reasons I'm not so sure of.

Rodman was sick at the last meeting. He deserves a lot of credit for showing up and sticking it out.

I didn't mean anything derogatory and mean no ill will about Rodman at all. He didn't seem well at all to me. Being ill and having to go through all that is a very good reason for seeming to be off his game.

Just wanted to clarify in case someone misinterpreted.

[doctorwho]

momof3 said:

macy said:

Agreed

absolutely agreed. I would even argue that cost should be the #1 priority.

And here is what I would be talking about - for you cost may be a number 1 priority ( and not saying you are right or wrong) - for others it will be geography / for others buses / for others socio economics / for other keeping MS together at all costs / etc etc etc..

The trick to this is getting agreement up front on a platform that everyone agrees with. Macy, you said criteria kept being added and you didn't see the original criteria was not working. Maybe for you the original did work, but it did not for many many others, which is why it kept being reviewed from different standpoints. You are going to get the exact same 'camps' if/when they try to get to agreement up front on MS. I did a lot of analytical work on those proposals for different orgs during the referendum, and not one worked out to be a 'perfect' or even close to perfect fit, which is why the changes kept occuring, trying to get as close to a concensus as possible. You also remember there was a group trying to balance the schools based on test scores....one can say they were wrong, but they did not think so.

So yes, I agree with Curt's statement too, and know exactly how things came to be last time through -- but I am sure he would tell you the same thing - this is not going to be easy with the MS's either - and there will be no 100% or even close agreement - there will again be a majority. The only difference is that the battle will be fought up front, not during the work. But someone is going to have to stop the discussions/arguments at some point and say, this is the criteria we are going to use -- and the screaming will begin immediately from some groups.

[macy]

doctorwho said:

momof3 said:

absolutely agreed. I would even argue that cost should be the #1 priority.

And here is what I would be talking about - for you cost may be a number 1 priority ( and not saying you are right or wrong) - for others it will be geography / for others buses / for others socio economics / for other keeping MS together at all costs / etc etc etc..

The trick to this is getting agreement up front on a platform that everyone agrees with. Macy, you said criteria kept being added and you didn't see the original criteria was not working. Maybe for you the original did work, but it did not for many many others, which is why it kept being reviewed from different standpoints. You are going to get the exact same 'camps' if/when they try to get to agreement up front on MS. I did a lot of analytical work on those proposals for different orgs during the referendum, and not one worked out to be a 'perfect' or even close to perfect fit, which is why the changes kept occuring, trying to get as close to a concensus as possible. You also remember there was a group trying to balance the schools based on test scores....one can say they were wrong, but they did not think so.

So yes, I agree with Curt's statement too, and know exactly how things came to be last time through -- but I am sure he would tell you the same thing - this is not going to be easy with the MS's either - and there will be no 100% or even close agreement - there will again be a majority. The only difference is that the battle will be fought up front, not during the work. But someone is going to have to stop the discussions/arguments at some point and say, this is the criteria we are going to use -- and the screaming will begin immediately from some groups.

Such a process will never be easy. I hope we (as a district) learned something from past experience. I'm sure the Middle School decision will be difficult but I agree with Curt that clearly identifying criteria and priorities from the start is important and could improve the process.

ETA: not sure if you meant this directed to me (you very well may not have) but to clarify- Cost was not the most important criteria in the last decision.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

doctorwho said:

And here is what I would be talking about - for you cost may be a number 1 priority ( and not saying you are right or wrong) - for others it will be geography / for others buses / for others socio economics / for other keeping MS together at all costs / etc etc etc..

The trick to this is getting agreement up front on a platform that everyone agrees with. Macy, you said criteria kept being added and you didn't see the original criteria was not working. Maybe for you the original did work, but it did not for many many others, which is why it kept being reviewed from different standpoints. You are going to get the exact same 'camps' if/when they try to get to agreement up front on MS. I did a lot of analytical work on those proposals for different orgs during the referendum, and not one worked out to be a 'perfect' or even close to perfect fit, which is why the changes kept occuring, trying to get as close to a concensus as possible. You also remember there was a group trying to balance the schools based on test scores....one can say they were wrong, but they did not think so.

So yes, I agree with Curt's statement too, and know exactly how things came to be last time through -- but I am sure he would tell you the same thing - this is not going to be easy with the MS's either - and there will be no 100% or even close agreement - there will again be a majority. The only difference is that the battle will be fought up front, not during the work. But someone is going to have to stop the discussions/arguments at some point and say, this is the criteria we are going to use -- and the screaming will begin immediately from some groups.

Such a process will never be easy. I hope we (as a district) learned something from past experience. I'm sure the Middle School decision will be difficult but I agree with Curt that clearly identifying criteria and priorities from the start is important and could improve the process.

ETA: not sure if you meant this directed to me (you very well may not have) but to clarify- Cost was not the most important criteria in the last decision.

No the cost statement was in reply to Momof3 who replied to your post - I just used it to not have to post twice and put the general thoughts into one post. Cost was not the #1 factor last time - it was a modifier, as geography became #1.

