D204 to reveal proposed Metea boundaries - Part 2

[forthekids]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

confused said:

Who's saying they want kids walking along rte 59? The bridge goes OVER 59, not adjacent to it. IMO, walking OVER a state route is much safer than crossing a busy road like 95th street at a crosswalk.

I'm talking about after they get off the bridge. They are then halfway between 103rd and Rt. 59 and they have to get to the school from that point. If there are to be sidewalks that go from the end of the bridge to the back of Neuqua, then I suppose that can be considered safe. But in my opinion, if they have to walk any sort of a short distance along the northbound route of Rt. 59 after they get off the bridge, then it is unsafe. I haven't seen the plans but I don't think the plans call for sidewalks to be connected to the school via some safe back route. It is for people to use Frontier park, bike trails etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know the bridge or Frontier Park that well. I admit walking over Rt. 59 will be much safer. It's after you get off the bridge that worries me.

Who in their right mind actually thinks that a teenager is going to go out of their way to cross a bridge. Come on, please. The bridge means nothing when it comes to keeping Fry at Neuqua.

[forthekids]

confused said:

justvote said:

Did I just read that right about the bridge? Is it really being put way down on 103rd street? I assumed it was going further north. If that is true, then there will be very few walkers (as defined by 1.5 mile rule) from the Fry community. If you have to walk south to the bridge, walk over the bridge, back north to 95th and east to NV, I can't imagine anyone is less than 1.5 miles from the school (except for the few who live right next to the bridge). I agreed at one time that if Fry has walkers, AS DEFINED BY THE DISTRICT, because of the bridge, then Fry had a legitimate reason to stay at NV, but if Bob is right and the entire community will still be defined as bussers, then the point is moot. Couple that with the location of the bridge, and the bridge becomes even less of a factor to take into consideration. There has been so much talk about the bridge over the last few months, but I never saw anyone post the actual location of it until now.

You must live up north - take a little drive down Rte 59 - it is not clear down by 103rd - it's halfway between. It comes right out of the center of Tall Grass. Does anyone from TG have a diagram?

The bridge is much closer to 103rd than 95th. It will not be an answer to Fry's wishes, I'm afraid.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

concerned said:

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.

Wow, this is interesting. I wish I had known that 2 days ago when I was drawing up boundaries that didn't split MS's. Again, based on current student populations in the north vs. south and the smaller MS's up north, I don't see how this can be avoided.

The part about "to provide the least amount of movement given the site selected" is very interesting. When considering boundaries, the lazy part of me just wants to keep the schools that are currently at Neuqua there. Why inflame the ire of the entire district...why not just inflame the ire of 2/3 of the district? The placement of the school in the far northwest really doesn't HAVE to affect the southeast, unless you are someone who isn't in the blue grid of 5A and wants to be in the blue grid this time. Yes, I think some tweaking to the southeast may be needed to off set the kids that were at Wheatland and are now at Petersen. But overall, the current blue grid in 5A works, with the section west of Rt 59 way south there still as a question mark and could go either way. They do need those bodies to fill Petersen.

Also, no split ES's makes someone's claim about Owen east going to Neuqua an impossibility. It also makes all of Steck and McCarty stay at WV and all of Welch stays at NV. This too makes me wonder if major overhauling will need to be done at the ES level to ensure no one is split from their peers there.

[jwh]

macy said:

bob said:

Fry keeps on insisting that they are walkers. I am just sayng you can't insist when the definition isn't actually known.

Someone asked me for proof about continuous sidewalks. I gave them proof along with an actually area just like Fry's bridge that is bused.

It looks like there is a some kind of rule about bike paths, walking bridges and continous sidewalks that we are missing.

All this talk about walkers doesn't really apply to the criteria the board set, does it?

I don't see anything about walkers in the criteria. I only see criteria minimizing transportation costs.

You are correct Macy. The whole "walker" issue is not a criteria the board said will even be considered. You can assume it will come into play, but people shouldn't bet on it.

[gatordog]

macy 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)

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

Gatordog,

According to my numbers your option 1 (and option 2 with all the splits) leave MVHS way short, WVHS too high and NVHS under...

With the numbers I'm using, at least 7 schools need to feed into MVHS.

What numbers are you using?

I'm using actual enrollment by subdivision (grid code)- elementary for kids in the district from grades K-12 in the system today.

What numbers are you using?

Macy, I was using full build out projections of 10,167 HS students (per last boundary plans). So it does sound like we were using diff numbers since you were using system today.

My estimates show the following HS enrollments:

Option 1:
MV=2816
WV=3072
NV=4280

Option 2:
MV=2759
WV=3128
NV=4280
note: this had a tweak in that Watts growth was directly moved to MV.

