Boundaries again.

[wvhsparent]

Very well stated Gatordog.
As I have stated before. With all of this comes the notion that ES boundaries are going to remain the same. Maybe they need to be addressed too, to minimize splits.

[bob]

lacy said:

doctorwho said:

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.

There were a couple of plans to split Stillwater.

[lacy]

proschool 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.

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.

Sorry Proschool, but the standards would have to be applied equally. (and as I stated in the previous post, they didn't split Stillwater and they certainly aren't all walkers)

They wouldn't be "crossing 59". They would be walking over a pedestrian bridge - built specifially for the purpose of walking. We wouldn't have to worry about "keeping them off 59" because they wouldn't be on 59.

And you can't say "oh, well, some would still drive". Because I'm sure that's true of any walking area.

Your last standards concerning costs would have to be applied equally to all areas that are considered "walkers".

So...we could probably make a case to bus some of the kids near WVHS (who have walker status) to a northern site using your logic. I mean, how many really walk? What's the cost savings? Is their whole area considered walkers? Etc. It wouldn't make sense to bus kids to a northern site who are situated much farther from it than others.

[doctorwho]

lacy said:

proschool said:

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.

Sorry Proschool, but the standards would have to be applied equally.

......

It wouldn't make sense to bus kids to a northern site who are situated much farther from it than others.

agreed on the first part sentence-- and AMEN! to the last sentence.

[doctorwho]

wvhsparent said:

Very well stated Gatordog.
As I have stated before. With all of this comes the notion that ES boundaries are going to remain the same. Maybe they need to be addressed too, to minimize splits.

I didn't think so originally - but it appears that is true -- expecially true where some areas - very remote to particular ES's have been added due to following a master plan set forth when the SD was very small -- today areas that planners thought likely may never be builton - are.

[Arch]

Lacy, I would support a either/or situation.

Provide bussing for an area to their designated school *OR* allow kids to be considered 'walkers' IE: On their own to one such as NV, WV or wherever else if the area is really assigned elsewhere, and the parents must sign something stating they are taking on the responsibility and risks associated with opting out of the district provided transportation and agree to indemnify and hold harmless any future 'oh crap' that may result from going to/from the school they chose (against the assignment of the district). I'm sure that won't fly for some, but people are in a sense WANTING the added risk and if something unfortunate happens, I would not be surprised to see someone filing a lawsuit against the district for MAKING them walk.

[proschool]

lacy said:

proschool said:

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.

Sorry Proschool, but the standards would have to be applied equally. (and as I stated in the previous post, they didn't split Stillwater and they certainly aren't all walkers)

They wouldn't be "crossing 59". They would be walking over a pedestrian bridge - built specifially for the purpose of walking. We wouldn't have to worry about "keeping them off 59" because they wouldn't be on 59.

And you can't say "oh, well, some would still drive". Because I'm sure that's true of any walking area.

Your last standards concerning costs would have to be applied equally to all areas that are considered "walkers".

So...we could probably make a case to bus some of the kids near WVHS (who have walker status) to a northern site using your logic. I mean, how many really walk? What's the cost savings? Is their whole area considered walkers? Etc. It wouldn't make sense to bus kids to a northern site who are situated much farther from it than others.

Well there was no rule that said you can't slpit Stillwater. Those plans were dicussed and the board went with the plan it chose for other reasons. Diamond Bay is split between elementary schools and so is Oakhurst.

Anyway I don't favor splitting a subdivision as I said on my post.

My point is that there may not really be any cost savings to keeping a few kids in a neighborhood walkers because those kids (especailly in Tallgrass) will be closer to an existing bus stop then they would to NV. It would be a lot safer to get them on the bus. I would fell bad for the kids whose friends are across the street and being bussed to MV and while he or she had to walk a mile to NV. It just is not going to make sense.

Keeping that bridge safe and clear from Ice and snow may cost a lot more than the busses anyway.

I am concerned about the kids that will walk across Route 59 rather than use the bridge.

BTW I would aply the same logic to any attendance area.


As far as hopping over schools is concerned I only need to point to Owen Elementary. There are 20 elementary schools that are closer to my home then the one my children attend.

[proschool]

As far as hopping over schools is concerned I only need to point to Owen Elementary. There are 20 elementary schools that are closer to my home then the one my children attend.

