Macom site consequences

[gatordog]

Only current known land with a potential seller (if….”my door is open” means there is potential) outside of BB is Macom. I still want to explore a little more what district would look like if MVHS is placed here. Its an important consideration, to help us all understand “what we are buying”. (Not an upfront cost analysis, which we have discussed elsewhere).

Macy and I and others had been considering what MVHS boundary makeup might be if this Macom property chosen. Its pretty trivial to say that a geographically challenging spot, at a corner of 204 boundaries, is of course going to make things “worse” from geography point of view. If geographic location is what you want to optimize, we must all agree Macom cannot do that in the way a central location can. I did go further with some back-of-the-envelope figuring estimating in a quantifiable way how many, who, and how much. (I deemed it “very high cost”) I think Macy is going to give it try as well, again to see what possibilities there are. But this is just a different version of who, how many, how much, etc. Lets just for now agree: If you want to maximize future HS attendance boundaries in terms of proximity, Macom will lose out compared to BB.

But I realized that both Macy (as I understand) and I were working from an assumption, that geography would be first priority, with a secondary “socio-economic equalizing” aspect thrown in. Maybe this is a “prejudice” on my part. I say this because during boundary talks, I was in favor of the geography-based options (“option 5”) and opposed to the balancing-based options (“option 6”). I realize there are people in this district that disagree with my (and the voted for) preference. I also realize the vote was quote close. We have one board member that didn’t vote at all, in fact. And maybe most importantly, we have a new Superintendant. What is his preference and professional opinion on the priority to place on “socio-economic balancing” with school boundaries?

Here is a thought I had. If a Macom location is chosen…Could this argument be made: “Well we cant optimize on geography, because even the very best we can do is pretty marginal in terms of being a good geographic solution”. Could the follow-up to that be: “We have to optimize on something, and maybe for this site since geography is not in our favor, here is the chance to instead aggressively optimize on socio-economic balancing”.

By my initial looking at it, the combined distances-travelled for boundaries that “do the best one can” in terms of geography, may not save all that much when compared to some of the more radical “balancing boundaries”, such as seen previously in original boundary planning. A logical argument could be made that you might as well go after “optimizing balancing” if one is drawing boundaries at Macom.

A new angle for me on Macom property: Is the concept really an “AND” proposition…site MVHS at 248th street AND assign boundaries that prioritize balancing? If the SB chooses to move here for MVHS, is this a logical thing to optimize given the geography “costs” would be pretty high no matter what? What advice would Dr D. who had some very high profile experience in similar matters give to the Board? Would such an outcome make the district a better place?

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

Only current known land with a potential seller (if….”my door is open” means there is potential) outside of BB is Macom. I still want to explore a little more what district would look like if MVHS is placed here. Its an important consideration, to help us all understand “what we are buying”. (Not an upfront cost analysis, which we have discussed elsewhere).

Macy and I and others had been considering what MVHS boundary makeup might be if this Macom property chosen. Its pretty trivial to say that a geographically challenging spot, at a corner of 204 boundaries, is of course going to make things “worse” from geography point of view. If geographic location is what you want to optimize, we must all agree Macom cannot do that in the way a central location can. I did go further with some back-of-the-envelope figuring estimating in a quantifiable way how many, who, and how much. (I deemed it “very high cost”) I think Macy is going to give it try as well, again to see what possibilities there are. But this is just a different version of who, how many, how much, etc. Lets just for now agree: If you want to maximize future HS attendance boundaries in terms of proximity, Macom will lose out compared to BB.

But I realized that both Macy (as I understand) and I were working from an assumption, that geography would be first priority, with a secondary “socio-economic equalizing” aspect thrown in. Maybe this is a “prejudice” on my part. I say this because during boundary talks, I was in favor of the geography-based options (“option 5”) and opposed to the balancing-based options (“option 6”). I realize there are people in this district that disagree with my (and the voted for) preference. I also realize the vote was quote close. We have one board member that didn’t vote at all, in fact. And maybe most importantly, we have a new Superintendant. What is his preference and professional opinion on the priority to place on “socio-economic balancing” with school boundaries?

Here is a thought I had. If a Macom location is chosen…Could this argument be made: “Well we cant optimize on geography, because even the very best we can do is pretty marginal in terms of being a good geographic solution”. Could the follow-up to that be: “We have to optimize on something, and maybe for this site since geography is not in our favor, here is the chance to instead aggressively optimize on socio-economic balancing”.