The above numbers led to my concl that HS enrollents balanced pretty well.

[confused]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

confused said:

Who's saying they want kids walking along rte 59? The bridge goes OVER 59, not adjacent to it. IMO, walking OVER a state route is much safer than crossing a busy road like 95th street at a crosswalk.

I'm talking about after they get off the bridge. They are then halfway between 103rd and Rt. 59 and they have to get to the school from that point. If there are to be sidewalks that go from the end of the bridge to the back of Neuqua, then I suppose that can be considered safe. But in my opinion, if they have to walk any sort of a short distance along the northbound route of Rt. 59 after they get off the bridge, then it is unsafe. I haven't seen the plans but I don't think the plans call for sidewalks to be connected to the school via some safe back route. It is for people to use Frontier park, bike trails etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know the bridge or Frontier Park that well. I admit walking over Rt. 59 will be much safer. It's after you get off the bridge that worries me.

Sleepless - a few posts prior to yours, concerned posted this:
"This bridge goes over route 59 and is connecting bike paths from Frontier Park and the Virgil Gilman Trail. This bridge is to provide a safer route over 59 then crossing it or walking along side it. Why would they spend millions on an unsafe project? "

The bridge starts and ends far from 59 - if I had to guess I'd say 100yds - and right into Fronteir Park - in the playing fields. Parents don't feel that it is unsafe for their kids to play sports at Fronteir Park because of Rte 59, so I don't think it would be a concern for walkers.

I'm not going to keep arguing the safety of it - it will be complete in 3-4 months and you can come walk along it & see for yourself.

[gatordog]

brad204 said:

What every numbers it takes to maintain the boundaries of an ES that does not exist anymore (Wheatland) and put a dividing line down 248 rather than 59. Cheap shot I know, but I could not resist

No sir, brad, I am using real numbers from SD during last boundary planning.

Many are coming to grasp that future growth in the Ashwood area makes it very difficult to assign this area to NV. Running the numbers, and having all this major growth area go to NV is very problematic. Here is the thing: how overcapacity are we willing to push NV? How fair is that to every student at NV? Would you rather have your kids attending a HS that is overcrowded but is a little easier drive for your family? Maybe you say "yes" to that, but how fair is that to the other 4000 students at that school?

Here is a philosophy of mine that applies to Peterson, and also Fry. Both these areas have local ES's. Both have local MS's. For 9 of the 13 years of your families 204 experience, you have nice geographically easy commutes. If the district can work it out so all 13 years your areas go to the very closest schools, that is great. However, if your areas have to travel a bit for 4 of those years, the district wide perspective clearly says, you have a fair deal.

Your problem is different from that of Owen, Watts, and Cowl. Think about the Owen west area that had the BB rug pulled out from them. All they have is a MS. Think about Watts and their possible far MS assignment at Hill followed by far possible HS assignement. I submit to my Peterson and Fry neighbors, you have to understand how good of a situation you are in regardless of which HS you are assigned to.

Geograhic proximity to schools for your area is taken care of, in that you are already guarenteed local ES and local MS. That is a outstanding neighborhood benefit. (Ask those who do not have it themselves). To get your areas into a local HS, has to be a secondary priority. Sorry about that. My absolute concern is that Fry and Peterson not be islands and have fair MS population. That I think is where our efforts should be directed concerning boundary problems in the SW.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

confused said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I'm talking about after they get off the bridge. They are then halfway between 103rd and Rt. 59 and they have to get to the school from that point. If there are to be sidewalks that go from the end of the bridge to the back of Neuqua, then I suppose that can be considered safe. But in my opinion, if they have to walk any sort of a short distance along the northbound route of Rt. 59 after they get off the bridge, then it is unsafe. I haven't seen the plans but I don't think the plans call for sidewalks to be connected to the school via some safe back route. It is for people to use Frontier park, bike trails etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know the bridge or Frontier Park that well. I admit walking over Rt. 59 will be much safer. It's after you get off the bridge that worries me.

Sleepless - a few posts prior to yours, concerned posted this:
"This bridge goes over route 59 and is connecting bike paths from Frontier Park and the Virgil Gilman Trail. This bridge is to provide a safer route over 59 then crossing it or walking along side it. Why would they spend millions on an unsafe project? "

The bridge starts and ends far from 59 - if I had to guess I'd say 100yds - and right into Fronteir Park - in the playing fields. Parents don't feel that it is unsafe for their kids to play sports at Fronteir Park because of Rte 59, so I don't think it would be a concern for walkers.

