|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2010 12:42:30 GMT -6
Longwood has a bubble... so instead of building a new ES right next to it (or clear across town) they sent the kids to Watts.
What a concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2010 12:49:08 GMT -6
Longwood has a bubble... so instead of building a new ES right next to it (or clear across town) they sent the kids to Watts. What a concept. you saw the FOIA'd document- it's all they could work out in pencil on the one sheet of loose leaf paper for boundary-transportation work - that's some mighty fine plannin' there  |
|
|
|
Post by brant on Apr 8, 2010 13:29:30 GMT -6
A bubble is a rise in enrollment in the entire district, a peak, then a drop back to a certain level without a new rise coming through. One does not look at individual schools themselves for bubbles or lack thereof.... that is what busses are for; to utilize EXISTING FACILITIES more efficiently without waste. oh that's why- I thought they were just to try and justify ridiculous boundaries and places 8 miles away could be grouped into 'attendance boundaries' like it makes any more sense under those words The situation with MW to Metea looks more like a format for forced bussing. The same thing with West Owen to East Owen. I don't believe they ever explained the logic concerning both of those areas. I still believe MW was chosen to attend MV by the powers that be because of their high academics as opposed to McCarty. I wonder if anyone has brought this up? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2010 13:32:40 GMT -6
"We need to balance out test scores".
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2010 14:29:37 GMT -6
oh that's why- I thought they were just to try and justify ridiculous boundaries and places 8 miles away could be grouped into 'attendance boundaries' like it makes any more sense under those words The situation with MW to Metea looks more like a format for forced bussing. The same thing with West Owen to East Owen. I don't believe they ever explained the logic concerning both of those areas. I still believe MW was chosen to attend MV by the powers that be because of their high academics as opposed to McCarty. I wonder if anyone has brought this up? Not only has someone brought this up but I can tell you work was done on exactly that by 204thekids and a few board members. Trust me I know  . spreadsheets still exist- it's called socio engineering I questioned at the time why this was all supposedly being done to help WVHS - yet the split left them the lowest performing school ISAT entry wise. You don't think they were going to have their shiny new school last did ya ? since you asked so nicely - here is results based on 06-07 ISAT's-- ( have 05-06 04-05 03-04 as well. ) NV 93.6 MV 91.2 WV 89.8 what was BB you ask? NV 94.0 MV 90.9 WV 90.2 the boundary with the smallest gap top score to bottom score ? BB boundaries 3.1 (3%) top to bottom largest gap 5.1 (5%) top to bottom - proposed MACOM boundaries ( and you wonder why they closed without opening their lowest bid ? ) all %'s are weighted by number of kids in each feeder school and includes those small groups of kids shuffled from one ES to another in the final boundariesas for your question on McCarty vs Watts ISAT attainment 06-07 McCarty 81.2 Watts 94.9 Owen 93.2 ( can't split west from east ) not that this was EVER looked at  form your own conclusions |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 8, 2010 15:14:12 GMT -6
..... Then take it all the way and show it at the elementary level. Which schools specifically are "growing" and by how much? If total enrollment falls as currently projected, isn't it possible that the schools closer to WVHS or NVHS could return there? After all, why send them to the farthest HS when 4 of the 8 MVHS elementary schools are closer to WVHS and NVHS Your assuming a static environment re boundaries as enrollment, based on current trends, levels out in 2013 and subsequently falls in 2019. In addition, elementary/neighborhood attendance would have to change radically before MVHS is anywhere near the center of the student population density. Said another way, under any scenario, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the center of the student population would ever move more than a few blocks from where it currently is. Just north and east of NVHS. Yes, I had ES breakdown too at ip204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=soundoff&action=display&thread=3301 That is harder to do in that it goes beyond the actual hard numbers available of who is in the school system. You need to know toddlers and infants across the SD. (I dont have that data). The data of HS and MS.....those are real numbers. Next, you are asking about boundaries?! Boundaries? Say it aint so ! Is that what this discussion is about  . Of course my numbers are based on static boundaries. You know, the real and actual boundaries? Is that some kind of flawed assumption on my part? What do you want me to do, make them up, change them on the fly? But I think I do see a point you are theoretically making. Maybe if population doesnt grow, no futher development over next decade or so in the south, maybe one could figure a way to phase in some boundary shifts. Into WV, and into NV you suggest. I dont know, maybe something to think about eventually. Maybe in the 2020's time frame? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 8, 2010 18:49:07 GMT -6
I think it is fair to say something is going to go building wise between now and 2020 on the HS level gatordog. When you have 3000 + 3000 + 3000 +1200 + 600 and you have about 8500 kids, which is where we are headed by the end of this decade (given everything tracks has it has been), something has to give.