...and there were two represenatives from every PTA in the district at the boundary meeting that made that decision and only one person who was not going to be bussed had anything to say about it. Everyone else was fine with it.

[justvote]

Regarding the Fry walkers - are they going to be considered "walkers" in the eyes of the school district? Is bus service going to cease in those designated areas now that the bridge is in place? If the district still plans to provide bus service to that area, the cost is a moot point.

Also, we're talking about a very small number here and correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure I will be), but this only affects students at the Freshman campus, not the main campus, which is further and outside the 1.5 mile range of anyone who lives within the Fry attendance area.

I agree with proschool - splitting Fry is not a good idea and not worth the small cost savings that may (or may not) be incurred, and I also agree with the Superintendant that Rte. 59 is a natural dividing line when discussing boundaries.

[wvhsparent]

I think as far as the State is concerned Rt59 is a major hazard, bridge or no.

[gatordog]

bob said:

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

Assuming Ogden/75/Rickert boundary:

No. MV = BD,BR,COWLSH,LONG,MCC(80%), ST(80%), YOUNG, WATT(10%)
WV = FRY,GTOWN,GOM,OW(west 50%), MCC(20%), ST(20%),WATT(90%), WE, PET(Ashwood)
NV = BU,CLOW,GR,KEND, OWEN (east 50%), PAT, SBR, WEL, PET(old WHEAT)

I figure from current ES enroll:
No. MV = 2800
WV = 2600
NV=3800

Projecting future growth (PET/ashwood into WV, BU & KEND into NV):
No. MV = 2900
WV = 3000
NV=4300

[proschool]

Gatordog:

Why don't you just keep Owen togther at NV and Peterson together at WV?

[wvhsparent]

proschool said:

Gatordog:

Why don't you just keep Owen togther at NV and Peterson together at WV?

Better yet just move the west part of Owen to Peterson get rid of the patchwork ES set up east of Rt59

[gatordog]

proschool said:

Gatordog:

Why don't you just keep Owen togther at NV and Peterson together at WV?

I disagreeignment was based on geography only. I was optimizing first on geography, when and where you can.

You are correct, if one wanted to optimize on keeping ES together, they could be swapped.

In that vein, OWEN (east) and WATTS could swap btw WV and NV too.

Yes, those assignments depend on what you choose to do geograpghy vs. ES's together. Judgement call.

edit: But i sure liked how enrollments balanced...so I "stopped tweaking." Tweak at your pleasure!

[lacy]

proschool said:

lacy said:

Sorry Proschool, but the standards would have to be applied equally. (and as I stated in the previous post, they didn't split Stillwater and they certainly aren't all walkers)

They wouldn't be "crossing 59". They would be walking over a pedestrian bridge - built specifially for the purpose of walking. We wouldn't have to worry about "keeping them off 59" because they wouldn't be on 59.

And you can't say "oh, well, some would still drive". Because I'm sure that's true of any walking area.

Your last standards concerning costs would have to be applied equally to all areas that are considered "walkers".

So...we could probably make a case to bus some of the kids near WVHS (who have walker status) to a northern site using your logic. I mean, how many really walk? What's the cost savings? Is their whole area considered walkers? Etc. It wouldn't make sense to bus kids to a northern site who are situated much farther from it than others.

Well there was no rule that said you can't slpit Stillwater. Those plans were dicussed and the board went with the plan it chose for other reasons. Diamond Bay is split between elementary schools and so is Oakhurst.

Anyway I don't favor splitting a subdivision as I said on my post.

My point is that there may not really be any cost savings to keeping a few kids in a neighborhood walkers because those kids (especailly in Tallgrass) will be closer to an existing bus stop then they would to NV. It would be a lot safer to get them on the bus. I would fell bad for the kids whose friends are across the street and being bussed to MV and while he or she had to walk a mile to NV. It just is not going to make sense.
Keeping that bridge safe and clear from Ice and snow may cost a lot more than the busses anyway.

Again, how many kids in other "walker" areas are actually walkers and how much money is actually saved by not bussing them? How many of them are closer to a bus stop than to the actual school? I'm sure that some are. But they and their area are considered "walkers". Need to apply the same standards.

As for keeping the bridge "safe". The same could apply to sidewalks and intersections that kids cross each day. Please...

Now that the bridge is actually being constructed (and the new school is not!) I think this is an area that will need to be re-visited.