Boundaries if we leave BB

[momof3]

wvhsparent said:

Namely North Aurora Rd at Frontenac, and even the area behind the Home Depot/Krispie Creme.

Just things to ponder........

I drove by that site next to HD and was trying to research how much land is left.
The open parcel report lists 47 acres north of Audrey Ln. available last year. Mayfair was approved for 13 of those acres. That leaves 34. There is a church on Ogden that is moving...? And O'Donovan landscaping - both are adjacent. Don't know if they are willing sellers. And I think it's zoned retail so the price may be just as high as BB.

[momof3]

casey said:

I'm not trying to be a snot here but what difference do our debates/discussion on boundaries do? I thought it was made more than clear that any future boundary changes would be made by the SB/Superintendent only and not include public meetings. I'm sure everyone remembers how ugly that whole boundary deal was and agrees we don't need that again. Debate all you want but as of right now, we don't have a school location that we can afford and we don't even know for sure what the other sites are. It seems to be a moot point at this stage of the game

agreed - we are just passing time - no harm in that

[gumby]

And if KK at that location is one of those slated to be closed, there's extra purchasable land there as well then potentially.

[gatordog]

momof3 said:

casey said:

I'm not trying to be a snot here but what difference do our debates/discussion on boundaries do? I thought it was made more than clear that any future boundary changes would be made by the SB/Superintendent only and not include public meetings. I'm sure everyone remembers how ugly that whole boundary deal was and agrees we don't need that again. Debate all you want but as of right now, we don't have a school location that we can afford and we don't even know for sure what the other sites are. It seems to be a moot point at this stage of the game

agreed - we are just passing time - no harm in that

I think brainstorming on boundaries is highly valuable. It lets us all better judge, from district-wide perspective, "what we are buying" if we move to a new site.

Yes we can and absolutely should look and think of the "cost" side. But we also have to equally look at the "benefit" side. We all agree in financial decisions you can choose to pay a lower up-front cost, but then have a long-term cost associated with that.

[warriorpride]

wvhsparent said:

I say we flood the SB/Admin with calls and emails demanding the sites under consideration....

I do not care for financials at this point....yet..........

Because truthfully, if they are acquiescing the fact that they could build on less than 80 acres.....it opens up a few other locations.

Namely North Aurora Rd at Frontenac ...

I thought of that a while back, but they have tagged that as a possible location for a train station along that north-south set of tracks.

[gatordog]

rew said:

I will throw out a Macom boundary to pick apart:

WV = BD, BRKS, LW, ST, MC, GEO

MV = GOM, WE, FRY, PET, GRHM, OW

NV = MW, COW, CLOW, SB, PAT, K BLTA, WEL

I am interested whether Cow and MW would be willing to go to NVHS?

rew has done a good job balancing numbers on all this. I agree, the numbers balance with this.

Also, since this enrollment has MV ~2800 and NV~4200 (using full-growth numbers from Jan 2007 Boundary Meetings).....
you could swap KENDALL for OWEN (sending the bigger school to MV) if you so chose to.

One good thing about Macom site would be much of the traffic to school would be to the south and to the west.....counter to rush hour traffic, even though, yes students are coming further than BB.

There is one hangup with rew possible boundaries, that may be a sticking point to some....the "title 1" score would as shown above would be WV=4, MV=1, NV=1.

I would not be at all surprised if a non-geographical swap would be considered by the SB. The most plausible one seems to swap GEOT with OWEN.

I think that works well...it would
-keep KEND at NV
-keep OWEN intact as ES,
-the far east portion of OWEN has same drive they do now, and its nicely counter to rush hour flow
-there is some neighborhood continuity keeping GTOWN and GOM together.

A cost is some GTOWN is no longer walkers to WV. But you know, these are walkers that have to cross at rush hour a very busy Ogden Ave...I dont think losing these walkers is a tremendously big cost. (I wonder what GTWN area would have to say on that).

So in summary...I would tweak rew boundaries to be:
WV = BD, BRKS, LW, ST, MC, YOU, GEO, OWEN

MV = GOM, WE, FRY, PET, GRHM, OW, GEO

NV = MW, COW, CLOW, SB, PAT, K, BLTA, WEL

[doctorwho]

gatordog said:

rew said:

I will throw out a Macom boundary to pick apart:

WV = BD, BRKS, LW, ST, MC, GEO

MV = GOM, WE, FRY, PET, GRHM, OW

NV = MW, COW, CLOW, SB, PAT, K BLTA, WEL

I am interested whether Cow and MW would be willing to go to NVHS?

rew has done a good job balancing numbers on all this. I agree, the numbers balance with this.

Also, since this enrollment has MV ~2800 and NV~4200 (using full-growth numbers from Jan 2007 Boundary Meetings).....
you could swap KENDALL for OWEN (sending the bigger school to MV) if you so chose to.

One good thing about Macom site would be much of the traffic to school would be to the south and to the west.....counter to rush hour traffic, even though, yes students are coming further than BB.

There is one hangup with rew possible boundaries, that may be a sticking point to some....the "title 1" score would as shown above would be WV=4, MV=1, NV=1.

I would not be at all surprised if a non-geographical swap would be considered by the SB. The most plausible one seems to swap GEOT with OWEN.

I think that works well...it would
-keep KEND at NV
-keep OWEN intact as ES,
-the far east portion of OWEN has same drive they do now, and its nicely counter to rush hour flow
-there is some neighborhood continuity keeping GTOWN and GOM together.

