D204 to reveal proposed Metea boundaries - Part 2

[gatordog]

(Repost from early December on then hypothetical north site)
Lets allow split MS's. Shoot for 50/50 split when thats the case.

Both these cases enrollment is balanced pretty well btw HS's. A feature here is PET (Ashwood) growth goes to WV and Kendall, Builta growth to NV. Smaller scale Watts (Lehigh St) growth goes to MV.

Option 1 set out to minimize splits. Option 2 intentionally tried to maximize split MS (value in lots of students knowing really well students at other HSs).

old post:


I tried to minimize ES splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. ( an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

edit: option 2 tweak should keep STECK walkers at WV. You get the idea.

[concerned]

If 1/2 the bus routes are eliminated then how does that not produce walkers?

Where is the proof that there are accidents at 59 and 95th involving students? I am sure upper classman are already driving. I quess there are no students from Stillwater driving?

[bob]

researching said:

bob said:

That is not the whole definition. I believe there is a part of uninterrupted sidewalks and other factors.

Show me the proof.

Northern part of Steck. Clearly within a 1.5 of WV, but no continuous sidewalk down Eola so they are bussed to WV.

[bob]

concerned said:

If 1/2 the bus routes are eliminated then how does that not produce walkers?

Where is the proof that there are accidents at 59 and 95th involving students? I am sure upper classman are already driving. I quess there are no students from Stillwater driving?

Prove to me that half of Fry students will be walkers.

[researching]

gatordog said:

(Repost from early December on then hypothetical north site)
Lets allow split MS's. Shoot for 50/50 split when thats the case.

Both these cases enrollment is balanced pretty well btw HS's. A feature here is PET (Ashwood) growth goes to WV and Kendall, Builta growth to NV. Smaller scale Watts (Lehigh St) growth goes to MV.

Option 1 set out to minimize splits. Option 2 intentionally tried to maximize split MS (value in lots of students knowing really well students at other HSs).

old post:


I tried to minimize ES splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. ( an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

No offense, but that is so messy! I have seen much cleaner boundary options that balance achievement as well as walkers.

If the real issue is to balance achievement, then let's consider the lowest performing school only. As I stated before, the "gap" truly represents 4 schools out of our 21. I am not advocating this but, I think that bussing those 4 school around would be more cost effective than the Laidlaw dream boundaries above.

That is why I do not believe we should be focusing on achievement as the #1 criteria.

[researching]

bob said:

researching said:

Show me the proof.

Northern part of Steck. Clearly within a 1.5 of WV, but no continuous sidewalk down Eola so they are bussed to WV.

Is that what the State says?

[researching]

bob said:

concerned said:

If 1/2 the bus routes are eliminated then how does that not produce walkers?

Where is the proof that there are accidents at 59 and 95th involving students? I am sure upper classman are already driving. I quess there are no students from Stillwater driving?

Prove to me that half of Fry students will be walkers.

If it is your question, you should research it.

[concerned]

I'm not saying half. If half the bus routes are cancelled then how does that not produce walkers?

Half the bus routes to me produces a lot of walkers, I don't have the exact math on how many that would be.

[concerned]

Here are some recommendations that Dash said about boundaries. No split ES, so how could only Ashwood go and not the rest of the ES. Or split Owen?


He mentioned some thoughts on how boundary recommendations could be created:

* no split elementary schools

* there would be spilt middle schools (did not elaborate on number that would be spilt)

* equal distribution of high school students with new school having a maximum of 3000 (assuming that school that keeps the existing gold campus will be larger student number wise)

* to provide the least amount of movement given the site selected

* do not drive by one school to get to another

* transportation costs

* using major roads as natural delineation points (at this meeting he did not define which roads would be used in the administrative recommendation)

* based on expected high school site, he said a lot less people will spend time on bus getting to high school but that some small amount will have a longer ride time.

[bob]

or how about the area south of McCoy, East of Eola, north of the creek. They are bussed to WV and actually have a bridge and bike path connecting them to a WV walking area and within 1.5 mile.

[concerned]

Rt. 59 is a state highway, thus considered unsafe to cross. The pedestrian bridge will eliminate the unsafe passage, and at least 1/2 of the current bus routes in the town homes and houses that surround it.

