Disappointment - Cont'd Part3

[doctorwho]

confused said:

It's not ideal, but they have already been for 3+ years - I guess they would have to consider which situation was less ideal for the students.

I think there would be different points of view for those with 7th graders today , 8th graders today and say 5th graders today.

What worries me about the we've been doing it argument is where does one stop it then? And if the bubble truly is going down at 1st and K - then there are those who will push to say - hell just leave everything like it is - pocket the $150M and let's forget the whole thing.

I have no horse in the race after my current 8th grader so I'm not going to get into that one...

[wolverine]

doctorwho said:

confused said:

It's not ideal, but they have already been for 3+ years - I guess they would have to consider which situation was less ideal for the students.

I think there would be different points of view for those with 7th graders today , 8th graders today and say 5th graders today.

What worries me about the we've been doing it argument is where does one stop it then? And if the bubble truly is going down at 1st and K - then there are those who will push to say - hell just leave everything like it is - pocket the $150M and let's forget the whole thing.

I have no horse in the race after my current 8th grader so I'm not going to get into that one...

Any "Bubble" talk is pure rubbish. We have lots of open acres zoned residential, and a city council who panders to developers rezoning requests, so you'd have to be a fool to talk about a bubble anytime before build-out. There will be more people coming into the district. Period.

Once we're concreted over every green thing from here to Plainfield, then we can talk bubbles.

[doctorwho]

wolverine said:

doctorwho said:

I think there would be different points of view for those with 7th graders today , 8th graders today and say 5th graders today.

What worries me about the we've been doing it argument is where does one stop it then? And if the bubble truly is going down at 1st and K - then there are those who will push to say - hell just leave everything like it is - pocket the $150M and let's forget the whole thing.

I have no horse in the race after my current 8th grader so I'm not going to get into that one...

Any "Bubble" talk is pure rubbish. We have lots of open acres zoned residential, and a city council who panders to developers rezoning requests, so you'd have to be a fool to talk about a bubble anytime before build-out. There will be more people coming into the district. Period.

Once we're concreted over every green thing from here to Plainfield, then we can talk bubbles.

I don't disagree but you know that's where talk would lead - is what I was driving at. I can't see rushing headlong at all costs to open the new high school even though it's not complete only to not open the 7th MS at the same time-- if that was the case then wait on the HS until 2010 and at least have the high school have all it's parts when open.

[fence]

So would it be more agreeable to move juniors from WV to MV in 2009-10, or add 750 new freshman to WV's main building in 2009-2010? The sophmore class willl be reduced in size, but WV will likely still net over 500 additional students that year. Ouch.

Or do you think that the SB is planning to build a school that is only built out enough to accomodate only 1500 for the initial year? If that's the case, I would rather wait until 2010 so these kids can actually have a real HS experience.

And as a sidenote, I think that 204's recent shananigans along with the general economy and housing market are an excellent repellent for new growth in the area.

[EagleDad]

kmjone said:

IMO, when one is making a point that is designed to support their argument, they have an obligation to ensure the facts are correct.

Would you hold the district administration to the same standard? If so, do you accept the "average" travel times and bridge memo?

Because to me they are absolutely incorrect, if not outright fabricated.

[WeBe204]

fence said:

So would it be more agreeable to move juniors from WV to MV in 2009-10, or add 750 new freshman to WV's main building in 2009-2010? The sophmore class willl be reduced in size, but WV will likely still net over 500 additional students that year. Ouch.

Or do you think that the SB is planning to build a school that is only built out enough to accomodate only 1500 for the initial year? If that's the case, I would rather wait until 2010 so these kids can actually have a real HS experience.

And as a sidenote, I think that 204's recent shananigans along with the general economy and housing market are an excellent repellent for new growth in the area.

I hope the open date is selected in such a way to mitigate these currents risks. IMO, 2009 was selected because that was what was pormised. Not so much because it was prudent. It does however seem somewhat brutal to be moved into a new school as a junior. I might be being over dramatic.

As for growth, the current growth rate for the past 3 years, it will take about 29 years for our area to completely develop.