By my initial looking at it, the combined distances-travelled for boundaries that “do the best one can” in terms of geography, may not save all that much when compared to some of the more radical “balancing boundaries”, such as seen previously in original boundary planning. A logical argument could be made that you might as well go after “optimizing balancing” if one is drawing boundaries at Macom.

A new angle for me on Macom property: Is the concept really an “AND” proposition…site MVHS at 248th street AND assign boundaries that prioritize balancing? If the SB chooses to move here for MVHS, is this a logical thing to optimize given the geography “costs” would be pretty high no matter what? What advice would Dr D. who had some very high profile experience in similar matters give to the Board? Would such an outcome make the district a better place?

let me ask this question since I and many others were also a part of a group who looked at balancing attainment. Why would that not be a good choice ?

Attainment based on achievement scores will allow for looking at how many of what level offerings will be needed at the schools. If the goal is now to balance the schools, would we not want them to have similar test result scores - and also similar levels of courses to support those scores.

I would not want to see a huge gap in attainment across our schools --if that is going to occur then we might as well have one magnet school and have to test into it, rather than that be a function of where one lives.

Thanks for your thoughts on this since it appears the discussion will be we start from scratch on put all back on the table.

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

gatordog said:

let me ask this question since I and many others were also a part of a group who looked at balancing attainment. Why would that not be a good choice ?

Attainment based on achievement scores will allow for looking at how many of what level offerings will be needed at the schools. If the goal is now to balance the schools, would we not want them to have similar test result scores - and also similar levels of courses to support those scores.

I would not want to see a huge gap in attainment across our schools --if that is going to occur then we might as well have one magnet school and have to test into it, rather than that be a function of where one lives.

Thanks for your thoughts on this since it appears the discussion will be we start from scratch on put all back on the table.

I agree balancing is a good thing. Absolutely is it desirable. Yet in our case the trade-off , and for many other districts as well, is geography costs. The decided upon boundaries that I strongly support for BB was to optimize primarily geography then secondarily balancing. Balancing was a factor clearly and correctly (resulting for example in my area not going to the nearest high school...which is ok).

However, the balancing was not a complete as it could have been if other options (option 6) was chosen, that put it as primary objective. As you say we would "start from scratch"...even in defining what the goals are.

[proschool]

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

[doctorwho]

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

I think either of the above are workable starts - however are you assuming no middle schools will be changed / split ? Some of the MS boundaries are less than ideal also - distance wise, and with ES population changes that should also be looked at vs capacity of each school.

I really think the only 'constant' has to be ES's as neighborhood schools, and if the work has to be done - start there and work up. MS and HS boundaries should be looked at at the same time since the MS ones were coming up for scrutiny also.

[momto4]

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

Thanks for this suggestion. It would be nice to find workable boundaries for any location that is still a possibility.

We get back to the fact we can't agree on which factors to give most priority.

I prefer keeping schools together as much as possible, i.e. everyone from a grade school goes to the same MS and everyone from that MS goes to the same HS and this meshes well with three MSs feeding into NV and two feeding into MV and WV.

Geographically it doesn't make sense (to me) for most of Hill to go to NV and possibly the same for Still.

Crone and Scullen are logical for MV at Macom but also still logical for NV. Does this leave MV the top school when it comes to achievement balancing?

[doctorwho]

momto4 said:

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

Thanks for this suggestion. It would be nice to find workable boundaries for any location that is still a possibility.

We get back to the fact we can't agree on which factors to give most priority.

I prefer keeping schools together as much as possible, i.e. everyone from a grade school goes to the same MS and everyone from that MS goes to the same HS and this meshes well with three MSs feeding into NV and two feeding into MV and WV.

Geographically it doesn't make sense (to me) for most of Hill to go to NV and possibly the same for Still.

Crone and Scullen are logical for MV at Macom but also still logical for NV. Does this leave MV the top school when it comes to achievement balancing?

NV is the closest school in the MACOM scenario for Cowlishaw / Hill and Owen -- not sure why it doesn't make sense - for Hill /Still to be NV -- you remove all NV school south of them for MV. The issue with Hill is that 2 schools are noth schools geographically and 2 are middle corridor schools geographically.

This is what moving the school to a corner of the district does.

