Redistricting Committee

Map adjustments

As a committee, I hope that we have the opportunity to go in address the concerns (is: adjust maps) that are being made by community members on Park Hill Listens.

More time for Elementary

I feel strongly that we need more time for the elementary scenarios. Our next meeting is when we open these scenarios to the public for feedback and based on the feedback I'm already hearing from those in the committee as well as from parents in our community, these scenarios are not ready. I proposed we either add an additional meeting this coming week if we want to keep the 11/14 public feedback meeting or we only put forth the middle and high school scenarios at that meeting while we continue to work on elementary. These scenarios still have a lot of balance issues, a lot of children changing schools, transportation/distance issues and I feel strongly that we are not ready to present elementary scenarios from what we currently have drawn.

Scenario A0606B seems to have kids in SE rather than Chinn

I don't remember that discrepancy. Both schools were close to 470. Please double check.

New data not there

The most recent updated data that was supposedly uploaded is not showing any of the numbers from the edits that were made on Monday. It is the data from the round before the edits.

I completely support Layla's suggestion of taking current district lines and adapting as a big group. Maybe we could add an optional mtg?

Using current district boundaries

Improving Scenarios

I love that we are focused on really balancing all the schools and I'm excited to see how we did on this last round of edits. That said, I'd like to propose that we be flexible depending on the results. If scores are still low across the board, I think we should consider an additional meeting and/or pushing back our recommendation date. I would not feel right recommending unbalanced scenarios. Perhaps we could have a larger group discussion to look at what is working and what's not, keeping islands if that helps our schools, etc... I'm also curious about the ages of the students in the areas. For example, we are looking at enrollment balance but elementary has a wide range of ages and we are planning based of elementary numbers that could have mostly 4th and 5th graders in a particular area vs. preschool through 2nd or 3rd... I would just hate for us to rush through this process to meet a deadline and risk not doing our due diligence. These are communities, families who will be affected. I understand the importance of knowing the boundaries in order to plan and I know these children will have an amazing education at any park hill school, but these changes will have an impact, one we can't easily undo. Let's make sure we take the time we need to balance as much of it as we can. Having spreads from 10% to 45% is just not going to be OK.... changing nearly the entire community make up of a school should not be ok.... Let's really understand these numbers, let's have more cross communication. As committee members, we do represent our areas. Not to bring bias, but to bring understanding of the dynamics being affected. Understanding "neighborhoods" vs. subdivisions, making sure a school doesn't lose its entire PTA.... I know that isn't part of the criteria and the criteria should 100% come first, but knowing some of those perspectives could help guide vs. blindly drawing lines. This process is hard, we will not meet everything 100%, we will not make everyone happy, but we can and should remember these are invested families and not just numbers... My two cents.

Enrollment Balance and Reconvening with Groups from 10/22

I wish we could meet again with the same groups from last week to improve the maps we started. Across the board, the enrollment balance on the maps is atrocious---and that is our #1 criteria. If we could continue our work with the formative data we now have from the scenario score sheets, I think all the scenarios would be a lot better. As is, I think we might trash some concepts that have promise because nothing looks great right now.

B07-12 split the National subdivision and has the north side passing one elementary school (Graden) to get to the proposed school (Pr.Point)

Scoring Subdivision Splits

I didn’t account for splits that can be fixed by map adjustments when I scored the scenarios. We are splitting so many neighborhoods that can be fixed with slight map adjustments. I think we can improve our scores on this one easily.

Some scenarios such as B07-05 and B07-07 has Union Chapel at 7% SES and Line Creek at 45%...That is WAY to wide of a SES gap between schools

