Boundaries if we leave BB

[bob]

How can the same site produce two different results?

[wvhsparent]

doctorwho said:

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.

Thanks doc.........
What's the spread for high/low ISAT Passing %?

[doctorwho]

bob said:

How can the same site produce two different results?

easy - read how they did it in that article:

"The Chicago Sun-Times' annual rankings are based on average scores on 2006 state reading and math tests, not the percent passing or gains.

The Sun-Times used a well-known statistical method called standardizing to analyze the reading and math scores of every public school student in the state who took either the Illinois Standards Achievement Tests, given in grades third through eighth, or the Prairie State Achievement Exam, given in grade 11.

The method compares each student's score with the state's average score, and uses that information to create a school average that is then compared to the average of other schools."

one method ( the one I had listed ) was pure numerical how many passed - how many didn't --- and the article you referenced took the actual score and averaged them.

So if you have someone with a 70 and someone with a 100 -- my scores would show one did not pass and 1 did -- the article you reference would say the average is 82.5 and therefore the school passes.

the article you reference basically using a form of 'median' score - versus actuals.

[gatordog]

warriorpride said:

doctorwho said:

.....

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?

Dr D. can make a statement that balancing would be no factor. He clearly can professionally advise the SB that he doesnt think it should be a factor, if that is his professional opinion.

However, the recent precedent has been set that, yes, it is a factor to consider. I am not arguing if its right or wrong by making this statement. But I agree with warriorpride that there would be an element of "bait and switch", a changing of the rules, if the SB doesnt consider this is some way.

[momof3]

gatordog said:

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).

Could you leave GT walkers at WV? McCarty walkers were slated for MV at BB.

Given any thought to boundaries at St. Johns?

eta -
DrW had started with
MV @ St. Johns
Brooks 662 / Steck 663 / Brookdale 481 / Longwood 477 / Young 741

[macy]

Although I think you have all done a good job of seeking boundary options in light of different land scenarios, I'm not going to comment. Until the location is determined, I don't see the point.

However, I do find it interesting that the term "bait and switch" keeps popping up in posts.

I did an internet search tonight for the definition of "bait and switch".

LOL! Here's the number one response to my inquiry.

"A sales tactic in which a bargain-priced item is used to attract customers who are then encouraged to purchase a more expensive similar item."

Wow, read what you will from that definition. I did and won't comment.

Let's all just stop using that terminology. I think you could apply it to just about anything you disagree with at this point.

Stick to the referendum language:

No location specified
No boundaries specified
No balancing of achievement specified
No timeframe specified

Bait and switch needs to go away. Not in the referendum language.

It was a mistake, in my opinion, to attach that phrase to the third high school referendum in the first place. It can come back and kick you squarely in the pants as it can be interpreted many different ways.

[warriorpride]

macy said:

Although I think you have all done a good job of seeking boundary options in light of different land scenarios, I'm not going to comment. Until the location is determined, I don't see the point.

However, I do find it interesting that the term "bait and switch" keeps popping up in posts.

I did an internet search tonight for the definition of "bait and switch".

LOL! Here's the number one response to my inquiry.

"A sales tactic in which a bargain-priced item is used to attract customers who are then encouraged to purchase a more expensive similar item."

Wow, read what you will from that definition. I did and won't comment.

Let's all just stop using that terminology. I think you could apply it to just about anything you disagree with at this point.

Stick to the referendum language:

No location specified
No boundaries specified
No balancing of achievement specified
No timeframe specified

Bait and switch needs to go away. Not in the referendum language.

It was a mistake, in my opinion, to attach that phrase to the third high school referendum in the first place. It can come back and kick you squarely in the pants as it can be interpreted many different ways.

I disagree.

While the SB was very confident about obtaining BB, there were obviously not guarantees, and it has played out that way. A new location may be required (i.e. CANNOT control this), However there is absolutely no reason to apply different criteria to selecting the boundaries (CAN control what criteria).

There was no intent to change from BB, except for the unfortunate series of events - a bait & switch does not apply here, since the SB had every intent of going with BB, and very likely the boundaries that they selected.

How could they not use they same boundary criteria with a new MV location? What has changed that would make it OK to apply different criteria (sorry, but I'm interested in Dr D changing course here)? I don't see how the SB wouldn't be totally called out on this - they got plenty of input on what people think is important & should be considered when determining the boundaries.

[macy]

warriorpride

I understand your thought process but can't you apply the same thinking attached to the infered meaning of "bait and switch" in terms of boudaries to someone else that applied that same meaning to timeframe, or acheivement, or location?

At this point all I can assume is that the district has the money voters approved to build a third high school. period.

Some who voted did so because they were motivated by the need for more space.

Others, boundaries.

Others, location.

Others, acheivement balancing.

Nothing except the need for more seats at the high school (and middle school) level was voted on.

All of us (myself included) need to remember that.

[warriorpride]

macy said:

warriorpride

I understand your thought process but can't you apply the same thinking attached to the infered meaning of "bait and switch" in terms of boudaries to someone else that applied that same meaning to timeframe, or acheivement, or location?

At this point all I can assume is that the district has the money voters approved to build a third high school. period.

Some who voted did so because they were motivated by the need for more space.

Others, boundaries.

Others, location.

Others, acheivement balancing.

Nothing except the need for more seats at the high school (and middle school) level was voted on.