I'm not going to keep arguing the safety of it - it will be complete in 3-4 months and you can come walk along it & see for yourself.

Yes, I agree that it was constructed to have people get to the park via trails. My question is this....will trails and bike paths be construed as sidewalks by the district? I'm assuming they would be made of concrete. Also, do these trails also lead to NV? If the trails do not go from some point up to the school, then there are no contiguous sidewalks. Also, it says in the walker guidelines that the sidewalks must be able to be cleared so the students can walk on them. Who would be responsible for clearing them in the winter? Park district? School? Frontier Park? I am not very knowledgeable about this subject and I tried to find a schematic of drawings that might answer my question. No luck. So I put in an email to Peter Zibbler who I think is an engineer on the bridge project. I asked him if students would be able to walk from the bridge to the school on sidewalks all the way. He is out of town until Feb. 6th.

[confused]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

confused said:

Sleepless - a few posts prior to yours, concerned posted this:
"This bridge goes over route 59 and is connecting bike paths from Frontier Park and the Virgil Gilman Trail. This bridge is to provide a safer route over 59 then crossing it or walking along side it. Why would they spend millions on an unsafe project? "

The bridge starts and ends far from 59 - if I had to guess I'd say 100yds - and right into Fronteir Park - in the playing fields. Parents don't feel that it is unsafe for their kids to play sports at Fronteir Park because of Rte 59, so I don't think it would be a concern for walkers.

I'm not going to keep arguing the safety of it - it will be complete in 3-4 months and you can come walk along it & see for yourself.

Yes, I agree that it was constructed to have people get to the park via trails. My question is this....will trails and bike paths be construed as sidewalks by the district? I'm assuming they would be made of concrete. Also, do these trails also lead to NV? If the trails do not go from some point up to the school, then there are no contiguous sidewalks. Also, it says in the walker guidelines that the sidewalks must be able to be cleared so the students can walk on them. Who would be responsible for clearing them in the winter? Park district? School? Frontier Park? I am not very knowledgeable about this subject and I tried to find a schematic of drawings that might answer my question. No luck. So I put in an email to Peter Zibbler who I think is an engineer on the bridge project. I asked him if students would be able to walk from the bridge to the school on sidewalks all the way. He is out of town until Feb. 6th.

All good questions that I don't know the answers too. As far as clearing the sidewalks, in my neighborhood we are walking distance from our grade school only, and the sidewalks are not always clear. It's very hit or miss. Only the sidewalks on school property are clear. I'm not sure about the sidewalks along 95th. Does someone have responsibility for clearing those as well as those leading up to 95th? I'm not familiar with who has those types of responsibilities.

In the winter, walkers are more likely to get rides from their parents anyway. Even high schoolers can not just choose to drive on bad weather days because they would have to already have parking spots.

[gatordog]

I am thinking to myself, what would I be wanting if I were in Fry or Peterson (esp new growth area)? Well, I have looked at the capacity numbers. A lot. For my area to go to the closest HS....I have to move some other areas out.

I would ask: who? to where? Not MV. To WV I guess. Can it be done so that area is not an island? Can it be done so that area gets a fair MS assignent? I have tried and I dont see how. Anybody have plan who instead would move out of NV to make room from my SW area?

Instead I would turn and say, well what can we do? I would see White Eagle, Peterson (at least northern part), and Fry as one nice community that could move together to high school. I think I would turn my efforts to community building among these neighbors of mine. (I'd be very American about it....united we stand!). I would think, all of us, we can really make something great. I would think for my student, a HS that is 30 percent smaller may well be a better atmosphere, open doors for some opportunities, be a better fit for my student in terms of scale.

In the long run, I think I would look back and say having this part of the SD go to a HS that is while its a little farther away, was a really positive thing for my broad neighborhood.

OK, there, I tried to put myself in your shoes!

PS By the way, I heard there are some pretty cool families in the Gombert area that my kids may get the chance to go to school with

[WeBe204]

gatordog said:

brad204 said:

What every numbers it takes to maintain the boundaries of an ES that does not exist anymore (Wheatland) and put a dividing line down 248 rather than 59. Cheap shot I know, but I could not resist

No sir, brad, I am using real numbers from SD during last boundary planning.

Many are coming to grasp that future growth in the Ashwood area makes it very difficult to assign this area to NV. Running the numbers, and having all this major growth area go to NV is very problematic. Here is the thing: how overcapacity are we willing to push NV? How fair is that to every student at NV? Would you rather have your kids attending a HS that is overcrowded but is a little easier drive for your family? Maybe you say "yes" to that, but how fair is that to the other 4000 students at that school?