[bob]

researching said:

bob said:

Prove to me that half of Fry students will be walkers.

If it is your question, you should research it.

No the person making the claim should back it up with proof.

First it was Fry will have more walkers than Welch now it's halfof the bus routes. The claim keeps changing meaning there is no real proof.

I have proved the SD already busses an area that is less than 1.5 miles from a HS, connected to continuos sidewalks by a bike path and a bridge.

[gatordog]

researching said:

gatordog said:

(Repost from early December on then hypothetical north site)
Lets allow split MS's. Shoot for 50/50 split when thats the case.

Both these cases enrollment is balanced pretty well btw HS's. A feature here is PET (Ashwood) growth goes to WV and Kendall, Builta growth to NV. Smaller scale Watts (Lehigh St) growth goes to MV.

Option 1 set out to minimize splits. Option 2 intentionally tried to maximize split MS (value in lots of students knowing really well students at other HSs).

old post:


I tried to minimize ES splits. When used, they are a bit approx. The idea is to keep neighborhoods together if an ES is split. ( an example, when McCarty split...confine it to the area bounded by creek on N, RR tracks on east, a neighborhood-the one where the ES sits. I guesstimated the population)

Option 1:
MV: BD,BR, COWL, LONG, WATT, YOU
WV: FRY, GEO, GOM, MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WE, PET(Ash), ST
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, COWL, WATTS (100% MV)
Grang: BR, LONG, YOU (100% MV)
7th: GEO, MCC, STEC (100% WV)
Still: GOM, OWEN, 1/2 WEL, WE (66% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: 1/2 BUIL, FRY, 1/2 WEL, PET (ash) (51% WV & NV)
Crone: 1/2 BUIL, GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

Option 2:
MV: BD,BR, 1/2 COWL, LONG, 70% MCC, ST, YOU
WV: 1/2 COWL, FRY, GEO, GOM, 30 %MCC, 1/2 OWEN, WATT, WE, PET(Ash)
NV: BUI, CLOW, GRA, KEN, 1/2 OWEN, PATT, SB, WEL, PET(wheat)

Hill: BD, 1/2 COWL, LONG, WATT (46% WV & MV)
Grang: BR, ST, YOU (100% MV)
7th: 1/2 COWL, GEO, 80% GOM, MCC (61% WV & MV)
Still: 20% GOM, OWEN, WEL, WE (46% WV & NV)
Greg: CLOW, PATT, SB (100% NV)
Scull: BUIL, FRY, PET (ash) (58% WV & NV)
Crone: GRAH, KEN, PET (wheat) (100% NV)

No offense, but that is so messy!

first off no offense....cause this whole thing is messy

Specifically, what is so messy. Option 1? Option 2? MS boundaries? etc? I am certainly curious on feedback.

Look the name of the game to me is to balance enrollment capacities using reasonable geography. The "achievement balance " is not an issue for me here.

[bob]

concerned said:

Rt. 59 is a state highway, thus considered unsafe to cross. The pedestrian bridge will eliminate the unsafe passage, and at least 1/2 of the current bus routes in the town homes and houses that surround it.

So does that area of WV I mentioned before, instead of Rt 59 it is a creek. They get bussed.

[jftb]

Bob, I am a bit perplexed as to why you seem to me to really want Fry to go to WV. If anyone makes an argument for Fry to stay at NV, you jump in and say why that shouldn't be so. I don't believe you live in the SW, so I'm curious why you get so passionate about this topic. No offense meant, just curious.

Now we ALL know that very few of our darlings will walk over that bridge to get to school, any more than our little ES darlings walk to Fry. The carpool line is 20 minutes deep on any given day. HOWEVER.....if you're defined a walker, D204 does not have to pay Laidlaw to come and pick you up. That saves our district....ALL of our district.... money. So even if those kids don't walk across that bridge, the fact that they CAN keeps some of your money in your pocket if we go to NV. Seems like a good thing.

When I asked the question about the bridge earlier, it really was to diffuse the subject if the bridge was not built in order to send TG kids to Neuqua. BUT, if that was part of the language used to get Naperville on board to spend a million dollars on the thing, SHOULDN'T that be considered? If I were the City Council, I'd be a bit irritated with D204.