My hope is they keep the buildings close to where the bulk of the student population is, but I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 8, 2010 18:59:53 GMT -6
Mac, I could thick of a couple buildings I would like to see changed on 95th st.
How about getting rid of Frontier campus and fold the idea into the individual high schools. Get the Freshman center back to a middle school and sell the 111th st location. Maybe then we can get it back to the way it should have been before we started with this "hodge podge" of buildings. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2010 19:10:51 GMT -6
Mac, I could thick of a couple buildings I would like to see changed on 95th st. How about getting rid of Frontier campus and fold the idea into the individual high schools. Get the Freshman center back to a middle school and sell the 111th st location. Maybe then we can get it back to the way it should have been before we started with this "hodge podge" of buildings. Just my opinion. How much wouldthat idea cost and would C.O.D be willing to do it? Is there enough MS population to justify converting NVFC back to a MS? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 8, 2010 19:34:52 GMT -6
Mac, I could thick of a couple buildings I would like to see changed on 95th st. How about getting rid of Frontier campus and fold the idea into the individual high schools. Get the Freshman center back to a middle school and sell the 111th st location. Maybe then we can get it back to the way it should have been before we started with this "hodge podge" of buildings. Just my opinion. I don't think dividing COD between the HSs would be practical, but it is worth looking into. Closing NV Gold doesn't make much sense either as approximately 50% of the kids are south of 87th. I am at a loss why most of you hold on to this idea that building MVHS was "a good idea" I fail to see how it was remotely in the best interest of the community, given the cost of building it and the extra operating costs, the short time period of the bubble (10 years), the dislocation it created for a lot of people, and finally, moving HS resources far away from the student population density. I haven't seem one person make a case for what was done, addressing all those factors. What I have heard is I want mine or I wanted others to leave so "my school" was less crowded or smaller schools are better (according to who, and why). A whole lot of rhetoric and rationalization, but no facts and common sense. Oh and, it's legal and people voted for it... Sure they did, given what limited information and misrepresentations they were told about "it". |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2010 20:57:15 GMT -6
Mac, I could thick of a couple buildings I would like to see changed on 95th st. How about getting rid of Frontier campus and fold the idea into the individual high schools. Get the Freshman center back to a middle school and sell the 111th st location. Maybe then we can get it back to the way it should have been before we started with this "hodge podge" of buildings. Just my opinion. How much would that idea cost and would C.O.D be willing to do it? Is there enough MS population to justify converting NVFC back to a MS? on the MS population - heck no there isn't- and remember 4 consecutive ES classes have dropped between 2% -3% each year..one more year and the anti-bubble hits MS. What do we do with Fischer then? We might be close to 2 MS's over in 5 years if the ES trend does not stop. I have an idea- close Hill and send people there to Fischer..we'd see JC come out of 'retirement'. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2010 21:00:40 GMT -6
Mac, I could thick of a couple buildings I would like to see changed on 95th st. How about getting rid of Frontier campus and fold the idea into the individual high schools. Get the Freshman center back to a middle school and sell the 111th st location. Maybe then we can get it back to the way it should have been before we started with this "hodge podge" of buildings. Just my opinion. I don't think dividing COD between the HSs would be practical, but it is worth looking into. Closing NV Gold doesn't make much sense either as approximately 50% of the kids are south of 87th. I am at a loss why most of you hold on to this idea that building MVHS was "a good idea" I fail to see how it was remotely in the best interest of the community, given the cost of building it and the extra operating costs, the short time period of the bubble (10 years), the dislocation it created for a lot of people, and finally, moving HS resources far away from the student population density. I haven't seem one person make a case for what was done, addressing all those factors. What I have heard is I want mine or I wanted others to leave so "my school" was less crowded or smaller schools are better (according to who, and why). A whole lot of rhetoric and rationalization, but no facts and common sense. Oh and, it's legal and people voted for it... Sure they did, given what limited information and misrepresentations they were told about "it". no Mac you've got it wrong - M2 said we couldn't read the ballot remember. forget what he and Holm and others presented... little did we know most of what was presented was less than real also. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Apr 8, 2010 21:34:32 GMT -6
Hey Mac, I am not into shoveling the rhetoric on this issue. A) I thought the freshman centers were a bad idea period. B) Frontier campus was another bad idea period. C) Uncontrolled growth in sector G and other area's in the southern reaches of our district were a bad idea period. D) Blowing smoke up the voters tail feathers regarding the change of school location was a bad idea period.