Here is a philosophy of mine that applies to Peterson, and also Fry. Both these areas have local ES's. Both have local MS's. For 9 of the 13 years of your families 204 experience, you have nice geographically easy commutes. If the district can work it out so all 13 years your areas go to the very closest schools, that is great. However, if your areas have to travel a bit for 4 of those years, the district wide perspective clearly says, you have a fair deal.

Your problem is different from that of Owen, Watts, and Cowl. Think about the Owen west area that had the BB rug pulled out from them. All they have is a MS. Think about Watts and their possible far MS assignment at Hill followed by far possible HS assignement. I submit to my Peterson and Fry neighbors, you have to understand how good of a situation you are in regardless of which HS you are assigned to.

Geograhic proximity to schools for your area is taken care of, in that you are already guarenteed local ES and local MS. That is a outstanding neighborhood benefit. (Ask those who do not have it themselves). To get your areas into a local HS, has to be a secondary priority. Sorry about that. My absolute concern is that Fry and Peterson not be islands and have fair MS population. That I think is where our efforts should be directed concerning boundary problems in the SW.

I agree on many of your points. Except framing my points around NV. Be it NV or WV, Peterson is pretty much going to move as a block. And yes I do not know much about calculating boundaries. But if I was a betting man I would bet the boundaries in this neck of the woods are either going to be north (like 95th) (and yes I see that as less then likely) or east like 59. Are there calculation to support it? I am sure some can be created

I never understood how it happened before (honestly look at those old-new 2009 boundaries), but now I get it. When the last set of boundaries were created Wheatland was still open. And these boundaries were probably created to help people get over it's closing. It's now gone. And so are those boundaries. With exception of small number of people across 59 I think it's safe to say we are one big family

[sleeplessinnpvl]

gatordog said:

Here is a philosophy of mine that applies to Peterson, and also Fry. Both these areas have local ES's. Both have local MS's. For 9 of the 13 years of your families 204 experience, you have nice geographically easy commutes. If the district can work it out so all 13 years your areas go to the very closest schools, that is great. However, if your areas have to travel a bit for 4 of those years, the district wide perspective clearly says, you have a fair deal.

Your problem is different from that of Owen, Watts, and Cowl. Think about the Owen west area that had the BB rug pulled out from them. All they have is a MS. Think about Watts and their possible far MS assignment at Hill followed by far possible HS assignement. I submit to my Peterson and Fry neighbors, you have to understand how good of a situation you are in regardless of which HS you are assigned to.

Geograhic proximity to schools for your area is taken care of, in that you are already guarenteed local ES and local MS. That is a outstanding neighborhood benefit. (Ask those who do not have it themselves). To get your areas into a local HS, has to be a secondary priority. Sorry about that. My absolute concern is that Fry and Peterson not be islands and have fair MS population. That I think is where our efforts should be directed concerning boundary problems in the SW.

You make a good point.

Regarding the following proposal:

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)


One of my proposals I was bouncing around was very similar to this one, although I couldn't crunch numbers because I don't know the Owen east/west counts.

In my opinion this is a good proposal. The scary thing is that when I look at the boundaries, I get a haunting recollection of Boundary 6 from the last go-around which was drawn up only to balance achievement and totally disregards distance. I admit, I loathed that plan two years ago. However, now it kind of makes sense. In looking at boundary option 6, you have switched Owen east from the old BB school to NV which brings the border so that the northwest corner is Rt. 59 and 75th which is nice and clean. And Owen west and Gombert go back to WV which further cleans up the border. The question I have is whether Owen and the area south of 103rd and east of 248th and west of Rt 59 can all fit into NV. Again, I don't have numbers once you start splitting ES's. You have to admit that WE, Fry and Petersen were slated to go to WV in this proposal. It seemed absurd given the location of BB. But now, it doesn't seem all that absurd.

[gatordog]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

you have switched Owen east from the old BB school to NV which brings the border so that the northwest corner is Rt. 59 and 75th which is nice and clean.

You remind me of one thing about Owen East going to NV. It is needed to help make Still a 50/50 MS.

So there is some more method to the madness

[WeBe204]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

The question I have is whether Owen and the area south of 103rd and east of 248th and west of Rt 59 can all fit into NV.

Yup, sleepless that was the only point I was trying to make.

[gatordog]

brad204 said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

The question I have is whether Owen and the area south of 103rd and east of 248th and west of Rt 59 can all fit into NV.

Yup, sleepless that was the only point I was trying to make.

I agree with this being an open question. This hinges around what are the real growth numbers? Does SB have a newer model to work with? We all know it has slowed...but what magnitude? for how long?

I certainly dont have these answers.