|
Post by gatordog on Oct 30, 2008 12:52:28 GMT -5
Here is a possible compromise with moving sophomores during the 2009-10 school year when MV opens.
Goal: Avoid asking a current HS student to move from an existing HS to another existing HS.
Comment: This was NOT done when NV was opened. Obviously all current HS students who moved as sophomores were moving to a new school. And they were all moving together from the same school (WV), to a new school (NV). I think this promotes good group dynamics and cohesiveness. Therefore, to follow previous district precedent: yes, move sophs to startup the new school. But don’t move a HS student into an existing HS school, there is no precedent for that. What needs to be done: Keep Class of 2012 who started at NV at NV.
Assume: There is space for them. NV Blue planned to be at 3950 NV tot – 1000 NV Gold = 2950 NV Blue. Call it 2900. If Fry/WE sophs stay, its at 3150. (Lets assume currently there are >3500 at NV Blue today)
Problem at WV, Class Size oscillation: What happens at WV if these 250 students Class of 2012 from NV are not backfilling in to replace all the sophs leaving WV for MV opening? We looked at this before….. the graduating class sizes would be “weird” at WV, oscillating from ~950 for the Class of ’10 and ’11, dipping down to 450-500 for ’12, and then back up to ~700 for ’13 and beyond. I can see this being an administrative/staffing/course scheduling complication. This assumes all MV area sophs move out of WV as planned.
Solution at WV: Keep the (current) Still area sophs slated to move to MV at WV. These are the Owen West and Gombert East students. These are about 90 students. Call it 100. Then the WV Class of ’12 is more like 550-600, more in line with the Class of ’13 and beyond.
Impact at MV?: I think its negligible. Yes, its vital to start up MV with sophs. (that has been discussed) But I think MV would still have enough sophs for “critical mass”. I cannot see the the 100 or less Class of ’12 students who don’t move to MV will prevent that. Instead of 1350 students at MV for 2009-10, MV would have 1250. That seems to me to be a neglibile effect on MV startup. A handful of staff (~4 teachers for 100 kids?) would delay moving from say WV to MV for one year, but i cannot see that as being a big deal at all.
This plan better satisfies the boundary criteria: I think this is an important point. In fact, I think this makes this proposal very viable and justifiable. A key boundary criteria was to minimize splits, especially MS splits. This plan would in effect keep last years Scullen and Still 8th graders from being in a retroactively split MS. Yes, in the future of course Still and Scullen will be the two split MS’s. But this plan would delay that split one year. I argue that delaying the split just this one year is indeed minimizing splits. Thus better satisfying the criteria. One could say there is more fairness to it since its not a split that the students learned about in the last semester of their final year as MS students (Feb 2008). (Note, Granger would still be a retroactively split MS with Steck area at WV. I argue that enrollment balance and geography criteria applies for them).
Furthemore, if minimizing splits is a boundary criteria, this should also apply to splitting a student from their current HS. Sure its only a one time occurance...but it is after all, the "mother of all splits." If enrollment & capacity balance allows it, and it doesnt delay opening of Fischer MS, and it has no detrimental effect on MV startup, I think the boundary criteria says splits--even HS splits---should be avoided.
Rules would be straight forward: 1. New HS boundaries strictly apply for Class of 2013. 2. New HS boundaries for the current Scullen attendance areas do not apply for the Class of 2012. They stay at NV. (maybe this effects some of Crone from Ashwood park? I dont know) 3. New HS boundaries for the current Still attendance areas do not apply for the Class of 2012. They stay at WV. 4. New HS boundaries apply for the rest of the Class of 2012. They pioneer the opening of our new HS!
|
|
|
Post by impartial on Oct 30, 2008 13:33:51 GMT -5
Well thought out plan GD. Have you communicated these ideas to the SB?
