D204 to reveal proposed Metea boundaries Feb. 12

[macy]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Rocky, this almost works. But I plugged in numbers from the last referendum which was taking each school at capacity and adding them together and multiplying by 0.67 (don't ask me why). When I do this with the 8 schools you've selected, you have the population at 4221 for a school that holds 4200. I don't think the school district would let those numbers fly.

Maybe I'm off on numbers, but when I put the numbers in I come up with roughly 3600 kids at NV (using actual enrollment as the administration/SB said they would use).

That leaves room for growth as well.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

researching said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Rocky, this almost works. But I plugged in numbers from the last referendum which was taking each school at capacity and adding them together and multiplying by 0.67 (don't ask me why). When I do this with the 8 schools you've selected, you have the population at 4221 for a school that holds 4200. I don't think the school district would let those numbers fly.

Remember, the admin. is saying that they are using current numbers this time and I believe projections were used last time.

I thought they were using projected numbers as well. Of course, if enrollment is declining, maybe they would let it fly. But it might leave some other school woefully underutilized...I haven't checked the numbers for them yet. You are exchanging Fry and Petersen for Welch remember.

[researching]

macy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Rocky, this almost works. But I plugged in numbers from the last referendum which was taking each school at capacity and adding them together and multiplying by 0.67 (don't ask me why). When I do this with the 8 schools you've selected, you have the population at 4221 for a school that holds 4200. I don't think the school district would let those numbers fly.

Maybe I'm off on numbers, but when I put the numbers in I come up with roughly 3600 kids at NV (using actual enrollment as the administration/SB said they would use).

That leaves room for growth as well.

;D me too!

[justvote]

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

[researching]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

researching said:

Remember, the admin. is saying that they are using current numbers this time and I believe projections were used last time.

I thought they were using projected numbers as well. Of course, if enrollment is declining, maybe they would let it fly. But it might leave some other school woefully underutilized...I haven't checked the numbers for them yet. You are exchanging Fry and Petersen for Welch remember.

This is a direct quote from the ipsd website "The administration is using the November 30, 2007 enrollment in determining boundaries. The document is available at the link below."

The link is: ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=17433

[sleeplessinnpvl]

macy said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Rocky, this almost works. But I plugged in numbers from the last referendum which was taking each school at capacity and adding them together and multiplying by 0.67 (don't ask me why). When I do this with the 8 schools you've selected, you have the population at 4221 for a school that holds 4200. I don't think the school district would let those numbers fly.

Maybe I'm off on numbers, but when I put the numbers in I come up with roughly 3600 kids at NV (using actual enrollment as the administration/SB said they would use).

That leaves room for growth as well.

Yes, if actual numbers are used, this works. But if growth is occuring at Builta and Petersen, the projected numbers need to be considered. If no more homes go up in Ashwood, then this can work. If Petersen is built out and has more of a capacity of its max which I believe is 600 and Builta gets built out and is more like 1000 students than its current 710, that could be a problem. Also, I see only 5 schools at one of the other HS's. Hmmm...

edit. I stand corrected. There would be 6 schools at MV. I was trying to work in Watts at WV, sorry, doc! I'm still seeing Watts as having to go north in any scenario. Maybe Rocky can save the day. I am recalling a movie where some boxer was running up the stairs to the theme song.....Go Rocky!

[macy]

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

What is that with Builta listed at 1075 capacity in the option 5A scenario for BB boundaries?

That's where that high number came from. To me, that leaves more room at Neuqua than previously predicted. The buildout number is inflated.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

I'm looking at the old 5A map and it has 1075 by Builta. Never been inside but there are 900 seat ES's out there. If Builta really isn't 1075 then great!

[researching]

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

Fry is not closer to WV than Welch at all. Fry School is located in the upper southern area of the attendance area. The very large majority of the Fry attendance area is much further than the school. Remember that the Welch attendance area backs all the way up to Costco (north of 83rd/Montgomery) therefore the large majority of the Welch attendance area are much closer to WV.

[rocky]

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

I believe there is a smaller subdivision right across 95th street from NV which could feed into Clow (as opposed to Welch) and thus follow the Clow, Gregory, NV path. But the majority of Welch is Stillwater, which is farther north. That large enrollment figure could follow the Welch, Still, WV path.

I agree it's not perfect. But it's not horrible (my opinion) and solves so many other larger problems.

