Boundaries again.

[bob]

I just want walkers to stay walking. Bussing any current HS walkers is throwing money out the window. It is an unneeded expense.

[lacy]

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

I just want walkers to stay walking. Bussing any current HS walkers is throwing money out the window. It is an unneeded expense.

I agree.
All walkers should remain walkers.

When I lived in Oakhurst (Steck). My area was bussed to the old Granger AND WVHS.

So for argument's sake, one could draw the line at McCoy and then east of the EJ&E to say Ogden for a Northern school. From what I recall those areas are bussed now anyway.
Is it perfect....no.

[dpc]

Reposting my prior commen from the locked thread:

Here is my attempt at drawing the boundaries for AME site. It's based on population density and geography.

There are only SEVEN subdivisions in the entire district where the high concentration of high students live: Stonebridge, Oakhust, Brookdale, White Eagle, Tallgrass, Ashbury and High Meadow. Using today's numbers, the breakdown is as follows.

Added up 2007/08 enroll divided by 6 grades ES x 4 grades in high school If St J site is selected, district simply draws a line a Ogden Ave.

St. John site:Brookdale, Brooks, Longwood, Nancy Young, Steck, McCarty = 3696/6=616 x 4 = 2464 MVHS capacity for Fresh-Senior = 3,000

WVHS:Gombert, Georgetown, White Eagle, Owen, Cowlishaw, Watts, Fry = 4287/6=714 x 4 = 2858 WVHS capacity for Fresh-Senior = 3,000

NVHS:Springbrook, Patterson, Peterson, Graham, Kendall, Builta, Clow, Welch = 5261/6=876 x 4 = 3,504 NVHH capacity Main = 3,000 Keeps Fresh campus +1,200 = NV has great capacity of other two at 4,200 NV Fresh = 876NV Main = 2628

All Three:

St John potential = 2464
WVHS = 2858
NVHS Main= 2628; Gold=876

Okay, now let the bashing begin . FYI, I cannot respond to any questions until tonight as I have a big deadline at work today.

[bob]

lacy said:

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

It is not a radius.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

If they do not mind being split - I have to agree with you. It does not make the whole area walkers as was part of some of the original use of that bridge in the debates ( not by you ) - but for those who are truly walkers -- if we honor that in any ES - we have to honor it in all - agreed.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

lacy said:

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

It is not a radius.

it's one mile by the safest route -- one cannot draw a line on a map as a radius which would have kids walking through buildings and yeards etc.

This has always been true. I live just under a mile from MW -- during a period of contstruction when the area was newer, they had to close a street that was a direct path to school - the safest route then became 1.3 miles an dbus service was provided for 4 -5 months.

[bob]

I believe the rule is continuous sidewalk. I believe the bikepath will link up at a sidewalk at Deering Bay.

[doctorwho]

bob said:

I believe the rule is continuous sidewalk. I believe the bikepath will link up at a sidewalk at Deering Bay.

IIRC the population affected was approx 10% -- if verified - let them stay

[bob]

There are only SEVEN subdivisions in the entire district where the high concentration of high students live: Stonebridge, Oakhust, Brookdale, White Eagle, Tallgrass, Ashbury and High Meadow. Using today's numbers, the breakdown is as follows.

Can you clear this up a bit?
How did you get a subdivison breakdown?

[doctorwho]

dpc said:

Reposting my prior commen from the locked thread:

Here is my attempt at drawing the boundaries for AME site. It's based on population density and geography.

There are only SEVEN subdivisions in the entire district where the high concentration of high students live: Stonebridge, Oakhust, Brookdale, White Eagle, Tallgrass, Ashbury and High Meadow. Using today's numbers, the breakdown is as follows.

Added up 2007/08 enroll divided by 6 grades ES x 4 grades in high school If St J site is selected, district simply draws a line a Ogden Ave.

St. John site:Brookdale, Brooks, Longwood, Nancy Young, Steck, McCarty = 3696/6=616 x 4 = 2464 MVHS capacity for Fresh-Senior = 3,000

WVHS:Gombert, Georgetown, White Eagle, Owen, Cowlishaw, Watts, Fry = 4287/6=714 x 4 = 2858 WVHS capacity for Fresh-Senior = 3,000

NVHS:Springbrook, Patterson, Peterson, Graham, Kendall, Builta, Clow, Welch = 5261/6=876 x 4 = 3,504 NVHH capacity Main = 3,000 Keeps Fresh campus +1,200 = NV has great capacity of other two at 4,200 NV Fresh = 876NV Main = 2628

All Three:

St John potential = 2464
WVHS = 2858
NVHS Main= 2628; Gold=876

Okay, now let the bashing begin . FYI, I cannot respond to any questions until tonight as I have a big deadline at work today.

no bashing here - just observations for discussion:

1/ you have Peterson crossing 59 to go to NVHS when most assume since it is west of 59 ( 444 students) it would go to WVHS. We know the area wants to go to NV but would others be OK with this change?