And I agree with Curt also (so we are all in agreement) that it will be good to get the priorities set before the serious boundary setting occurs, but I am not that confident ( I wish I was ) that it will be that much easier the second time through. Yes, I do believe that some people did learn some things the last time, and some also learned there needs to be compromise for the good of the district, but many are still exactly where they were 18 months ago -- and have not changed at all. The ability to get past some of that as expeditiously as possible will determine how much saner it is this time through.

[EagleDad]

You know, all this talk of middle school boundaries had me thinking.... WHVS Gold will need a new name once it's converted. We don't have one

I want to be the first to go on record as recommending:

Metzger Middle School

It has a nice ring to it, huh? Win or loose next week, love him or hate him, he's given 16 years of exemplary service to the district, and it's in his back yard.

I'd be proud to send my kids to his namesake.

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

You know, all this talk of middle school boundaries had me thinking.... WHVS Gold will need a new name once it's converted. We don't have one

I want to be the first to go on record as recommending:

Metzger Middle School

It has a nice ring to it, huh? Win or loose next week, love him or hate him, he's given 16 years of exemplary service to the district, and it's in his back yard.

I'd be proud to send my kids to his namesake.

passes the alliteration test Mark Metzger Middle School....

repeat 5 times very quickly....

[Arch]

I was just thinking too (sorry to pull it back to boundaries)

For those who 'did not like the process': What specifically was so bad FOR YOU that you did not like? The only thing impacting anyone is the outcome. I would think that if someone did not like THE PROCESS, they could have just stayed away from those meetings. So, other than OUTCOME, what SPECIFICALLY did you not like? Was it traumatizing to watch adults work out the boundaries (however that was done) and arrive at a conclusion?

[momto4]

archwinsome said:

I was just thinking too (sorry to pull it back to boundaries)

For those who 'did not like the process': What specifically was so bad FOR YOU that you did not like? The only thing impacting anyone is the outcome. I would think that if someone did not like THE PROCESS, they could have just stayed away from those meetings. So, other than OUTCOME, what SPECIFICALLY did you not like? Was it traumatizing to watch adults work out the boundaries (however that was done) and arrive at a conclusion?

I thought it made no sense to do HS only boundaries and later revisit MS and ES. I really wanted those "comprehensive K-12 boundaries" that MD talks about, but for me geography takes precedence over other criteria. I'm not looking for any kind of socio-economic or test score balancing. So if the outcome had been K-12 boundaries set for the foreseeable future, that would have been a good thing in my opinion. Still I give kudos to the board for working so hard on the boundaries and referendum last year. I think they did a great job.

[204parent]

macy said:

204parent said:

Rodman was sick at the last meeting. He deserves a lot of credit for showing up and sticking it out.

I didn't mean anything derogatory and mean no ill will about Rodman at all. He didn't seem well at all to me. Being ill and having to go through all that is a very good reason for seeming to be off his game.

Just wanted to clarify in case someone misinterpreted.

I didn't think you meant anything derogatory. I thought his behavior was a little odd until after the meeting when I heard he was sick.

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

I posted another response on this and seriously, I would like to know how you would change the boundary process . If you can consider one faulty - there has to be parts of it you have identified as being such. With the MS's coming up, and my area potentially going to any one of 3 MS's, I would be interested.

The biggest fault, looking backwards, that I can identify was all the intitial boundary options 1-6 were presented as colored blocks on a map. Geography! Then the end--preferred--result according to public feedback was to "optimize by geography".

I am not saying that this was the wrong end result of what to "optimize". But the way the question was initially asked, in my opinion, could have skewed the results. Its the old adage of pollsters: sometimes you can manipulate the answer people give by the way you frame the question.

So fundamentally, lets improve the process by first discussing criteria, and then draw the colored blocks on a map and see how well they satify the criteria.

Let me take a quick stab at some MS criteria :
1. The no brainer of balanced capacity
2. Do we want to minimize or maximize the number of "split" MS's? To me, this is the starting point. (FWIW, I am personally leaning at the moment to "maximizing splits"...which might be kind of a radical concept. We'll see).
3. I think geographical proximity is MOST important for ES, then HS, and lastly for MS. (I am not talking about walkers, their walking is a criteria that must be met)
4. Areas that have a neighborhood ES (a lot) AND a neighborhood HS (fewer) should be prepared to have to "travel a bit" to their assigned MS. I think this is a fairness issue. Some examples would be Steck and McCarty areas, and also the Welch attendence area. These are areas with a neighborhood ES and are very near to their HS. (As a side note, Brookdale is an area that does not have all that bad of a deal from the district with school placement...yes they have a long drive to their HS but they have a neighborhood ES and MS, something many areas do not have.

Just throwing out some thoughts. I am sure we will get more into this after the new Board is elected.

[momof3]

I'm kind of "pro" middle school splits too. It's harder to be "us" and "them" when you know "them."

[EagleDad]

I am pro middle school splits. I've never understood the big issue with it.

[bob]

Pro-middle school spilt, too.

[Arch]

Split whatever you need to. Meet new people. Welcome to life.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

Pro-middle school spilt, too.

Ditto