Redistricting Committee

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.

Support Staff

Kudos to the staff who has been responsible for setting up and cleaning up the work area for the committee members. Thank you for taking the time to ensure all of our needs met. We appreciate 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.

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!

Quality of Members

At first, I was skeptical. I thought the majority of the committee members would have their own personal agenda; however; I was proven wrong. I think the committee was chosen accordingly and works very well together. I feel everyone has come together with the purpose of doing what’s best for the district and not just for themselves and/or their schools.

Scenario Evaluation Process

The way the high school scenarios were evaluated didn’t seem to be a valid process. I’m not sure it mattered for high school because the scenarios were either quite similar or pretty unworkable---not much in the middle. I don’t think the committee added any value when evaluating the scenarios. We were given a scoring guide that only allowed for a tiny bit of scoring variation between and among committee members. Then district officials picked the first and fourth highest scored scenarios to present to the community. It was explained that the scenarios in second and third place were too similar to the highest scored scenario and would not give the community a contrasting option. Also, “Maintaining Subdivisions” was used in the final evaluation formula and weighted times 2 (in alignment with the Board’s criteria) but the committee still doesn’t have any data on intact subdivisions.

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.

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.

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.

More Balanced Ideas

The A scenarios seem more balanced compared to B scenarios, in regard to enrollment numbers and socio-economic status. I do wish we would have had access to more data when we were creating boundaries. We were very focused on enrollment numbers, since we didn't have other information.

Plaza/Congress Comments

Looking at just the northern schools. Option 1&3 are the same as are 4a&5. The only difference between those is the area off Hwy 9. I'd like to keep both as an option to see which elementary school that pocket makes sense to attend, which would then dictate the middle school line. If that area goes to Chinn, then have it feed to Plaza. But if it goes to Prairie Point or Renner have it feed to Congress. Both options 1&3 or 4a&5 seem to lend themselves very well to clean elementary feeder options and I'd like to see us try and create those if at all possible. Hawthorne, Prairie Point, and Renner feed to Congress. Then Hopewell, Tiffany Ridge, and Chinn feed to Plaza.

I'm not in favor of A2 which splits a large neighborhood.

It seems like we have done a really great job so far of intentionally avoiding dividing neighborhoods (that we know of), but this one splits Riss Lake. I don't know the Coves area well enough to tell on the map if some of these options are splitting the area north of Barry on the east end is splitting any neighborhoods, but would be interested to know. For those of you familiar with your own areas, are there other map options that are splitting areas that might be a problem. Without having the neighborhood data available yet, and I know they are trying, it is hard to determine this factor.

Not in favor of splitting Lakeview boundaries

Options 4a, 4b and 5 have Lakeview boundaries split between the east and west. This doesn't seem efficient for transportation purposes and I think when we start looking at elementary school boundaries this could be even more problematic considering the location of Hopewell Elementary. I know that socioeconomic considerations are a criteria and this does a better job of balancing that so that is something to think about.

Intact Subdivision Counts

Thank you to the district for acknowledging the complexity of considering subdivisions in this process and working with the Platte County Assessor’s office to get this information. Success will be evaluated based on “intact subdivision counts” and we are expected to adhere to the criteria. A subdivision is different than a neighborhood, although the terms are often used interchangeably. It appears (based on information on the Platte County Assessor’s website) that multiple subdivisions are sometimes tacked together and given similar names. These clumps of subdivisions are often thought of as a neighborhood. Although our criteria doesn’t consider neighborhoods, I’m certain no one wants to separate neighborhoods. However, keeping clumps of subdivisions together can’t be a priority in this process—when doing so negatively impacts outcomes on our measured criteria. I was perplexed by the rumor below when it was voiced at the Redistricting Committee Meeting. However, now I understand the thought behind the comment. I think additional maps should be drawn with the intention of more closely adhering to each of our criteria. FAQs on District Website https://www.parkhill.k12.mo.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=62500&pageId=46914491 Q: Do larger or richer neighborhoods have more say in the outcome than smaller or less affluent neighborhoods? A: Everyone has a say in the redistricting process. There are people on the committee from all over the district and from all backgrounds, and the committee will consider feedback from everyone who participates in the public meetings or shares their thoughts in our online engagement tool.

B4 - socio-economic balance % seem off

The socio-economic percentages in option B4 seem incorrect. If you average the South free/reduced %, you get 30% for options B1-B3 and B5 (~417 students). But B4 averages to 40% (~553 students) - that can't be right. That is saying there are another 136 students that fall in the free/reduced category compared to the other B options - which isn't possible.

It seems that most proposals are almost the same. I think with a few tweaks we can simply sort out the differences.

Feedback on Scenario B2

While this scenario does a nice job of providing an enrollment balance between all four middle schools, the socio-economic balance for Walden is higher than others. (In fact, all scenario B options have Walden with a higher % of F/R lunch).

So many of the proposals are nearly identical. The differences can be sorted easily in next pahse.

If we combine the best "north" map with the best "south" map we can actually have a much better product.

We need to consider treating each map as two maps. Each table technically drew two middle-school maps (one for north and one for south) and those maps should be viewed independently. One team may have done an outstanding job balancing the schools in the south, but wasn’t the best on the northern portion of the map. It is crazy to score the whole map when when only half of the map was great. We can use socio-economic balance as an example. 4B does the best job of balancing the socio-economic balance between Lakeview and Walden (4% difference). The problem is based on how the north was drawn on 4B, the disparity between Congress in the north and Walden in the south ends giving 4B the worst overall disparity (23.7% difference). If you took the northern portion of any of the other B maps, and combined it with the southern portion of 4B, the disparity between the highest and lowest middle schools is only 13.8, which is better than any other individual map. Let’s find the best north B map, and the best south B map and create a supermap.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do we need to relook at Congress/Plaza boundaries

I agree that I like the A6 map the best. However, I think most groups were more focused on the Walden/Lakevew socio/economic that the Congress/Plaza was barely looked at. All the maps for Congress/Plaza do a east/west split and there isn't much to change with those. I feel we should still look at a north/south split for these as well. Right now, there are not any options for those families to consider.

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?

B07 looks to be another strong map to pair against B02

B02 was the front runner based on the scoring last week in the B scenarios. I think B07 is stronger based on the socio-economic numbers. That is assuming that the scoring criteria has not changed. The Congress/ Plaza socio-economic numbers have also stayed the same in the best maps. That was a hard number to change and I don't see one that has changed it for the better.

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.

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.

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.