|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 15:00:00 GMT -5
Don't you think that cost is only one part of the criteria that should be used to define boundaries? Yes, agreed, it is only 1 part. It's a quantifiable part too that is not open to interpretation. Numbers compare as either greater than, less than or equal to. Opinion doesn't factor in at all. I do agree that I would have preferred that they did a much more thorough job thru all 3 levels. I loved GD's senarios and yours too arch was good.....
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 15:14:25 GMT -5
Don't you think that cost is only one part of the criteria that should be used to define boundaries? Yes, agreed, it is only 1 part. It's a quantifiable part too that is not open to interpretation. Numbers compare as either greater than, less than or equal to. Opinion doesn't factor in at all. Agreed - and this aspect is probably one of the easier to manage when defining boundaries. It's the less-tangible, more subjective criteria that are subject to debate and disagreement on what options are/should be selected.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 15:48:40 GMT -5
Yes, agreed, it is only 1 part. It's a quantifiable part too that is not open to interpretation. Numbers compare as either greater than, less than or equal to. Opinion doesn't factor in at all. Agreed - and this aspect is probably one of the easier to manage when defining boundaries. It's the less-tangible, more subjective criteria that are subject to debate and disagreement on what options are/should be selected. And as such, they tend to come back around to something everyone can hang their hat on without opinion getting in the way. This is why when we submitted a proposal we took opinion out of it and brought the gap to 3.9 and the fact that no area went to the 'most distant' HS. Every area could hang their hat on it and say Yup, that's true without any exceptions. Based on that, the MS and ES would need to be worked out and it would not be out of the question if it was.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 16, 2008 16:00:37 GMT -5
Yes, agreed, it is only 1 part. It's a quantifiable part too that is not open to interpretation. Numbers compare as either greater than, less than or equal to. Opinion doesn't factor in at all. Agreed - and this aspect is probably one of the easier to manage when defining boundaries. It's the less-tangible, more subjective criteria that are subject to debate and disagreement on what options are/should be selected. Lets be completely clear here: optimizing on distance traveled to HS will create lots of splits. More split MS's and more split ES's. Furthermore, this would lead to having unnatural attendance lines drawn through neighborhoods. I grudingly give the SB's final plan high marks in this regard....it avoided splitting neighborhoods. (This was certainly done with the unfortunate Gombert and Owen splits. I cant comment so much on the Peterson split...) For example, optimizing on mileage only (or primarily) may well lead to lines drawn through Steck, Mccarty, Cowlishaw (main), Watts (main), Welch and Fry attendance areas. Do these neighborhoods want that? Does the rest of the district want to impose that on these neighborhoods? All for gaining some small quantifiable mileage-gains on some numeric spreadsheet? The SB's vote, to me, clearly said we are NOT going to boundary draw lines in this way.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 16, 2008 16:07:38 GMT -5
This is why when we submitted a proposal we took opinion out of it and brought the gap to 3.9 and the fact that no area went to the 'most distant' HS. Every area could hang their hat on it and say Yup, that's true without any exceptions. Based on that, the MS and ES would need to be worked out and it would not be out of the question if it was. What would the MS boundaries have looked like? Did you submit this plan without MS attendance areas worked out? Without those shown....I think it would be impossible for the SB to judge how well this plan met the established criteria.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 16:08:20 GMT -5
Agreed - and this aspect is probably one of the easier to manage when defining boundaries. It's the less-tangible, more subjective criteria that are subject to debate and disagreement on what options are/should be selected. Lets be completely clear here: optimizing on distance traveled to HS will create lots of splits. More split MS's and more split ES's. Furthermore, this would lead to having unnatural attendance lines drawn through neighborhoods. I grudingly give the SB's final plan high marks in this regard....it avoided splitting neighborhoods. (This was certainly done with the unfortunate Gombert and Owen splits. I cant comment so much on the Peterson split...) For example, optimizing on mileage only (or primarily) may well lead to lines drawn through Steck, Mccarty, Cowlishaw (main), Watts (main), Welch and Fry attendance areas. Do these neighborhoods want that? Does the rest of the district want to impose that on these neighborhoods? All for gaining some small quantifiable mileage-gains on some numeric spreadsheet? The SB's vote, to me, clearly said we are NOT going to boundary draw lines in this way. Unnatural lines through neighborhoods ? You mean like having Lehigh Station be poart of Watts, and then with this new plan to minimize that - adding another area at Rt 59 and North Aurora Ave. ? Watts now has 3 satellites, not sure why that is OK after their last plan that was to address being contiguous. What was once seemingly one large area - Owen East and Watts - that went to school together from ES thru HS - had similar lines drawn though it -
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 16:12:04 GMT -5
Agreed - and this aspect is probably one of the easier to manage when defining boundaries. It's the less-tangible, more subjective criteria that are subject to debate and disagreement on what options are/should be selected. Lets be completely clear here: optimizing on distance traveled to HS will create lots of splits. More split MS's and more split ES's. Furthermore, this would lead to having unnatural attendance lines drawn through neighborhoods. I grudingly give the SB's final plan high marks in this regard....it avoided splitting neighborhoods. (This was certainly done with the unfortunate Gombert and Owen splits. I cant comment so much on the Peterson split...) For example, optimizing on mileage only (or primarily) may well lead to lines drawn through Steck, Mccarty, Cowlishaw (main), Watts (main), Welch and Fry attendance areas. Do these neighborhoods want that? Does the rest of the district want to impose that on these neighborhoods? All for gaining some small quantifiable mileage-gains on some numeric spreadsheet? The SB's vote, to me, clearly said we are NOT going to boundary draw lines in this way. If whole schools can be shifted, there is no need to 'split neighborhoods' if the resulting total route/miles end up being less.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 16:15:17 GMT -5