If you start at the north and fill WV - you are full before you get to the 75th street ( lack of a better term schools ) - we are the areas traveling the big distances now MS and HS - - which is why BB location finally gave us something close.
If this has to be moved - north or south the schools always left to fit in are these in the middle corridor -

In MACOM picture- WV becomes a north school and MV becomes a south school -- NV becomes the catch all for those left

now in a north location -- MV becomes the north school - NV the south school and WV becomes the catch all in the middle

[momto4]

doctorwho said:

momto4 said:

Thanks for this suggestion. It would be nice to find workable boundaries for any location that is still a possibility.

We get back to the fact we can't agree on which factors to give most priority.

I prefer keeping schools together as much as possible, i.e. everyone from a grade school goes to the same MS and everyone from that MS goes to the same HS and this meshes well with three MSs feeding into NV and two feeding into MV and WV.

Geographically it doesn't make sense (to me) for most of Hill to go to NV and possibly the same for Still.

Crone and Scullen are logical for MV at Macom but also still logical for NV. Does this leave MV the top school when it comes to achievement balancing?

NV is the closest school in the MACOM scenario for Cowlishaw / Hill and Owen -- not sure why it doesn't make sense - for Hill /Still to be NV -- you remove all NV school south of them for MV. The issue with Hill is that 2 schools are noth schools geographically and 2 are middle corridor schools geographically.

This is what moving the school to a corner of the district does.

If you start at the north and fill WV - you are full before you get to the 75th street ( lack of a better term schools ) - we are the areas traveling the big distances now MS and HS - - which is why BB location finally gave us something close.
If this has to be moved - north or south the schools always left to fit in are these in the middle corridor -

In MACOM picture- WV becomes a north school and MV becomes a south school -- NV becomes the catch all for those left

now in a north location -- MV becomes the north school - NV the south school and WV becomes the catch all in the middle

Yes, in a Macom scenario this makes sense (it's the Macom site itself that doesn't make sense given our layout and existing high schools), but it seems wrong (to me) to send Brookdale and Longwood to NV though distance-wise may not be much different than WV. Better than to Macom site though! Again I agree this is why BB is the best site.

[gatordog]

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

Good way of expanding the back-of-the-envelope approach, proschool

I echo what momto4 and doctorwho are saying...this points to the SEVERE geography challenges of Macom site. To me I am having a hard to seeing it as anything but "unworkable".

By the way, I think MS boundaries will/should be completely redone, no matter what the site is. Virtually all MS's will be affect, I think. (thats another topic though)

[doctorwho]

momto4 said:

doctorwho said:

NV is the closest school in the MACOM scenario for Cowlishaw / Hill and Owen -- not sure why it doesn't make sense - for Hill /Still to be NV -- you remove all NV school south of them for MV. The issue with Hill is that 2 schools are noth schools geographically and 2 are middle corridor schools geographically.

This is what moving the school to a corner of the district does.

If you start at the north and fill WV - you are full before you get to the 75th street ( lack of a better term schools ) - we are the areas traveling the big distances now MS and HS - - which is why BB location finally gave us something close.
If this has to be moved - north or south the schools always left to fit in are these in the middle corridor -

In MACOM picture- WV becomes a north school and MV becomes a south school -- NV becomes the catch all for those left

now in a north location -- MV becomes the north school - NV the south school and WV becomes the catch all in the middle

Yes, in a Macom scenario this makes sense (it's the Macom site itself that doesn't make sense given our layout and existing high schools), but it seems wrong (to me) to send Brookdale and Longwood to NV though distance-wise may not be much different than WV. Better than to Macom site though! Again I agree this is why BB is the best site.

and I agree with you on LW and BD - which is why I keep saying we need to do middle school boundaries first if we have to start over (.i.e. move from BB) - in many scenarios it makes no sense to send Cowlishaw and Hill to the same school as Brookdale and Longwood geographically. And I saw this with heavy heart because I love Hill as a MS ! I am sure there are other scenarios also with other MS's --
I too prefer not to start over, but putting a school at MACOM especially forces this issue -

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

....

If you start at the north and fill WV - you are full before you get to the 75th street ( lack of a better term schools ) - we are the areas traveling the big distances now MS and HS - - which is why BB location finally gave us something close.
If this has to be moved - north or south the schools always left to fit in are these in the middle corridor -

In MACOM picture- WV becomes a north school and MV becomes a south school -- NV becomes the catch all for those left

now in a north location -- MV becomes the north school - NV the south school and WV becomes the catch all in the middle

doctorwho, very nice mental picture. this helps imagining.

But you know what I think would be the starting point for Macom site boundaries? Wasnt their six (give or take) so-called Title 1 schools identified last time? I think the starting point would be each HS is assigned two a piece and you go from there.