I really need to take a drive over there to better understand the size and distances of that neighborhood just north of NV. I acknowledge that I am making statements without 100% certainty.

[WeBe204]

rocky said:

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

I believe there is a smaller subdivision right across 95th street from NV which could feed into Clow (as opposed to Welch) and thus follow the Clow, Gregory, NV path. But the majority of Welch is Stillwater, which is farther north. That large enrollment figure could follow the Welch, Still, WV path.

I agree it's not perfect. But it's not horrible (my opinion) and solves so many other larger problems.

I really need to take a drive over there to better understand the size and distances of that neighborhood just north of NV. I acknowledge that I am making statements without 100% certainty.

Rocky I appreciate you taking a look a this. And I realize I have done a lot of ranting and raving today. I just wanted to get some off my mind that has been annoying. Hopefully by the time mid Feb rolls around I will be more Zen like.

With that I am out of here.

[researching]

rocky said:

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

I believe there is a smaller subdivision right across 95th street from NV which could feed into Clow (as opposed to Welch) and thus follow the Clow, Gregory, NV path. But the majority of Welch is Stillwater, which is farther north. That large enrollment figure could follow the Welch, Still, WV path.

I agree it's not perfect. But it's not horrible (my opinion) and solves so many other larger problems.

I really need to take a drive over there to better understand the size and distances of that neighborhood just north of NV. I acknowledge that I am making statements without 100% certainty.

Really good job. I can't wait to see what you come up with for WV and MV. The best part is that you address the MS issues as well. Keep up the good work!

[confused]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

macy said:

Maybe I'm off on numbers, but when I put the numbers in I come up with roughly 3600 kids at NV (using actual enrollment as the administration/SB said they would use).

That leaves room for growth as well.

Yes, if actual numbers are used, this works. But if growth is occuring at Builta and Petersen, the projected numbers need to be considered. If no more homes go up in Ashwood, then this can work. If Petersen is built out and has more of a capacity of its max which I believe is 600 and Builta gets built out and is more like 1000 students than its current 710, that could be a problem. Also, I see only 5 schools at one of the other HS's. Hmmm...

Not sure what you mean about 5 schools at one of the other HS's - I count 13 schools remaining to be divided between WV and MV - so 7 and 6, respectively. (or vise versa)

[justvote]

macy said:

justvote said:

Well done on the boundary scenario, but I honestly don't see them reassigning Welch when a portion of their boundary is literally across the street from NV. Welch is the only attendance area that can make that claim (except for the small part of Peterson east of Rte. 59). If they can somehow split off that section located adjacent to NV, then I see this as a viable solution. Although I'm fairly certain that more students in the Fry attendance area are closer to WV than the students in Welch's attendance area, I think there is definite value to no split MS, which your scenario achieves. I hope you can figure out something for AME and WV that will work as well as that.

BTW - someone mentioned that Builta is a 1000 student school. There are no elementary schools with that capacity. I believe it is an 850 school.

What is that with Builta listed at 1075 capacity in the option 5A scenario for BB boundaries?

That's where that high number came from. To me, that leaves more room at Neuqua than previously predicted. The buildout number is inflated.

I was wondering where that 1000 number came from. If Builta reaches that capacity, they will be splitting the attendance area and some of those formerly assigned to Builta will be assigned elsewhere (i.e. - Clow, Springbrook, Patterson). So I guess the numbers are not inflated, per se, as those students will be in the system (but assigned to a different school).

[doctorwho]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

macy said:

Maybe I'm off on numbers, but when I put the numbers in I come up with roughly 3600 kids at NV (using actual enrollment as the administration/SB said they would use).

That leaves room for growth as well.

Yes, if actual numbers are used, this works. But if growth is occuring at Builta and Petersen, the projected numbers need to be considered. If no more homes go up in Ashwood, then this can work. If Petersen is built out and has more of a capacity of its max which I believe is 600 and Builta gets built out and is more like 1000 students than its current 710, that could be a problem. Also, I see only 5 schools at one of the other HS's. Hmmm...

edit. I stand corrected. There would be 6 schools at MV. I was trying to work in Watts at WV, sorry, doc! I'm still seeing Watts as having to go north in any scenario. Maybe Rocky can save the day. I am recalling a movie where some boxer was running up the stairs to the theme song.....Go Rocky!

Back to the drawing board- keep working - there has to be a way