This is why when we submitted a proposal we took opinion out of it and brought the gap to 3.9 and the fact that no area went to the 'most distant' HS. Every area could hang their hat on it and say Yup, that's true without any exceptions. Based on that, the MS and ES would need to be worked out and it would not be out of the question if it was. What would the MS boundaries have looked like? Did you submit this plan without MS attendance areas worked out? Without those shown....I think it would be impossible for the SB to judge how well this plan met the established criteria. There was no need and there is still plenty of time. They don't come into play until Fall of 2009, Spring for registration at the earliest.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 16:22:35 GMT -5
Lets be completely clear here: optimizing on distance traveled to HS will create lots of splits. More split MS's and more split ES's. Furthermore, this would lead to having unnatural attendance lines drawn through neighborhoods. I grudingly give the SB's final plan high marks in this regard....it avoided splitting neighborhoods. (This was certainly done with the unfortunate Gombert and Owen splits. I cant comment so much on the Peterson split...) For example, optimizing on mileage only (or primarily) may well lead to lines drawn through Steck, Mccarty, Cowlishaw (main), Watts (main), Welch and Fry attendance areas. Do these neighborhoods want that? Does the rest of the district want to impose that on these neighborhoods? All for gaining some small quantifiable mileage-gains on some numeric spreadsheet? The SB's vote, to me, clearly said we are NOT going to boundary draw lines in this way. If whole schools can be shifted, there is no need to 'split neighborhoods' if the resulting total route/miles end up being less. That's a pretty big IF, and, again, this does not take into account all criteria, only some.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 16:24:03 GMT -5
Lets be completely clear here: optimizing on distance traveled to HS will create lots of splits. More split MS's and more split ES's. Furthermore, this would lead to having unnatural attendance lines drawn through neighborhoods. I grudingly give the SB's final plan high marks in this regard....it avoided splitting neighborhoods. (This was certainly done with the unfortunate Gombert and Owen splits. I cant comment so much on the Peterson split...) For example, optimizing on mileage only (or primarily) may well lead to lines drawn through Steck, Mccarty, Cowlishaw (main), Watts (main), Welch and Fry attendance areas. Do these neighborhoods want that? Does the rest of the district want to impose that on these neighborhoods? All for gaining some small quantifiable mileage-gains on some numeric spreadsheet? The SB's vote, to me, clearly said we are NOT going to boundary draw lines in this way. Unnatural lines through neighborhoods ? You mean like having Lehigh Station be poart of Watts, and then with this new plan to minimize that - adding another area at Rt 59 and North Aurora Ave. ? Watts now has 3 satellites, not sure why that is OK after their last plan that was to address being contiguous. What was once seemingly one large area - Owen East and Watts - that went to school together from ES thru HS - had similar lines drawn though it - Lehigh, is an island no matter where they are assigned - they are surrounded by commercial, bussiness, and offices.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 16:25:33 GMT -5
What would the MS boundaries have looked like? Did you submit this plan without MS attendance areas worked out? Without those shown....I think it would be impossible for the SB to judge how well this plan met the established criteria. There was no need and there is still plenty of time. They don't come into play until Fall of 2009, Spring for registration at the earliest. If you are proposing a (fairly significant) re-do of the boundaries for 09, I'm not sure how much much support you are going to get.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 16:27:02 GMT -5
There was no need and there is still plenty of time. They don't come into play until Fall of 2009, Spring for registration at the earliest. If you are proposing a (fairly significant) re-do of the boundaries for 09, I'm not sure how much much support you are going to get. Agreed, no one knows at this point.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 16:32:10 GMT -5
If you are proposing a (fairly significant) re-do of the boundaries for 09, I'm not sure how much much support you are going to get. Agreed, no one knows at this point. I'd venture a guess that it'd be very small. Boundaries are about as hot a spot that you can get - and reopening that can of worms seems like a really bad idea, even if someone provided a full boundary plan that was "better". Why would the SB want to do this?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 16:33:16 GMT -5
Agreed, no one knows at this point. I'd venture a guess that it'd be very small. Boundaries are about as hot a spot that you can get - and reopening that can of worms seems like a really bad idea, even if someone provided a full boundary plan that was "better". Why would the SB want to do this? M O N E Y I'd guess the economy will be worse come spring of 09 than 'better'.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 16:52:06 GMT -5
I'd venture a guess that it'd be very small. Boundaries are about as hot a spot that you can get - and reopening that can of worms seems like a really bad idea, even if someone provided a full boundary plan that was "better". Why would the SB want to do this? I am with you WP. Our district behaves so well during boundary changes, I imagine a 3rd time would be just as good. Me personally, I will fight tooth and nail any change in boundaries. I don't give a d**n where my child goes to high school but do not change it after this next school year starts. MV, NV, WV, MV, WV. Sorry, not going down that road again.
|
|