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Oct 30, 2008 13:49:39 GMT -5
Gatordog, Seems like a pretty good idea, would that also help the "bubble of kids" at wvhs with the closing of the freshman center. Seems to me nvhs would have a few extra kids but with the freshman center and frontier still in commission, these students would not stress the system.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 30, 2008 15:19:34 GMT -5
A very well thought out and detailed plan. I can see this as an adminstrative scheduling nightmare, as you pointed out, but it would seem a temporary one. I guess if administration is willing to have our kids in a temporary crowding situation because of the conversion of WVGold campus next year, they should be willing to have staff put up with some temporary inconveniences as well. Definitely something to think about. Perhaps if this were sumbitted, it has enough merit to be considered, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Oct 30, 2008 16:25:52 GMT -5
I agree. It seems like NV is the school with "nothing to lose" in 2009. Those staying at NV benefit by having a smaller class right away. All the other affected areas have to deal with either moving to a different school or staying at WV and not only losing the gold campus, but also having a slightly crowded main campus. It seems like a small sacrifice to make and it would benefit WV in terms of crowding and allow the current 2012 class that doesn't benefit from opening a new school to at least be a one-time exception.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 30, 2008 17:06:42 GMT -5
... I can see this as an adminstrative scheduling nightmare, as you pointed out, but it would seem a temporary one. Let me think a bit on the school admin side. For me, I would say its a "complexity", but you may be right.... the staff charged with pulling it off might call it a "nightmare." All kidding aside, I wouldnt want something to adversely affect the delivery of a quality HS education to our students. (Ultimately that is what we as a district care about.) The weakness of the above plan may well be in the oscillations and changes in class sizes. And how to handle it and still deliver the best possible education. Using current enrollments, and numbers given for who's moving not moving etc....I come up with the following. Note, i show in red the Class of 2012 if you keep some sophs at the current school as brainstormed here. In black, it shows the current plan. WV Class of '10 = 940 Class of '11 = 953 Class of '12 = ~500 or ~650. Class of "13 = 650 NV Class of '10 = 1145 Class of '11 = 1192 Class of '12 = 1243 or ~1000 Class of "13 = 900 Quick background: '10 and '11 easy from current enrollment. For Class of '13 at each school, I just divided published 2011-12 school enrollments by four. The Class of '12 split is my figuring or understanding from Jim Schimdt's "who moves" numbers, an approximation. I think one could make the argument that the above plan (keeping some sophs at their current HS) negatively impacts the boundary criteria of enrollment/population balance. At NV, it would have a one yr 30% drop in NV class size, as opposed to steady ramping down. At WV, it would have a 50% drop in class size, followed by a 30% increase in class size. That is what I previously called "weird". But school staffing administrators may well have another description. I think we could all agree that the proposed plan, then, does not have nearly the balance during transition that the current plan does. Since i have thrown that word "weird" out....I also comment that it would be kind of weird to have two HS's, and for a school year one graduates about 500 students and the other over 1200. I dont there is necessarily anything bad to that, just weird I say. But there may be something I dont understand about running schools that makes this more than just "weird", I dont know. (it is of course only a one-time occurance) Bottom line, one could argue that the current in-force plan best satisfies the boundary criteria, because it better addresses enrollment balancing. I have not yet decided what I personally feel is "best" option. I dont know. That's what discussions and sharing ideas can help with! I dont think its clear cut though, its how much you weigh one criteria vs. another. Always the trick when making decsions with multiple critera. Which boundary criteria gets favored during the transition.... balancing enrollment or avoiding splits??
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 30, 2008 17:40:22 GMT -5
GD, I think that removing ~100 sophomores from MV should not be trivialized, as that would be removing about %17. That sophomore class will initially have a lot stacked against it, and I think they'll need every one of those students to help jump start the musical groups, athletic teams, and clubs. Having only 500 in the oldest class will make it that much harder to have successful music & sports groups even in a year or two.
And, in addition to the added administrative complexity (and the class-level fluctuations), doesn't this plan introduce additional double-busing?
Lastly, as simple as it seems to say "here are the rules for 09, and that's it", I don't see any reason to believe that more "hardship" stories, like the one discussed at the last SB meeting, wouldn't surface again next year (i.e. the can-of-worms syndrome).
