Winter of discontent for D204 residents

[doctorwho]

concerned said:

I think Gombert would be great in NV but then that person looking for a home looks to his REaltor and says, "Why is that school going way over there? Oh, so Gombert is a bad performing school? Heck, I don't want to live there". quote from sleepless.

Sending Gombert would not cause this effect, but this would apply to Watts, Cowl, Owen, Part of Peterson, and Fry!!!!!! This is why we are sooo flippin mad.

I think before buyers get to what the scores are- they are going to be concerned about proximity first. Most will assum all schools out here are good.

So for Watts we get to explain that our MS is 2 zip codes to the north - near I88 and across a large stretch of district 203

then for HS we get to explain that it is just as far north- but hey, a few miles west of that also - almost as far away as it could have been out for us....

as I said before- send us to WVHS - we won't complain about being #3 - the score would be higher than it is today, and there is no one questioning if we WANT to be there.

[doctorwho]

jwh said:

slp said:

Please remember that most in WE are NOT upset about attending WVHS.

They ARE upset about how this the process began with certain assurances and promises which have been completely altered AND the fact that the foundation for success for WVHS under the current boundary proposal is being lost.

WE is taking the position that adjustments need to be made to the current boundary proposal to reduce the number of underperforming ES's from WVHS and more equitably distribute them to both MV and NV where geographically feasible. .

MV already has underperforming ES's slated to go there. You won't be adding anymore to MV. The only possible balance is to swap a lower performing one to NV with someone coming out, and I don't see where that works either.

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

[EagleDad]

doctorwho said:

jwh said:

MV already has underperforming ES's slated to go there. You won't be adding anymore to MV. The only possible balance is to swap a lower performing one to NV with someone coming out, and I don't see where that works either.

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

Bull - MV currently only has Longwood out of the bottom 4 (and the bottom 4 are what we are rely talking about here - their scores are 10 points lower than everyone else).

That swap puts 2 at each level footing and a much closer achievement gap between WVHS and MVHS. Yes, WVHS would be slightly higher.

Something tells me you would be 100% behind "the swap" if it were Watts<->McCarty instead.

[slp]

doctorwho said:

jwh said:

MV already has underperforming ES's slated to go there. You won't be adding anymore to MV. The only possible balance is to swap a lower performing one to NV with someone coming out, and I don't see where that works either.

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

Besides Longwood, what lower performing schools are being sent to MV?

The jump from the lowest 4 to number 5 of the lowest performing schools is huge. I don't consider schools that score in the 90% range as underperforming....that is the case with school #5 and so on.

I am soo sick of this whole situation. We are all being distracted by boundary battles when the real issue should be examining the site and its safety and the merits of the location taking into account future growth of the district in the south.

I drove past the site for the first time on Friday and cannot believe we are really moving forward on it...it is VERY far north and seemingly to be in the middle of nowhere. All I saw were huge power lines and power stations and cannot believe we as a district are comfortable with this selection.

Go ahead , pick me apart. I am so done with this!

[slp]

eagledad said:

doctorwho said:

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

Bull - MV currently only has Longwood out of the bottom 4 (and the bottom 4 are what we are rely talking about here - their scores are 10 points lower than everyone else).

That swap puts 2 at each level footing and a much closer achievement gap between WVHS and MVHS. Yes, WVHS would be slightly higher.

Something tells me you would be 100% behind "the swap" if it were Watts<->McCarty instead.

And recall that when the same thing occurred with the BB boundaries and MV was anticipated to score lower than WV, Curt Bradshaw said the the 'newness' factor of MV will help with that.

[jwh]

eagledad said:

doctorwho said:

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

Bull - MV currently only has Longwood out of the bottom 4 (and the bottom 4 are what we are rely talking about here - their scores are 10 points lower than everyone else).

That swap puts 2 at each level footing and a much closer achievement gap between WVHS and MVHS. Yes, WVHS would be slightly higher.

Something tells me you would be 100% behind "the swap" if it were Watts<->McCarty instead.

Brookdale and Colishaw are in the next group up, so you can't just focus on the bottom 4. Look at the HS school scores in total from the feeder schools. I'm sure you'd love to make MV the lowest, though.

[concerned]

slp said:

doctorwho said:

that's why the McCarty - Owen swap DOES NOT work -

Besides Longwood, what lower performing schools are being sent to MV?

The jump from the lowest 4 to number 5 of the lowest performing schools is huge. I don't consider schools that score in the 90% range as underperforming....that is the case with school #5 and so on.

I am soo sick of this whole situation. We are all being distracted by boundary battles when the real issue should be examining the site and its safety and the merits of the location taking into account future growth of the district in the south.

I drove past the site for the first time on Friday and cannot believe we are really moving forward on it...it is VERY far north and seemingly to be in the middle of nowhere. All I saw were huge power lines and power stations and cannot believe we as a district are comfortable with this selection.

Go ahead , pick me apart. I am so done with this!