To the present:
Am I happy to have a third high school in district, you bet. Am I happy with the location, no but I can not do a damn thing about it, the building is up and running. Am I happy that the population stats did not pan out, not exactly but never believed them in the first place. I was happy to see a third high school built with +/- 3000 kids per high school.
I am not trying to justify anything or who said what to whom. I bought the project via the referendum and over the long haul I will pay my fair share for the project.
Would I like to have seen things done differently, sure who wouldn't. Have valuable lessons been learned, I am inclined to think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 8, 2010 22:02:49 GMT -6
Hey Mac, I am not into shoveling the rhetoric on this issue. A) I thought the freshman centers were a bad idea period. B) Frontier campus was another bad idea period. C) Uncontrolled growth in sector G and other area's in the southern reaches of our district were a bad idea period. D) Blowing smoke up the voters tail feathers regarding the change of school location was a bad idea period. To the present: Am I happy to have a third high school in district, you bet. Am I happy with the location, no but I can not do a damn thing about it, the building is up and running. Am I happy that the population stats did not pan out, not exactly but never believed them in the first place. I was happy to see a third high school built with +/- 3000 kids per high school. I am not trying to justify anything or who said what to whom. I bought the project via the referendum and over the long haul I will pay my fair share for the project. Would I like to have seen things done differently, sure who wouldn't. Have valuable lessons been learned, I am inclined to think so. SSSM - I have no reason to doubt you so if you say 1/ wanted freshman centers gone no matter what 2/ wanted Frontier gone no matter what then you got what you wanted and it never affected you in any way except financially, and many of us got 'no matter what'. but realize this puts you in a very very small group. and also realize to get this the cost to everyone in the district - many of whom did not have your wishes on either one. Also it sets up for 2 MS's ( freshman centers) more than we will need in the very near future- so a waste of resource we cannot sell. You will never sell NV freshman center because of it's location 'on campus'. That ties up a lot of resource with no return. Add to that now the 2 ES's worth of space we also no longer need. I think what we are saying is even for you - who got the things you desired ( 1 and 2 above) - a $150M price tag should have been a deterrant. For someone who watches their money frugally- it just doesn't add up. Maybe this is your one extravagence- your trip around the world - or garage full of German cars..but it just doesn't match your general outlook. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 8, 2010 22:33:48 GMT -6
SSSM, You realize that the 'frontier campus' was not in use exclusively by 204... My son had an english course there as part of the normal COD curriculum. It was a 'good idea' to use COD's existing resources to allow 204 kids to obtain college credit on the cheap.
If you call that a 'bad idea', then please explain how utilizing CODs existing facilities was a BAD idea and trying to now build out a new one inside of a HS (Times 3) is a GOOD IDEA (assuming you can get COD to get on board with that and triple their staff to support it at 3 locations instead of just 1)
I await your enlightened reply to that one.
|
|
.
. Of course my numbers are based on static boundaries. You know, the real and actual boundaries? Is that some kind of flawed assumption on my part? What do you want me to do, make them up, change them on the fly?