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 30, 2008 17:58:27 GMT -5
.... Using current enrollments, and numbers given for who's moving not moving etc....I come up with the following. Note, i show in red the Class of 2012 if you keep some sophs at the current school as brainstormed here. In black, it shows the current plan. WV Class of '10 = 940 Class of '11 = 953 Class of '12 = ~500 or ~650. Class of "13 = 650 NV Class of '10 = 1145 Class of '11 = 1192 Class of '12 = 1243 or ~1000 Class of "13 = 900 .... further brainstorming, the red number above could be addressed/tweaked by keeping more sophs at WV. Lets broaden those staying to Cowl and Watts. I will keep them together....since I have no idea how to pick one over the other. I estimate that there are 200 students total in the Class of 2012 from these two ES's. New estimate for Class of 2012 at WV shown in purple WV Class of '10 = 940 Class of '11 = 953 Class of '12 = ~700 or ~650. Class of "13 = 650 Is there a "critical mass" of sophomores start-up cost or effect at MV? I dont know. Now, we'd be sending not ~650 sophs to startup MV but approx 650 - 100 (Ow W, Gom E) - 200 (Cowl, Watts) = 350 for MV Class of 2012. Then MV Class of '13 follows on with ~675. Its an idea. But it really just shifts the transition class size oscillation of not very balanced enrollment problem from WV to MV. Also, this would retroactively split Hill MS for last year's 8th gr class, for one time, that is probably not a real big deal. I guess I would say the "weird" factor would be back....in that one of our HS's would graduate a class of 350-400. This does complicate my "simple rules" from my original post...but no body said this would be simple. Hasnt been so far! I think this is a feasible tweak. But I think it doesnt solve the enrollment balance issue, it just shifts the problem. Again.....tradeoffs with any and all choices.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 30, 2008 18:09:24 GMT -5
GD, I think that removing ~100 sophomores from MV should not be trivialized, as that would be removing about %17. That sophomore class will initially have a lot stacked against it, and I think they'll need every one of those students to help jump start the musical groups, athletic teams, and clubs. Having only 500 in the oldest class will make it that much harder to have successful music & sports groups even in a year or two. ...... You are right, I am absolutely not trivializing removing sophs from MV. It is complex. So then....with the next post, I contemplate removing even more I understand that you are advocating to strongly favor the enrollment balance, even at the expense of the split minimizing criteria. I suspect school administrators would side with you, as well. But one could take the position, I think, that split minimizing should be favored at some cost to the enrollment balance. Even to be applied during transition time. And yes, there would be a cost to stretch the admin. But there is a cost to impose the splits as well (a cost to students, that I am brainstorming about) I am just trying to frame the conversation. I think both sides are valid. Not easy choice.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 31, 2008 11:59:49 GMT -5
Assume: There is space for them. Keep in mind....all this starts with an assumption, that NV Blue has room. Lets explore this assumption a bit. Use NV Blue available capacity as 3223, per construction grant application. (The adjusted available capacity on this form, 0.8 factor for "optimal' use, makes it 3007....but I will use the higher capacity) For 2008-9, per released enrollments, there are 3433 at NV Blue, 107% of avail capacity. (This has to be the most ever in this building.) To keep sophs at NV for 2009-10, we would have NV Blue at 3581, 111% of capacity. You would perhaps be counting, depending on, Frontier opening up some space. (not sure if seniors going to COD effectively opens up the "right kind" of space to educate the sophomores, or even juniors). This seems to be the crux of the issue. Is it the case that capacity would (severely? mildly?) effect NV Blue course options, class sizes, educational opportunity? Are the 250 sophs class of '12 staying at NV, "make-or-break'? I dont know the answer to that. However, the admin and SB needs to reach out and tell those students at NV Gold right now, slated to come to WV, if that is in fact the case. (Current plan surely implies that it is!). And if it is the case, some explanation why. I believe an answer should be more detailed than merely stating "there is no room."
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 31, 2008 12:29:09 GMT -5
Summary of options for Class of 2012, and its impact on the 2009-10 school year at the HSs. CURRENT PLAN: move all sophomores Class of '10 '11 '12 '13 '14+ | NV 1145 1192 ~1000 900 900 | WV 953 940 ~650 650 650 | MV 0 0 ~650 675 675 |
|
Impact to Class of 2012 (only change) if various sophs do not change HS. Sub these numbers in above table to see the class size profiles. Dont move Scull/Still Scl/Stl/Cwl/Wat all sophs stay | NV 1243 1243 1243 | WV ~500 ~700 1099 | MV ~550 ~350 0 |
|
Clearly, there is a spectrum here. If you heavily favor the enrollment balance boundary critieria, you chose the top plan. If you heavily favor the minimize split boundary criteria-and wish to apply it one-time to the class of '12, you chose the very bottom plan (but the last plan is impractical in terms of getting MV started off efficiently, getting varsity team sports ASAP, etc). The plan with Scullen and Still sophs staying might be a plausible compromise along this spectrum. However, there may be something we dont know or understand about capacity and/or need for enrollement balancing that merits the SD sticking with the current plan. Further explaination from administrators and officials is what's needed at this point, I believe. EDIT-one thing I learned from this exercise: the current plan, moving all affected sophomores, certainly provides a very smooth transition in class size changes. This certainly has to be a very good thing for "letting the educators educate" instead of juggling administrative complexity. Also, to the taxpayer, it surely looks like an efficient use of resources--we are not overstressing some resources, while underutilizing others.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Oct 31, 2008 12:39:09 GMT -5
