LTE 1/3/08 - Naperville Sun

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

The only thing that I have to say about boundaries is that, what I personally view as fair and equitable and best for all of 204, there must be achievement balance across the HSs. I've been consistant about this. I don't care how it's done, but it needs to be done.

I agree with this goal...

And with the proposed North Site boundaries achievement balancing was some of the worst we've seen.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

The only thing that I have to say about boundaries is that, what I personally view as fair and equitable and best for all of 204, there must be achievement balance across the HSs. I've been consistant about this. I don't care how it's done, but it needs to be done.

I agree with this goal...

And with the proposed North Site boundaries achievement balancing was some of the worst we've seen.

Glad to hear you're on board with this ED. IIRC, there were several proposed boundary scenarios for AME, and one was as good as or better than proposed boundaries for Macom.

[doctorwho]

warriorpride said:

d204mom said:

My point is that I'm sick of the "suck it up and take one for the team" attitude regarding the north site.

Someone's going to be asked to suck it up, no matter the site. I guess everyone is defending why they shouldn't be the ones sucking it up.

quote]

my point all along is that no one, regardless of area, should have to suck it up for the worst scenario -- for second best - so be it...everyone plays if need be.
However the best solution is where the least amount of people view it as any issue -- and none view it as the worst

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

Glad to hear you're on board with this ED. IIRC, there were several proposed boundary scenarios for AME, and one was as good as or better than proposed boundaries for AME.

Huh? did you mean better than BB?

Also, if I remember right one of the logical proposed boundaries had the worst balance of all. The only way you're going to get good achievement balance with a north site is Watts to WVHS (and someone else out).

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

Glad to hear you're on board with this ED. IIRC, there were several proposed boundary scenarios for AME, and one was as good as or better than proposed boundaries for AME.

Huh? did you mean better than BB?

Also, if I remember right one of the logical proposed boundaries had the worst balance of all. The only way you're going to get good achievement balance with a north site is Watts to WVHS (and someone else out).

fixed: I meant Macom

[wvhsparent]

I thought gatordog's boundary proposals were good, with minimal pain...Did I miss something?

[EagleDad]

Which option, the one where he split 2 Elementary and 2 Middle Schools, had a bigger acievement gap than we have today, and still couldn't fill up MVHS?

Or the one where he split 3 Elementary and 4 Middle schools?

Yup - no pain there

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

Which option, the one where he split 2 Elementary and 2 Middle Schools, had a bigger acievement gap than we have today, and still couldn't fill up MVHS?

Or the one where he split 3 Elementary and 4 Middle schools?

Yup - no pain there

Or was it the one where WE

A long time ago, my guess was that 5 or 6 MSs could be split with the BB boundaries. Any predictions/guesses at what the MS boundaries will be with 7 MSs are pure speculation, and as such, so would any prediction of how many, or which, MSs will or won't be split under any specific HS boundary scenario.

[EagleDad]

How many elementary schools did BB split?

[gatordog]

eagledad said:

Which option, the one where he split 2 Elementary and 2 Middle Schools, had a bigger acievement gap than we have today, and still couldn't fill up MVHS?

Or the one where he split 3 Elementary and 4 Middle schools?

Yup - no pain there



Or was it the one where WE

First, the "bigger achievement gap" conclusion for some of the northern boundaries was based on a typo in a spreadsheet. That has been fixed. The northern boundaries would closely match BB achieve gap. I think its even possible that they be improved slightly. Its false to say "northern boundaries will make for a worse achievement gap than we have today."

Second, I do NOT deem some of the split ES's as being bad, because it wasnt neighborhoods being spit. At least as I could judge it. For example, one case I remember had the townhome/apartment portion of Mccarty walking to WV, but the remainder going to north MW. Another case was the west McCoy Dr portion of Cowlishaw.

Third, in one case I was TRYING to split the most Ms's, with nearly a 50/50 feeder mix. Until I am persuaded otherwise, I see split MS as being a positive, not a negative. Regardless, we will have multiple split MS's I believe.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

How many elementary schools did BB split?

At least one (McCarty), and possibly two if Mr. Bridge-over-59 got his way.

[EagleDad]

OK, if you think splitting ES and MS willy nilly is the way to go, that's fine. But the rest of the district calls that "pain". Fact is these are kids that learned to tie their shoes together when you split at the ES level.

Can you please recap your exact options (there were many changes along the way, along with the calculated ISAT achievement scores (and those of Current , BB, and Macom) that would be good, because the last set of ISAT scores I could find (who's post on page 6 of the northern site) had your option 2 at a whopping 6.6 achievement gap - higher than all other options, and over double the BB achevement gap of 3.1.

It would also be good to know how you determine the ISAT scores to split for the Split Middle ES's, as if you split them on areas that have different socio-economic conditions, or mobility rates, you can't/shouldn't use the same score for both parts.

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

How many elementary schools did BB split?

At least one (McCarty), and possibly two if Mr. Bridge-over-59 got his way.

well he didn't so that was a small portion of McCarty.

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

warriorpride said:

At least one (McCarty), and possibly two if Mr. Bridge-over-59 got his way.

well he didn't so that was a small portion of McCarty.

Just today, people were advocating that Mr Bridge has a reasonable point.

Did the small group of McCarty kids not learn to tie their shoes together with the rest of McCarty?

[warriorpride]

eagledad said:

OK, if you think splitting ES and MS willy nilly is the way to go, that's fine. But the rest of the district calls that "pain". Fact is these are kids that learned to tie their shoes together when you split at the ES level.

Can you please recap your exact options (there were many changes along the way, along with the calculated ISAT achievement scores (and those of Current , BB, and Macom) that would be good, because the last set of ISAT scores I could find (who's post on page 6 of the northern site) had your option 2 at a whopping 6.6 achievement gap - higher than all other options, and over double the BB achevement gap of 3.1.

It would also be good to know how you determine the ISAT scores to split for the Split Middle ES's, as if you split them on areas that have different socio-economic conditions, or mobility rates, you can't/shouldn't use the same score for both parts.

1) I'm not treating splits willy nilly, nor would the SB. It's a fact that a number of MSs will be split once the MS boundaries are changed. One or more ESs will likely be split, as well. All of this will be true, regardless of the MV location or boundaries.

2) There are better and worse gaps (boundaries) for each possible location.

3) You know it's impossible to compute an exact 100% correct gap analysis with split ESs, so why are you asking for it? Would 1/2 an ES really impact an HSs score that much?