[macy]

I've been trying to access the ipsd website all day. Is it just me or has it been inaccessible since this morning?

[doctorwho]

brad204 said:

fence said:

So would it be more agreeable to move juniors from WV to MV in 2009-10, or add 750 new freshman to WV's main building in 2009-2010? The sophmore class willl be reduced in size, but WV will likely still net over 500 additional students that year. Ouch.

Or do you think that the SB is planning to build a school that is only built out enough to accomodate only 1500 for the initial year? If that's the case, I would rather wait until 2010 so these kids can actually have a real HS experience.

And as a sidenote, I think that 204's recent shananigans along with the general economy and housing market are an excellent repellent for new growth in the area.

I hope the open date is selected in such a way to mitigate these currents risks. IMO, 2009 was selected because that was what was pormised. Not so much because it was prudent. It does however seem somewhat brutal to be moved into a new school as a junior. I might be being over dramatic.

As for growth, the current growth rate for the past 3 years, it will take about 29 years for our area to completely develop.

I think it's somewhat brutal to move in HS at ANY year. Is it harder on a junior who moves into a complete HS - with all options open to them- or a sophomore who moves into an incomplete HS with certain activities missing -- flip a coin - sucks either way.

[doctorwho]

macy said:

I've been trying to access the ipsd website all day. Is it just me or has it been inaccessible since this morning?

It's not available now when I just tried

[wolverine]

fence said:

And as a sidenote, I think that 204's recent shananigans along with the general economy and housing market are an excellent repellent for new growth in the area.

I'd agree 100%, but I think many people don't pay attention. Newcomer's hear "naperville schools" and they think they've reached the promised land. Heck, most of the people already living here don't realize what is going on.

I do think the general economy/hosing will slow growth, and more importantly, stem the tide of development. We have a breather here, so why are we dash'ing off to set boundaries and force a school into a sub-standard location?

[macy]

^ I agree with fence. I see future trouble for 204. I know of five contracts in the Fry attendance area that fell through in the last two weeks.

204 is in a world of hurt right now.

Just my opinion, please don't blame my entire subdivision for my comments.

[fence]

It does seem brutal to move a jr, but it also seems brutal to move a sophmore into a HS that is 750 students over capacity, or into a building that isn't even a HS yet for that matter.

The solution would be to a) make sure that the new HS is actually done and totally functioning before opening AND then b) choose between moving juniors into the new school or overcrowding WV in the worst way for 2 years.

doctorwho said:

brad204 said:

I hope the open date is selected in such a way to mitigate these currents risks. IMO, 2009 was selected because that was what was pormised. Not so much because it was prudent. It does however seem somewhat brutal to be moved into a new school as a junior. I might be being over dramatic.

As for growth, the current growth rate for the past 3 years, it will take about 29 years for our area to completely develop.

I think it's somewhat brutal to move in HS at ANY year. Is it harder on a junior who moves into a complete HS - with all options open to them- or a sophomore who moves into an incomplete HS with certain activities missing -- flip a coin - sucks either way.

[Arch]

doctorwho said:

macy said:

I've been trying to access the ipsd website all day. Is it just me or has it been inaccessible since this morning?

It's not available now when I just tried

Watch it come back without the video feed of the Jan 22 meeting.

[kmjone]

eagledad said:

kmjone said:

IMO, when one is making a point that is designed to support their argument, they have an obligation to ensure the facts are correct.

Would you hold the district administration to the same standard? If so, do you accept the "average" travel times and bridge memo?

Because to me they are absolutely incorrect, if not outright fabricated.

Absolutely. Did the SD think that nobody would question the travel times or the points in the memo? The facts need to be divulged so the community can see the logic behind those documents.

[kmjone]

macy said:

^ I agree with fence. I see future trouble for 204. I know of five contracts in the Fry attendance area that fell through in the last two weeks.

204 is in a world of hurt right now.

Just my opinion, please don't blame my entire subdivision for my comments.

I'm curious, did those 5 contracts fall through specifically because of the boundaries? Or, can it also be because of the crummy housing market today?