Let us know Friday which Middle School maps scored highest

This applies to A and B maps, I am just posting it once. Early Friday, the District Staff will know which maps scored the highest, and which maps we will be working with on Monday. Please let us know Friday. No one will be able to actually start any maps by themselves, because we do not have the data or the subdivision blocks, but I personally would like to get my head around which maps we will be dealing with on Monday. Drawing elementary schools is going to be very challenging, especially considering some of the current map designs, and tripling the number of school boundaries. I think it would be helpful to look at the “winning” maps over the weekend and compare them to existing elementary school lines. Then on Monday, we will show up knowing which maps we are working with, and already have an understanding of how those middle school lines stack up with current elementary boundary lines. I think we can all fully expect, and understand, a willingness of our community to try to keep kids at their current elementary schools when feasible. Coming in on Monday with a slightly better grasp of the task ahead will save some time. Again, no one will be showing up with preconceived maps, because we don’t have the data or subdivision lines. All maps will be drawn as a table, in a collaborative process, as we have done all along. The extra time to take a look, in advance, will just be a time saver. If we are going to try to draw two maps on Monday night, we will need all the time we can get.

A6 Preference

Similar to Kelly, I feel that A6 is the best option of these. For the south half it has a virtually equal socio-economic balance between Lakeview/Walden. It also keeps a contiguous Lakeview – eliminating the students from the north-east area having to get bused over to Lakeview, where they would have little natural connection. I feel the committee should try and avoid having small ‘pockets’ of students that are getting bused to a different school, just to make the numbers work. For the North half, I feel pretty good with all the numbers – plus I-29/Hwy 9 is such a clean break. I like having the nearby neighborhood to plaza still attend there so more students can potentially walk to school.

New Scenario A Maps Ready for Committee Review

The redistricting committee did great work last Wednesday building combining features of the highest scoring A maps. Middle School Scenario A05 is the highest scoring map from those produced at the meeting on September 26. The remaining four maps in this stack (A06, A07, A08 and A09) are maps produced by the committee, or "super maps" suggested by committee members during the meeting. Please note, you can drill down dynamically on the each scenario (map) using the link provided in the header of this forum. Data for each map is provided as a PDF within the link in the header for this forum. Please add your observations for this set of scenarios within this forum and respond positively to comments that you like. The committee will begin scoring these items on Wednesday, October 17 at noon.

The new A maps are very promising

Based on the way we scored the previous maps I came up with a score of 29 on 4 maps, A5, A6, A7, A8.. I personally like A6 but they are all very similar to the others. Our table tried to balance the Congress/Plaza socio-economic a little closer but we were unable to improve it in a way that was reasonable based on proximity to the school. It appears none of the other options were able to do it either.

Map w/ current Elementary school lines

Can the district create a google map showing the current elementary school boundary lines? Similar to the maps showing the various middle school options. This would be very help when drawing elementary school boundary lines to see in detail the existing boundary lines.

Decide before scoring on Wednesday

We need to make a decision about scoring before Wednesday 1. We should only score the bottom half of the B maps. The top halves are all the same, so we should look closely at how the new maps balance things in the South between Walden and Lakeview. By scoring the whole map you dilute the significant differences between maps. Example: Map B09 has a whole map average socioeconomic spread of 5% and map B10 has a spread of 8%. Pretty close right? Not actually. If you only look at the south, because all maps are the same in the north, Map B09 only has a spread of 1% and B10 still has 8% spread. They aren’t that close anymore. 1% difference between the two middle schools that feed Parkhill South (NICE JOB B9!). If the point of scoring is to let the best maps rise to the top, let’s not dilute the differences by including numbers from the north in scoring. The north is set. Let’s get the best south map possible. 2. We need more stringent scoring ranges on socioeconomic balance. There is a significant difference between 1% and 10% socioeconomic balance and its not fair to treat them the same. Even with the .5% discretion it’s still too broad. Also, any socioeconomic spread over 15% deserves no points. We can do better than that. Let’s do 1-5% 3 pts, 6-10 2 pts, 11-15 1pt Please like this post, or comment if you don’t, but at least go on the record for where you stand. If we wait until the next time we are all together it will be too late.

New Scenario B Maps Ready for Committee Review

The redistricting committee did great work last Wednesday perfecting our Scenario B maps. Middle School Scenario B02 is the highest scoring B map from those produced at the meeting on September 26. The remaining six maps in this stack (B06, B07, B08, B09, B10 and B11) are maps produced by the committee during the meeting last week. Please note, you can drill down dynamically on the each scenario (map) using the link within the header of this forum. Data for each map is provided as a PDF within the link in the header for this forum. Please add your observations for this set of scenarios within this forum and respond positively to comments that you agree with. The committee will begin scoring these items on Wednesday, October 17 at noon.

