3/14 DH "Parents:Move is racial"

[cb]

I read this article in the DH today. It is relevant to our situation, not because of the racial aspect, but because of a paragraph about busing.

"Adding a mobile classroom would require displacing the playground. Meanwhile, attendance boundary changes are difficult because the entire southern dividing line for the school is a railroad crossing the district doesn't want to bus children across."

I never thought the RR crossing argument had much merit, especially since my son crossed the tracks on his way to WVHS everyday. However, apparently this school district does see it as a problem.

[JB]

cb said:

I read this article in the DH today. It is relevant to our situation, not because of the racial aspect, but because of a paragraph about busing.

"Adding a mobile classroom would require displacing the playground. Meanwhile, attendance boundary changes are difficult because the entire southern dividing line for the school is a railroad crossing the district doesn't want to bus children across."

I never thought the RR crossing argument had much merit, especially since my son crossed the tracks on his way to WVHS everyday. However, apparently this school district does see it as a problem.

Railroad crossings were a big issue in the original boundary decision. In fact, one of the points Bruce Glawe use to sell (and win) Option 5A was that only 4 schools needed to cross the tracks. Now we have 9! On top of that, we are building the school right next to the tracks.

[doctorwho]

jb said:

cb said:

I read this article in the DH today. It is relevant to our situation, not because of the racial aspect, but because of a paragraph about busing.

"Adding a mobile classroom would require displacing the playground. Meanwhile, attendance boundary changes are difficult because the entire southern dividing line for the school is a railroad crossing the district doesn't want to bus children across."

I never thought the RR crossing argument had much merit, especially since my son crossed the tracks on his way to WVHS everyday. However, apparently this school district does see it as a problem.

Railroad crossings were a big issue in the original boundary decision. In fact, one of the points Bruce Glawe use to sell (and win) Option 5A was that only 4 schools needed to cross the tracks. Now we have 9! On top of that, we are building the school right next to the tracks.

someone may have to bring a picture to the next SB meeting however since BG had not seen the site - something I find amazing.

[JB]

jb said:

cb said:

I read this article in the DH today. It is relevant to our situation, not because of the racial aspect, but because of a paragraph about busing.

"Adding a mobile classroom would require displacing the playground. Meanwhile, attendance boundary changes are difficult because the entire southern dividing line for the school is a railroad crossing the district doesn't want to bus children across."

I never thought the RR crossing argument had much merit, especially since my son crossed the tracks on his way to WVHS everyday. However, apparently this school district does see it as a problem.

Railroad crossings were a big issue in the original boundary decision. In fact, one of the points Bruce Glawe use to sell (and win) Option 5A was that only 4 schools needed to cross the tracks. Now we have 9! On top of that, we are building the school right next to the tracks.

IMHO, this is another example of incremental risk. Take BB as a baseline risk level. Now look at MWGEN. Are 9 school areas crossing the RR Tracks more risky than 4 school areas? Yes.

[d204mom]

jb said:

jb said:

Railroad crossings were a big issue in the original boundary decision. In fact, one of the points Bruce Glawe use to sell (and win) Option 5A was that only 4 schools needed to cross the tracks. Now we have 9! On top of that, we are building the school right next to the tracks.

IMHO, this is another example of incremental risk. Take BB as a baseline risk level. Now look at MWGEN. Are 9 school areas crossing the RR Tracks more risky than 4 school areas? Yes.

The nice thing about doing the boundaries in a vacuum with no input is that all criteria (including RR crossings) can go out the window and you never have to explain yourself. I guess the only time criteria is agreed upon and applied fairly is when you need votes. Same goes for the site.

www.ipsd.org/documents/Summary5A_REV.pdf

Summary of High School Boundary Option 5A
· This option was created by applying the criteria used by the School Board to look at the
merits of various boundary options.
· Based upon feedback received from the community, geography was given a higher weight in
applying those criteria but it was coupled with an effort to balance academic achievement.
· This option balances enrollment appropriately based upon the capacity of the three high
schools.
· All existing walkers remain walkers
· Option 5A does the best job of minimizing the number of schools and children moved.
· Option 5A moves 7 schools – the lowest of any options that were considered.
· Only 1 school is split – the 60 children in Chesapeake Landings from McCarty will walk to
the new school and not attend Waubonsie.
· Option 5A moves 3,407 children (34% of the total)
· For Option 5A, 4 schools will cross railroad tracks to get to and from their schools –
Brookdale, Peterson, Gombert, and McCarty.
· The geographic map for Option 5A is understandable and straightforward with most
elementary schools being contiguous with other elementary schools that feed each high
school except for Peterson and Brookdale.
· Using ISAT scores, the academic achievement gap, which is currently 7.4%, is narrowed to
5.0%.
· Using All-State scores, the academic achievement gap, which is currently 8.0%, is narrowed
to 5.3%.
· Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the
current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in
time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in
miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school.
· Waubonsie will have 5 Aurora elementary schools and 2 Naperville schools assigned to it.
The new high school will have 2 Aurora schools and 5 Naperville schools assigned to it.
Neuqua will have 7 Naperville schools and 1 Bolingbrook school assigned to it.

[d204mom]

d204mom said:

Option 5A will significantly lower the total commuting miles traveled each day from the
current 38,282 miles to approximately 34,828 miles for a decrease of 9%. This will result in
time and fuel savings for both the district and for families. The weighted average commute in
miles for the district will be 2.7 miles from each elementary school to its high school.

HEY I just noticed something. Commuting miles seems like a very easy stat to get and was used to compare all boundary criteria last time. NO MENTION of commuting miles this time. We are fed minutes on the bus. Hmm.... methinks there's a reason that the objective commuting miles criteria was not discussed.

Who chooses a 3rd high school site that INCREASES commuting miles now and forevermore?

Wait, wait, don't tell me, I know this one... ummm.... starts with a "D" right?