|
|
Post by researching on Nov 13, 2008 15:17:01 GMT -6
Blanckcheck, yes we have some excess at the ES level, but our class sizes are large IMO. Once the new HS is opened we will have some excess at the MS level. But w/o the 7th MS we are 617 seats short. MS 8200 x 90% = 7380 08/09 enrollment = 6917 You can never be spot on. I would rather have excess in the system than the sardine experience my kids have had. I understand your position. However, I would rather endure a bit of the "sardine effect" rather than spend $150mil on the "bubble effect". I'd rather look long term. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Nov 14, 2008 7:57:02 GMT -6
That was my point. My kids have been through the "sardine" situation, art on a cart etc. They
survived. Was it the "best" no, but again it was not a permanent situation. $150 mil is a lot
of cash especially in these economic times.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Nov 14, 2008 11:58:05 GMT -6
That was my point. My kids have been through the "sardine" situation, art on a cart etc. They survived. Was it the "best" no, but again it was not a permanent situation. $150 mil is a lot of cash especially in these economic times. My daughter was @ WVHS @ it's most crowded time - she did fine - and we didn't have to spend $150 M -- a 7th MS and keep the freshman centers was all that was needed |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Nov 14, 2008 12:09:20 GMT -6
That was my point. My kids have been through the "sardine" situation, art on a cart etc. They survived. Was it the "best" no, but again it was not a permanent situation. $150 mil is a lot of cash especially in these economic times. My daughter was @ WVHS @ it's most crowded time - she did fine - and we didn't have to spend $150 M -- a 7th MS and keep the freshman centers was all that was needed Absolutely! Hey, since MV is no where near completion and won't be when they plan to open it, how about being responsible and making it our 7th middle school instead? Modify the "grand" design and cut our losses. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 14, 2008 12:14:07 GMT -6
My daughter was @ WVHS @ it's most crowded time - she did fine - and we didn't have to spend $150 M -- a 7th MS and keep the freshman centers was all that was needed Absolutely! Hey, since MV is no where near completion and won't be when they plan to open it, how about being responsible and making it our 7th middle school instead? Modify the "grand" design and cut our losses. Open the 'half' and don't build out the other 'half'. They stand a better chance at completing a FULL MS by Aug 2009 |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Nov 14, 2008 13:20:53 GMT -6
I won't argue the points pondered, but my initial post was, why would they consider spending money on portables when there is excess capacity at the ES level.
Portables are not ideal, they are not permanent and they cost $$$$. If they are considering portables then
1) the enrollment at Young must be a blip/bubble that is short lived??? 2-3yrs or
2) the district sees ES enrollment skyrocketing at all the ESs and any boundary change would just move the problem around or
3) the district is afraid to deal with any more boundary changes. Could this have to do with a move from Young to Steck/McCarty, where you would have high performing students taken out of MV and put into WV?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 14, 2008 13:29:15 GMT -6
I won't argue the points pondered, but my initial post was, why would they consider spending money on portables when there is excess capacity at the ES level. Portables are not ideal, they are not permanent and they cost $$$$. If they are considering portables then 1) the enrollment at Young must be a blip/bubble that is short lived??? 2-3yrs or 2) the district sees ES enrollment skyrocketing at all the ESs and any boundary change would just move the problem around or 3) the district is afraid to deal with any more boundary changes. Could this have to do with a move from Young to Steck/McCarty, where you would have high performing students taken out of MV and put into WV? I think it has more to do with #3 (personal opinion). But to entertain that thought a moment: Move Steck and McCarty to MV and that whole 'corridor' sticks together. They are closer to MV than some being bussed from much furher away. With MW at WV, then you have that 'corridor' going to WV (Our original plan submitted in Feb had OW at WV along w/ all of Gombert to complete the 'corridor'.... along w/ those W of 59 and S of Ogden. One could even slide CAWL and OE south to NV (their closest school) and the enrollment numbers would work just fine. Of course, some would argue 'splits'.. but this is why it would be prudent to go back to all levels and re-balance things out from the hack/patches that are currently out there and let go of the remaining current "this ES has to go to that MS because it always has" notions... and re-do things geographically. You'll arrive at your cheapest transportation costs that way. (Sorry for the tangent). |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Nov 14, 2008 14:48:34 GMT -6
I won't argue the points pondered, but my initial post was, why would they consider spending money on portables when there is excess capacity at the ES level. Portables are not ideal, they are not permanent and they cost $$$$. If they are considering portables then 1) the enrollment at Young must be a blip/bubble that is short lived??? 2-3yrs or 2) the district sees ES enrollment skyrocketing at all the ESs and any boundary change would just move the problem around or 3) the district is afraid to deal with any more boundary changes. Could this have to do with a move from Young to Steck/McCarty, where you would have high performing students taken out of MV and put into WV? Would have to check #1 -- we know#2 not true - nor is it forecast- we have printed those numbers numerous times here - ES population continues to decline in numerous gradel evels #3 - BINGO !!! we have a winner |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Dec 10, 2008 15:04:36 GMT -6
I "heard" portables at Young are certain. Again, my question, why?? when Brooks, Steck and McCarty are below optimal capacity?? Don't portables cost $$$? Weren't we told over and over how unacceptable they are, when the district was passing construction refs? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 10, 2008 15:21:36 GMT -6
I "heard" portables at Young are certain. Again, my question, why?? when Brooks, Steck and McCarty are below optimal capacity?? Don't portables cost $$$? Weren't we told over and over how unacceptable they are, when the district was passing construction refs? I don't get it. Also on the financial analysis that justified the $10M + hurry up cost on Metea at AME, the money that was to be used for portables was thrown into the money available for Metea. So are these portables now coming out of operating so we can use the grant money we received for portables on Metea construction? Oh, and conveniently increase our operating expenses so the district can cry poor when the teachers want a raise next year? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 10, 2008 16:30:59 GMT -6
I "heard" portables at Young are certain. Again, my question, why?? when Brooks, Steck and McCarty are below optimal capacity?? Don't portables cost $$$? Weren't we told over and over how unacceptable they are, when the district was passing construction refs? I don't get it. it's really simple --it's open MV at any/all costs in Aug 2009 - and don't dare look at boundaries because then they might have to address the mess they have made of those - and somone might question the increased transportation costs. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Dec 10, 2008 17:01:37 GMT -6
I "heard" portables at Young are certain. Again, my question, why?? when Brooks, Steck and McCarty are below optimal capacity?? Don't portables cost $$$? Weren't we told over and over how unacceptable they are, when the district was passing construction refs? I don't get it. it's really simple --it's open MV at any/all costs in Aug 2009 - and don't dare look at boundaries because then they might have to address the mess they have made of those - and somone might question the increased transportation costs. Fingers crossed that we get enough new board members next spring that the focus of the district will shift from saving face for bad and rushed decisions to doing what's in the best interest of the kids and taxpayers in the district. One can hope. |
|
