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.

A06-02I incorrect

The data and lines for this map don't match what we drew on Monday. If you go back to the original A06-02 map the only change we made was moving 23 kids from Graden to Renner. The lines on the map shown here don't reflect that change, and the student counts don't match what was given last week with the original and then showing only those 23 kids moving. Can that map please be reviewed?

A6-02 map – minor tweak – Union Chapel/Hawthorn

Would it be possible to create an additional map that keeps all the A6-02B (or any A6-02x) boundaries with the exception of using the Union Chapel Boundary from A6-06B. Most of the A6-02x maps adjusted boundary lines in the middle of the district but not on the west edge. This would only effect Union Chapel and Hawthorne and has advantages related to the district criteria: 1. Simply bus transportation. Has all the area west of 435 going to Hawthorne and allows just a single bus route to get all those kids west of 435 (~21 total) rather than making 2 buses go out that way. 2. Less student redistricting. It also keeps the area west of 435 going to Hawthorne as it currently does (less redistricting). 3. Not a criteria but it does create a cleaner feeder. In scenario A all the area west of 435 feeds to Congress and then Park Hill High School. This allows all that area to attend the same elementary school (Hawthorne). From comparing the enrollment of Union Chapel in the two options, this would result in a net of +4 students to Union Chapel and -4 students to Hawthorne. This would keep both schools within the +/- 20 student target range. I tried uploading an image of this, but the system wouldn't let me.

Numbers for A06-02 L don't look right

Can someone check the SES and enrollment change numbers on L? Looking at LC as an example the boundaries look the same as K but the SES and enrollment change numbers seem to go back to the original numbers.

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.

SES still an issue in all of the scenarios. B07-09 appears the closest, but still needs work on Line Creek SES. Maybe rework Chinn/LC lines?

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.

For Tonight

Can we have laptops, with the ability to compare current and proposed boundaries, available again tonight?

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

Enrollment Balance (A2)

It took applying the scoring guidelines for me to fully appreciate A2, especially on enrollment balance. With all of our attention lately on the other four criteria, we shouldn't forget that overcrowding is what got us here. Enrollment balance remains the school board's highest weighted criteria and we need maps that properly address that issue. We need to get rid of portable classroom trailers.

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.

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 re-score 1st round scenarios based on updated criteria?

While I agree A scenarios didn't need updating as much as B scenarios did, just curious what old Scenario A's would score with the updated/tighter scoring.

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.

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.

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.

Prefer B7 because of the East side boundary

Like this option not only for the better socioeconomic mix (nearly identical differences on the north and south sides) but also because it keeps the area east of I-29 all in the same school. This seems cleaner from a transportation standpoint. It may also help the elementary boundaries either this round or when the 12th elementary comes online.

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?

Direct Feeders

It would be great to have more information about "direct feeders". Expectation? Benefit? Timeline?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Table Groups

Breaking into 4 person groups is keeping everyone engaged and having an opportunity to help shape the process. And mixing those table groups up each time helps all the committee members to hear and better understand more community viewpoints.

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.