2/ Also what about the walkers at Steck and McCarty ? I don't know howmany that is - if anyone does would like to see the number. I agree they are far closer than other ES's and on the west side of 59 - but what if that number is 300 ? You would have to add another feeder to MV - who would it be ?

3/ the new school is almost 400 students smaller than WV - is the SB going to consider that balanced ?
( one possible solution is to move students from places like Lehigh Station that are assigned to schools like Watts/Owen/Cowlishaw far away to northern ES's - and MV. However I do not know if the northern ES's are crowded already or not - so I would not want to commit to that before that was known.


4/ I would have no issue with your boundaries - but my guess is that Steck / McCarty might.

[proschool]

lacy said:

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

Point taken, but if Fry stays at NV someone else needs to leave.

I believe Springbrook is the next non walker and the Springbrook/Fry issue has been argued before.


I think the tipping point was that walk across Route 59 to the NV meeting by Fry parents. I think it drove home the point that although high school kids may walk over the bridge to NV you may not be able to make them use it. High school kids choosing to cross Route 59 can become a problem.

I don't now if it would be best to split an elementary school to keep walkers walking. It could be that many of the kids that can walk to NV can be driven to schools in busses that are already in the neighborhood without adding much additional cost.

Don't we get a few extra dollars from state/feds to provide bus transportation? If Tallgrass students are within a miles walk to NV there are no extra dollars, but if they go to MV there are extra dollars.

So you need to consider...

.....How many extra busses would really be necessary and at what cost.

..... How many extra transportation dollars do we get from the government when students that can walk to NV are bussed to MV.


The difference between those two numbers in the price of keeping kids off Route 59 and not splitting the Fry attendance area. It is probably worth it.

Sorry Lacy.

[gatordog]

dpc said:

Reposting my prior commen from the locked thread:

Here is my attempt at drawing the boundaries for AME site. It's based on population density and geography.

....
Added up 2007/08 enroll divided by 6 grades ES x 4 grades in high school If St J site is selected, district simply draws a line a Ogden Ave.

.....

Very constructive post, dpc.

Lets take it further to recognize walkers.

Again, draw line at Ogden Avenue.
This also includes approx 30% of the Cowl attendance and approx 10% of Watts area--guesstimates on my part--- , which are both north of Ogden).

Exclude 20% of Steck and 20% of McCarty as walkers. (I wouldnt be surprised if this was more like 10%, especially for Steck....but in terms of filling North MV, I am being conservative.)

This give North MV enrollment of 2500.

Now lets draw the line at Rickert/75th/Ogden, which then includes all of COWL. Make same ST/MCC walker exclusion....
Now north MV enrollment is 2800.

I agree with dpc. That is how I believe you fill a northern site.

As others are implying, the bulk of Steck and Mcc moving north is directly analogous to Fry and the main part of Gombert going to BB MVHS, as opposed to NV and WV respectively. Not perfectly ideal for the communities involved, but necessary to balance enrollments, and accepted as a valid "second choice".

Take a compass on a map....the distance increase for bulk of Steck/Mcc going to north site (and not WV) is about the exact incr FRY was to experience by going to BB MV (not NV), and to a slightly lesser extent the main portion of Gombert too.

Yes, there will be portions of Steck/Mccarty that can hear the football game PA system and band practice at WV and not go there. But that is exactly what was to happen with main Gombert and Fry under BB. It already has been shown to be doable and acceptable.

This soln provides a lot of district wide balance. The longer commute to HS for Steck and Mcc to North MV would be very comparable to Fry/Peterson/Watts going to WV, and also to Builta/south Grahm/far south Wheat/east Owen going to NV.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

lacy said:

How about walkers to NVHS that would be sent to MVHS under the current plan? The construction of the bridge over 59 has begun allowing many children to walk. Why would the district spend money to bus them?

And don't even try to give me all the reasons they really wouldn't walk. Because we can apply that to any "walking area". If they are within the mileage radius, they are walkers.

If they do not mind being split - I have to agree with you. It does not make the whole area walkers as was part of some of the original use of that bridge in the debates ( not by you ) - but for those who are truly walkers -- if we honor that in any ES - we have to honor it in all - agreed.

I don't know what the breakdown is of those that are within walking distance and those that are not.

But, all of Stillwater is not within walking distance and they decided not to split their area. Again, consistent rules have to applied everywhere.

[bob]

Gatordog, can you break that down with schools for each HS?