B11 splits the National Neighborhood. Although there is a north and south side, the community is technically one subdivision.

Potential Clean Feeder Problems

B7, B9, B10 pose potential feeder problems for Elementary Schools in the West. All three scenario don't have an elementary in the logistical area for these kids to attend without large travel. Highway 45 seems to be a dividing line, of which Union Chapel and Graden both exist on the north side of that line. we know 11/4 isn't exact math, so perhaps the west is ripe for not having clean feeder paths?

B7-B9 Walkability

I like how B7 & B9 keep those students within walking distance of Lakeview going there. Even though all the options have an average travel distance less than 2.0 miles, I’ll probably downgrade the others by the half point to account for that difference.

Allow opportunity to provide input during the drawing phase for both scenarios.

While I realize it would have taken more time, I would have liked the opportunity to help draw middle school district lines on both high school maps. Maps will now be going forward for further consideration that only had half of the committee’s input on middle school lines. While I will be able to provide commments on the other maps, it’s not the same as working on the collaborative drawing process.

Have group feedback/discussion of boundary lines rather than just voting/scoring of different options.

When discussing various options, I would like to have interaction/dialogue from the overall group of 40, rather than just picking an option that a group of 4 developed. Particularly for the high school line, since most everything is going to be based on that line, This also allows for those committee members that know an affected area better (whether due to living there or principal at that school), to provide their knowledge of that area to the overall group. Hopefully the planned online dialogue time (next week), will allow for some of that relative to the middle school line options.

Boundary Drawing Support

It seems like the district administration should provide more than maps with numbers of students in small boxes when the committee members are asked to draw boundaries. On both occasions, high school and middle school, committee members were only able to consider a few of the criteria when drawing lines and it was all “eye balling” and “estimating”. I can’t imagine that we don’t have access to software that could help us incorporate more criteria and be more accurate. I did a quick google search last night for “school district mapping software” and tons of things popped up. Park Hill must be using something already and I imagine the demographer could help during the committee’s drawing process too.

Give the option for table groups to complete 1 data sheet, and allow time for discussion prior to completing the data.

Using more than just enrollment balance for middle school boundary scenarios.

While I know that enrollment balance is the highest priority and it would have been a lot of information to weed through, it would have been beneficial to use other measures such as socio economic for the middle school scenarios. It might eliminate some boundary options upfront rather than waiting until after results come back.

Public can observe process

I'm grateful the Redistricting meetings are open for public observation. I appreciate the sign-in sheet and opportunity for the public to submit questions or insights using index cards or conversations with Committee members during the break. The timely e-updates after each meeting are helpful, too. Thank you!

Park Hill

I have gained a new understanding of and even deeper appreciation for our school district through this process. The thoughtful comparison of Park Hill (a collection of municipalities) to more traditional suburban districts which include a single town (like Lee Summit), has been really informative. I didn’t realize that over 60% of our district is made of students living in Kansas City and the remaining number coming from small municipalities before hearing this information from Park Hill administrators. We need to make sure that all are benefitting from being part of one of the 25 biggest districts in the state—more resources and opportunities for all.

Committee

The committee seems to represent many parts of our community and is very committed to the process. Looking around the room everyone seems highly engaged. Attendance has been excellent—I know last night was lower because of high school conferences.

Engaging the Community

A couple of weeks ago, the committee members assigned to my table were given the opportunity to hold a “Q&A session” at the Southeast elementary school PTA meeting. Several parents and teachers were present for the meeting, as well as Principal Deayon. This allowed us to engage everyone in attendance and get buy-in from the community. This was all done at the encouragement of the board and the administration.

Criteria

During the first meeting, I found the explanation of the value and weighting of the 5 redistricting criteria very informative. The explanation has helped me articulate why they were chosen and weighted when talking to people who are interested in the process, but not attending meetings. I’m proud to be a part of a community that values the five criteria and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of our school board for carefully designing the criteria and providing clear measures to evaluate successful application.