A cost is some GTOWN is no longer walkers to WV. But you know, these are walkers that have to cross at rush hour a very busy Ogden Ave...I dont think losing these walkers is a tremendously big cost. (I wonder what GTWN area would have to say on that).

So in summary...I would tweak rew boundaries to be:
WV = BD, BRKS, LW, ST, MC, YOU, GEO, OWEN

MV = GOM, WE, FRY, PET, GRHM, OW, GEO

NV = MW, COW, CLOW, SB, PAT, K, BLTA, WEL

I can only speak for the MW families I know -- NV would not be our first choice ( I know will stun some) , but it is not a train ride away either. Today it is the closest school to our house, so would that be acceptable if it is MACOM - that answer would be yes. WE'd all be east of 59 and would be one less major street to have to cross, and no railroad tracks.

Also as far as other balancing- no plan is very goo - and from what I understand - Dr Daeschler has said that will not be a factor in boundaries when he has been at PTSA ir IPPD meetings. I only have this 2nd hand - so I will defer to those who were actually at one of those meetings.

[warriorpride]

doctorwho said:

I can only speak for the MW families I know -- NV would not be our first choice ( I know will stun some) , but it is not a train ride away either. Today it is the closest school to our house, so would that be acceptable if it is MACOM - that answer would be yes. WE'd all be east of 59 and would be one less major street to have to cross, and no railroad tracks.

Also as far as other balancing- no plan is very goo - and from what I understand - Dr Daeschler has said that will not be a factor in boundaries when he has been at PTSA or IPPD meetings. I only have this 2nd hand - so I will defer to those who were actually at one of those meetings.

That would be a shame if that's the case. Balancing was identified as one of the key criteria when coming up the original boundary options & even selecting the final option. Totally dismissing that would be a bit of bait & switch, IMO. And, how could we consider the 3 schools as being "equal" if balance wasn't a consideration?

[hopefull]

I understand that both Brooks and Brookdale have Title I status this year. Macom location would make wvhs nearly ALL title I.

[momof3]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

I can only speak for the MW families I know -- NV would not be our first choice ( I know will stun some) , but it is not a train ride away either. Today it is the closest school to our house, so would that be acceptable if it is MACOM - that answer would be yes. WE'd all be east of 59 and would be one less major street to have to cross, and no railroad tracks.

Also as far as other balancing- no plan is very goo - and from what I understand - Dr Daeschler has said that will not be a factor in boundaries when he has been at PTSA or IPPD meetings. I only have this 2nd hand - so I will defer to those who were actually at one of those meetings.

That would be a shame if that's the case. Balancing was identified as one of the key criteria when coming up the original boundary options & even selecting the final option. Totally dismissing that would be a bit of bait & switch, IMO. And, how could we consider the 3 schools as being "equal" if balance wasn't a consideration?

I would have guessed the opposite - without much public input geography would be a distant second to balancing but if Dr. D has stated that, well then I guess geography will be "numero uno."

[bob]

The one thing expressed loudly from the last boudary descision is that if a ES area has a majority of walkers at the HS level they stay at the "walking HS".



Balancing was not that great at the BB site. I believe MV at BB had 3 out of the top 5 GS.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

The one thing expressed loudly from the last boudaries is that if a ES area has a majority of walkers at the HS level they stay at the "walking HS".



Balancing was not that great at the BB site. I believe MV at BB had 3 out of the top 5 GS.

That would be incorrect - especially after moving from the 04-05 ISAT's to 05-06 ISATS. There was some movement of schools

all scores available here:

www.suntimes.com/pcds/cgi/schools.cgi

The balancing was almost as good as the option 6 group was pushing for.
( I have all these EXCEL sheets - and updated for current enrollment ( weighting) and scores.

As far as % passing the ISAT scores here would be the mix for BB

WV 88.4%
MV 89.0 %
NV 92.9%

that is a very small gap top to bottom, keeping in mind state avg 72.9 and district avg 88.0 - all HS splits would be above district average - meaning good balancing. More scores rose for 204 schools than dropped.

And MV only has 3 of the top 10, not the top 5

MV
Fry (3)
Watts (7)
W/E (9)
Owen (12)
Cowlishaw (17)
McCarty (18) but only 60 kids
Gombert (19)
Longwood (20)

NV
Springbrook ( 1)
Clow (2)
Kendall (8)
Patterson (9)
Graham (11)
Welch (13)
Builta (14)

WV
Peterson (3)
Brooks (5)
Steck (6)
Young (15)
Brookdale (16)
McCarty (18)
Georgetown (21)

[wvhsparent]

Please....Let's not start this Title1 stuff again. Why can't this SD embrace T1 like 203 does. It is not the plague.

[bob]

I think I used this for my 3 out of five

ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1173187097

which is really 4 out of 5

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

Please....Let's not start this Title1 stuff again. Why can't this SD embrace T1 like 203 does. It is not the plague.

Agreed - the numbers I have are ISAT tests passing % - no title 1 badges - and again from what I understand everyone should do exactly as you say because : 1/ Title 1 schools are subject to change YTY - 2/ the new Super I believe is on record saying that is not a critieria to be concerned about -
203 has more Title 1 schools than we have - yet we are still chasing them score wise - let's focus on that part of the equation.