All of us (myself included) need to remember that.

I'm not backing off of my stance on this one. While some people may have a preferred location or preferred boundaries or a prefferred school yo go to, I can't see any reasonable person being against some type of balance. It might not be everyone's primary criteria, and that's fine.

Remember, the SB needs to act in the best interests of the entire district. Clearly, schools that are somewhat balanced is in best interests of the entire district.

ETA: is anyone against balance?

[anteater]

In terms of balancing, that was set as one criteria by the SB at the beginning of the process last time. However, when they had the last big public meeting at NV, they had a lengthy intermission after which MM gave a rousing speech about how balancing scores was an inappropriate criteria, and from that point on it did not seem to be a consideration among a majority of the SB. Given the current superintendent's statements - which mirror some of HC's comments about labeling Title 1 schools - I can't imagine that the current board is going to try to open this can of worms.

[lacy]

Reading through this thread leaves me with the distinct impression that to some, boundaries are the primary concern.

If the focus is on building a school within a reasonable budget and on par with NVHS and WVHS, then boundaries should be a secondary consideration.

The first referendum failed in no small part because some areas would only support it if they got to go to the school they wanted to.

Some areas (Tall Grass, for example), supported it both times.

What's the primary objective? To build additional space in a cost conscious manner - or make sure your kid goes where you want them to go? Do some people want to the district to "spend whatever it takes" so they can get their way?

[EagleDad]

so, can you state why balanced schools are in the best interest of the district? You state it like it is an indisputable, irreuftable, but I don't think I am so clear on the huge benefits.

I'm not against balancing, but what are the benefits? Enlighten me.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

Reading through this thread leaves me with the distinct impression that to some, boundaries are the primary concern.

If the focus is on building a school within a reasonable budget and on par with NVHS and WVHS, then boundaries should be a secondary consideration.

The first referendum failed in no small part because some areas would only support it if they got to go to the school they wanted to.

Some areas (Tall Grass, for example), supported it both times.

What's the primary objective? To build additional space in a cost conscious manner - or make sure your kid goes where you want them to go? Do some people want to the district to "spend whatever it takes" so they can get their way?

I've yet to see any area that doesn't want a somewhat fair travel situation with the new school. My area supported the referendum both times also - with very heavy turnout and 80% yes - and is NOT a one school only - or even one site - but yes most people want to go near their home. yet thru the whole process has remained quiet.

Funny you mention TG - as they were amongst the most vocal about moving from NV to MV ( at BB) because it was further from their home - they could walk etc etc - and the distance change was a little over one mile. And the total travel was a little more than 1/2 what our area has today -- so let's be careful how we portray areas shall we ? There is NO area standing there saying we'll take whatever, whenever, wherever...and be thrilled with it.

I ask the same question dpc NEVER answered - and that tells me the answer - if you had to travel 8-9 miles to HS would you be thrilled with that ? Your area has an ES and MS in walking distance - we have a MS at the other end of the district and potentially ( but hopefully not) face a HS further away than 8 other High Schools.

So if your MS was Grainger and your HS was at AME - how happy would you be? We'll see if someone else pointing fingers will answer.

( of course you know that will not be the case for you - we don't know that )

I am willing to attend NV ( and if MACOM site likely will ) - MV - if it is at BB and finally closer than the other schools ) - or WV - under any scenario, so tell me that is not flexible - and tell me all areas are willing to be that flexible - I don't think so.

[casey]

anteater said:

In terms of balancing, that was set as one criteria by the SB at the beginning of the process last time. However, when they had the last big public meeting at NV, they had a lengthy intermission after which MM gave a rousing speech about how balancing scores was an inappropriate criteria, and from that point on it did not seem to be a consideration among a majority of the SB. Given the current superintendent's statements - which mirror some of HC's comments about labeling Title 1 schools - I can't imagine that the current board is going to try to open this can of worms.

You've got that right, Anteater. At this point in the game, I don't think that Dr.D or the SB give a darn about the boundaries including any form of balancing achievement. They have bigger fish to fry - mainly getting a site location.

I would think that when the site is determined and boundaries need to be addressed the SB will take that task on through Executive Session and it will primarily be based on geographical and transportation considerations. IMO, balancing achievement won't be a part of it.

[Arch]

casey said:

anteater said:

In terms of balancing, that was set as one criteria by the SB at the beginning of the process last time. However, when they had the last big public meeting at NV, they had a lengthy intermission after which MM gave a rousing speech about how balancing scores was an inappropriate criteria, and from that point on it did not seem to be a consideration among a majority of the SB. Given the current superintendent's statements - which mirror some of HC's comments about labeling Title 1 schools - I can't imagine that the current board is going to try to open this can of worms.

You've got that right, Anteater. At this point in the game, I don't think that Dr.D or the SB give a darn about the boundaries including any form of balancing achievement. They have bigger fish to fry - mainly getting a site location.

I would think that when the site is determined and boundaries need to be addressed the SB will take that task on through Executive Session and it will primarily be based on geographical and transportation considerations. IMO, balancing achievement won't be a part of it.

I won't begin to speculate what criteria they use, because frankly, I don't care, but I do hope they just do it and get it over with and tell people "Too Bad if you don't like it". This part is not a democracy and they've heard all of the opinions before. No sense in making it last 5 seconds longer than it has to.