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

Good way of exanding the back-of-the-envelope approach, proschool

I echo what momto4 and doctorwho are saying...this points to the SEVERE geography challenges of Macom site. To me I am having a hard to seeing it as anything but "unworkable".

By the way, I think MS boundaries will/should be completely redone, no matter what the site is. Virtually all MS's will be affect, I think. (thats another topic though)

I think everything is eventually workable - I just think that the severely southern location of MACOM forces us to change a lot of what we have today - it requires a complete re do from MS thru HS - and the changes in venue for most is sweeping. So while not palatable to me - I would not say unworkable.

but start mixing in socio economic - or academic balancing also - and that plan becomes far more complex - and likely far more expensive transportation wise

as someone who did a fair amount of slicing and dicing an attempts at balancing on multiple spreadsheets for different requestors- this is more daunting than you can believe. No answer is ever going to please all .

[proschool]

doctorwho said:

proschool said:

Take my advice and start with the middle schools first.

Crone and Scullen are the logical choices for MV at Macom.

7th MS and Granger are logical choices for WV.

That leaves Hill Still and Gregory at NV.



Alternatively you can close down the freshman center at NV. That puts Hill, Granger and Still at WV. Gregory and the 7th at NV. Crone and Scullen at MV.

I think either of the above are workable starts - however are you assuming no middle schools will be changed / split ? Some of the MS boundaries are less than ideal also - distance wise, and with ES population changes that should also be looked at vs capacity of each school.

I really think the only 'constant' has to be ES's as neighborhood schools, and if the work has to be done - start there and work up. MS and HS boundaries should be looked at at the same time since the MS ones were coming up for scrutiny also.

Thyen you fall into the trap of looking at 2007 elementary school enrollments and extrapolating them into future high school enrollements. I assume that district will reach the level of 2550 students per grade level (hence 10,200 high scholl students)> aaat that point elementary school will average enrollments of 90+% of their capacities. At that point the distrct will be scrambling to palve students wherever they can find spce. Some schools will be over 90% and others will be below 90% but it will be impossible to predict which elementary schools will be more or less crowded in any one year

We will face the same issues at tyhe middle school level.

NV will have 41% of the districts high school seats and it should have 41% of the middle school seats assigned to it. Then you assign each middle school with its proportionate share of elementary seats. Final step is to assign subdivisions to elementary schools.

[doctorwho]

proschool said:

doctorwho said:

I think either of the above are workable starts - however are you assuming no middle schools will be changed / split ? Some of the MS boundaries are less than ideal also - distance wise, and with ES population changes that should also be looked at vs capacity of each school.

I really think the only 'constant' has to be ES's as neighborhood schools, and if the work has to be done - start there and work up. MS and HS boundaries should be looked at at the same time since the MS ones were coming up for scrutiny also.

Thyen you fall into the trap of looking at 2007 elementary school enrollments and extrapolating them into future high school enrollements. I assume that district will reach the level of 2550 students per grade level (hence 10,200 high scholl students)> aaat that point elementary school will average enrollments of 90+% of their capacities. At that point the distrct will be scrambling to palve students wherever they can find spce. Some schools will be over 90% and others will be below 90% but it will be impossible to predict which elementary schools will be more or less crowded in any one year

We will face the same issues at tyhe middle school level.

NV will have 41% of the districts high school seats and it should have 41% of the middle school seats assigned to it. Then you assign each middle school with its proportionate share of elementary seats. Final step is to assign subdivisions to elementary schools.

I dont view that as a trap -- it was done the last time around - one has to have an idea what the ES populations are. The only one that likely changes ' dramatically' is Peterson.

By just assigning MS's you are ignoring the geography of the make up of those middle schools - I do not think that is right.

Some Es' are tired of always being the ones to travel the furthest - and listening to other talk about how important geography is. It either is or isn't

[gatordog]

doctorwho said:

By just assigning MS's you are ignoring the geography of the make up of those middle schools - I do not think that is right.

I agree.

Let me just throw out (what seems to me) to be good parameters for MS boundaries:
1. Maximize the number of communities to have 2 out of 3 ES/MS/HS "nearby"
2. Strive for as many MS's as possible to have about 50/50 mix in which HS they feed. (5 out of 7? 6 out of 7? 7 out of 7 may not be reasonably achievable)
3. Use rule 1 to determine which neighborhoods "travel" and which "stays home" to satisfy rule 2.

we got other near term issues...MVHS startup!...there will be time for this, coming soon.