Summary of options for Class of 2012, and its impact on the 2009-10 school year at the HSs. CURRENT PLAN: move all sophomores Class of '10 '11 '12 '13 '14+ | NV 1145 1192 ~1000 900 900 | WV 953 940 ~650 650 650 | MV 0 0 ~650 675 675 |
|
Impact to Class of 2012 (only change) if various sophs do not change HS. Sub these numbers in above table to see the class size profiles. Dont move Scull/Still Scl/Stl/Cwl/Wat all sophs stay | NV 1243 1243 1243 | WV ~500 ~700 1099 | MV ~550 ~350 0 |
|
Clearly, there is a spectrum here. If you heavily favor the enrollment balance boundary critieria, you chose the top plan. If you heavily favor the minimize split boundary criteria-and wish to apply it one-time to the class of '12, you chose the very bottom plan (but the last plan is impractical in terms of getting MV started off efficiently, getting varsity team sports ASAP, etc). The plan with Scullen and Still sophs staying might be a plausible compromise along this spectrum. However, there may be something we dont know or understand about capacity and/or need for enrollement balancing that merits the SD sticking with the current plan. Further explaination from administrators and officials is what's needed at this point, I believe. EDIT-one thing I learned from this exercise: the current plan, moving all affected sophomores, certainly provides a very smooth transition in class size changes. This certainly has to be a very good thing for "letting the educators educate" instead of juggling administrative complexity. Also, to the taxpayer, it surely looks like an efficient use of resources--we are not overstressing some resources, while underutilizing others. You can't just look at the enrollment numbers - there are other factors. For example, I still think that any plan that varies from the current plan will add some amount of double bussing on top of already what is planned - there's a cost for that, too.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Nov 1, 2008 9:37:04 GMT -5
Gatordog,
We can second guess this situation all we want. There is another concern that has not been discussed. There are folks in the district that voted on a third high school to combat overcrowding. This overcrowding has been felt most acutely at nvhs and it's feeder middle schools. Some voters may question the suggestion of keeping some students at nvhs and thus not fixing the problem for another two years. We already have voters questioning the third high school fiasco, do we want voters questioning yet another issue.
I assure you the last voters we want questioning the third high school and overpopulation issues will be voters east of 59 and south of 83rd street. It will be these very same voters that will be needed in mass to vote yes for any upcoming operations referendum imo.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Nov 1, 2008 12:13:06 GMT -5
Gatordog, We can second guess this situation all we want. There is another concern that has not been discussed. There are folks in the district that voted on a third high school to combat overcrowding. This overcrowding has been felt most acutely at nvhs and it's feeder middle schools. Some voters may question the suggestion of keeping some students at nvhs and thus not fixing the problem for another two years. We already have voters questioning the third high school fiasco, do we want voters questioning yet another issue. I assure you the last voters we want questioning the third high school and overpopulation issues will be voters east of 59 and south of 83rd street. It will be these very same voters that will be needed in mass to vote yes for any upcoming operations referendum imo. I am exaggerating here to make an example, and I am not meaning to put words in you mouth, SSSM.... but I do not think its right to tell 250 NV Gold students to switch to WV as sophs "to not make voters angry" or "to improve the odds of passing a future operating ref". Those are political reasons. But surely, we must have a better reasons to tell these students and their families than political ones! IIMHO the best, really only, reason to require them to move is because it allows the district as a whole to meet its boundary criteria. Does it? Or does it not? I suspect the core reasons may come down to NV Blue space and balancing student populations during the MV startup years. But that is a question adminstrators really have to answer. And I think they should. The Sun article a week ago, with the swim team mom questioning CB, had CB thinking out loud how its not ideal. And JC saying it is opening a can of worms. I think things can be explained betterthan that! I think its reasonable for the Class of 2012 leaving NV Gold to be clearly given the reasons. I think we as a district will be better off when that happens. And if it cannot be reasonably explained....well, things should be rethought until they can be!
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Nov 1, 2008 12:41:47 GMT -5
Gatordog,
Just to be clear, I am with you with regard to nvhs sophomores staying at nvhs. This would be based on the adm. coming back with no major unforeseen difficulties. Difficulties that myself (being a signmaker) or others may not be aware of. As far as political issues that should never stand in the way of discussing the reasons to the families involved.
I do feel though that there are others that are going to deal with "much change" in their life with regard to mvhs being as far north as it is. As you may be aware DR. Who and I have sparred long and hard about distances and taking 1 for the 204 team. I will tell you this: The commute that some will have in his neighborhood at 7+ miles is less than desired. His neighborhood is not the only one affected as I took a closer look and noticed the area around Montgomery rd and just west of 59 will also be going to mvhs.
At first I thought he was just a crab ankle, but when I was on my weekly rounds I did the trek myself just before rush hour.. Almost 30 minutes and 7.1 miles and a tough commute at best, this may not seem bad for those in the far north reaches of our district, but keep in mind that the bb location (a location that many of us felt was a done deal) was much more centralized.
Gatordog , I am not one for dredging up the old days but remember that a fix for a portion of the district would be great, but there will be others that have no quick fix. Those folks will have to deal with inevitable inconveniences, inconveniences that they did not vote on,imo.
|
|