I am not going to pick you apart, you are sooo right, the district is making a big mistake with this site. I hate that once again we will be fooled with boundaries. Why does it take boundaries to get people involved. There are bigger issues, the biggest one is safety. I have driven by the site many times and shake my head. It will be a big mistake for this district to build there.

[doctorwho]

jwh said:

eagledad said:

Bull - MV currently only has Longwood out of the bottom 4 (and the bottom 4 are what we are rely talking about here - their scores are 10 points lower than everyone else).

That swap puts 2 at each level footing and a much closer achievement gap between WVHS and MVHS. Yes, WVHS would be slightly higher.

Something tells me you would be 100% behind "the swap" if it were Watts<->McCarty instead.

Brookdale and Colishaw are in the next group up, so you can't just focus on the bottom 4. Look at the HS school scores in total from the feeder schools. I'm sure you'd love to make MV the lowest, though.

I'll call bull here -- and here is why, and anyone can do the math as easily as I can.

Also I would approve any Watts swap- I would swap with White Eagle and not pregnant dog about the scores - so let's not go there.


Here is the scores as they stand today with no changes to SD proposal

WV 89.8 MV 91.2 NV 93.6


Here is the result of your proposal

MV 89.4 WV 91.6 NV 93.6

SO the lowest school goes down another .4 -

do you want to dispute these numbers ? I can send the spreadhseet to anyone here

So you MOVE the issue, not balance a d**n thing - so let's stop pretending.


today MV would have
1 Young
7 Watts
12 Owen
13 Brooks
14 Cowlishaw
16 Brookdale
18 Gombert ( 1/2)
21 Longwood

WV would have
2 Peterson
3 Fry
8 White Eagle
9 Steck
18 Gombert (1/2)
19 McCarty
20 GT

SO 4 of the TOP TEN schools -- MV would have exactly 2 !!
tell me where the balance is there-- should someone complain because of the top 10 schools WV has 4 - NV has 4 and MV has 2 !

please use ALL the facts, not the ones that just fit.

MCCarty _Owen does not work and that is NO BULL.


also let's call it what it is here-- we're reading here about T1 designations

% low income in Peterson 0.1% / Fri 0/2% WE 2.0% etc.-- quite diff for all schols going to MV -

your 'proposed' split makes MV 8.6% vs WV 6.2%

as opposed to 7.2% and 7.8% today. So when we are talking about school resources need to be available which one is more balanced ?

frankly the discussion is really sad -- I've already told you Watts would be perfectly fine replacing WE and joining Fry and Peterson to WVHS -- why are you not ?


If Owen-McCarty is presented tonite - someone will respond with the facts above..I hope there is a good answer for them


I focused on Steck-Watts as we are 7 and 9 respectively - has little effect on either score -

[EagleDad]

You must be counting all of Peterson at WVHS doc - send me your spreadsheet please. Also, I'd like to see how you figured the Gombert split on it as far as achievement goes - Thatcher's Grove is IMHO a stronger performing area.

[EagleDad]

MCCarty_Owen totally works and resolves the distance of Owen, the achievement perception of WVHS, and quite probably the split of Gombert as well.

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

You must be counting all of Peterson at WVHS doc - send me your spreadsheet please. Also, I'd like to see how you figured the Gombert split on it as far as achievement goes - Thatcher's Grove is IMHO a stronger performing area.

in your opinion it's stronger- unless you have scores for each child in this district we dont know that do we ?

Cowlishaw also picked up 36 kids from McCarty - do you have have an opinion on who's stronger there. Steck just gained some kids from #1 Young also -- this is all factored in. Watts received 30 from LW. Are those stronger or weaker kids- who knows.
The last I knew one couldn't tell each child's score based on an address.

We can nickle and dime this all day long -

as of today Peterson is split 100 NV - 344 WV - based on the best info we could get from the area - so we've accounted for that also.

is there a dispute that WV now has 4 of the top 10 ? The same number as NV - and MV has 2 ?

[EagleDad]

send me your spreadsheet please

[doctorwho]

eagledad said:

send me your spreadsheet please

on it's way

[wvhsparent]

What gets me folks is we you are quibbling over a spread of 4.2 points. That would mean more if both schools were in the 70's low 80's for scores, but they are not.

If we were talking a 15-20 point spread I might see your point. But when all the scores are near or over 90, to me that is excellent.
Do you think maybe, just maybe your kids might be the ones who help a stuggling student do better?
My daughter did that, and made her feel good to help someone, and in turn she helped herself by strengthening her own recall of things.

[fence]

All I can say is if its no big deal (and I personally don't believe it really is), don't bring it up period. If you're going to use it as a justification for sending certain areas to WV (to help with a struggling perception) then you just made it an issue.

wvhsparent said:

What gets me folks is we you are quibbling over a spread of 4.2 points. That would mean more if both schools were in the 70's low 80's for scores, but they are not.

If we were talking a 15-20 point spread I might see your point. But when all the scores are near or over 90, to me that is excellent.
Do you think maybe, just maybe your kids might be the ones who help a stuggling student do better?
My daughter did that, and made her feel good to help someone, and in turn she helped herself by strengthening her own recall of things.