|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 19:34:20 GMT -6
Arch, I was researching 2006 enrollment #'s in an old blog, and low and behold your crystal ball was true. Though I did not find an exact quote regarding projected #'s, your concern and questioning of decreases at the lower grades was intriguing. One statement (I paraphrase) you made regarding the numbers falling by 3% and the cumulative affect it would have on enrollment was most interesting. Refbasics asked where I posted the comment from Dr. Dash, and to be quite honest I never felt the need to post the 8700 high school number because you (Arch) and DW had covered the subject quite adequately. Arch a side bar, with regard to real estate and employment and a comment about Detroit's real estate malaise is a must read, especially considering how true much of it is three years later. I only wish your comments and predictions were wrong Arch. Macrokett, With a picture of Rodney, I am sure you don't bite. As for giving you a call maybe I will be the first. As for calling an administrator first, I have found it to be a common courtesy as I knew the enrollment number would be asked at the PTSA meeting. I've been sitting by the phone a long time SSSM, waiting for somebody to call.  And I think calling is fine, however, I like the hard copy. I have found that minds can change but documents can't. (Been in the business world a long time...) |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 9, 2009 19:35:59 GMT -6
Macrokett, I am not sure I understand your thought process regarding the district moving ahead with a third high school as of March 2008. I attended a highly charged board meeting with regard to boundary changes In Jan. or Feb. of last year. I then attended a NVHS PTSA meeting where Dr. Dash spoke about a great many things including projected high school enrollment of around 8700 kids. Your data on the above site winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/PMAanalysis2008.pdf seems to concur with what the district and many already knew. Are you drawing the conclusion based on the" site stated" that the district should have stopped the completion of the third high school based on the enrollment numbers from March 2008? If so please elaborate as my thought process is that the district knew the enrollment numbers much earlier than what you have proposed. I was also of the understanding that the third high school was a go, once the referendum passed. When the vote was taken for the referendum the count was 10,400 - not 8700. The boards own documents show many ways of addressing the 8700 -just as they had put forth in 2001 and again in 2005, for a fraction of $150M. I believe the board knew full well 10,400 was baloney before the vote - but some of the same people who wanted the 3rd HS over the freshman centers were going to get their way, and their Neuqua come Hell or high water - at all of our expense. ( Remember the manta on split shifts before the vote - and cutting extra curriculars- any made up crap to get the ref passed) - if you don't remember I can forward you some of the documents released that I authored based on the 10,400 BS I was handed and unfortunately bought.) So yes, when the correct numbers were know and before we had turned one shovel full of dirt or bought any land that wasn't appraised..those previous alternative plans should have been sent back to the public. The $124M ( really $150M) was passed on a ruse. 10,400 would require a 3rd HS - 8700 sure as heck does not. And remember that 8700 will be closer to 8200 or less not that far into the future - then what ? And lets be honest - if Springfield gets it's way and they pass the 2% additional sales tax ( a pay cut for everyone working) - and the Fedds get their way and you will have to pay for your own health insurance, no more company sponsored % contribution... and 39 new taxes on services - coupled with crippling property taxes- 8000 may be a large number in 5 years... I remember we had a poster here for years whose moniker was cantretirehere................I totally get that now...and cantlivehere is likely closer to the truth |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 9, 2009 19:41:17 GMT -6
We need the space here and now...And how much space was that? She delivered for her area- one day they'll be a statue in front of MV to her.... I understand her motivation even though I don't like it , I don't understand others. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 19:55:51 GMT -6
Macrokett, I am not sure I understand your thought process regarding the district moving ahead with a third high school as of March 2008. I attended a highly charged board meeting with regard to boundary changes In Jan. or Feb. of last year. I then attended a NVHS PTSA meeting where Dr. Dash spoke about a great many things including projected high school enrollment of around 8700 kids. Your data on the above site winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/PMAanalysis2008.pdf seems to concur with what the district and many already knew. Are you drawing the conclusion based on the" site stated" that the district should have stopped the completion of the third high school based on the enrollment numbers from March 2008? If so please elaborate as my thought process is that the district knew the enrollment numbers much earlier than what you have proposed. I was also of the understanding that the third high school was a go, once the referendum passed. When the vote was taken for the referendum the count was 10,400 - not 8700. The boards own documents show many ways of addressing the 8700 -just as they had put forth in 2001 and again in 2005, for a fraction of $150M. I believe the board knew full well 10,400 was baloney before the vote - but some of the same people who wanted the 3rd HS over the freshman centers were going to get their way, and their Neuqua come Hell or high water - at all of our expense. ( Remember the manta on split shifts before the vote - and cutting extra curriculars- any made up crap to get the ref passed) - if you don't remember I can forward you some of the documents released that I authored based on the 10,400 BS I was handed and unfortunately bought.) So yes, when the correct numbers were know and before we had turned one shovel full of dirt or bought any land that wasn't appraised..those previous alternative plans should have been sent back to the public. The $124M ( really $150M) was passed on a ruse. 10,400 would require a 3rd HS - 8700 sure as heck does not. And remember that 8700 will be closer to 8200 or less not that far into the future - then what ? And lets be honest - if Springfield gets it's way and they pass the 2% additional sales tax ( a pay cut for everyone working) - and the Fedds get their way and you will have to pay for your own health insurance, no more company sponsored % contribution... and 39 new taxes on services - coupled with crippling property taxes- 8000 may be a large number in 5 years... I remember we had a poster here for years whose moniker was cantretirehere................I totally get that now...and cantlivehere is likely closer to the truth The sad part about this whole thing Doc is no one ever bothered to completely price the alternatives out. Had they called in a professional to price out the alternatives, complete with capital, finance and operating costs, it would have been a real eye opener, especially using actual enrollment numbers. And had such a comparison been presented to the public, complete with those costs I would be amazed if the majority of the district would accept the current plan. Sadly, the community was never given that option. And if you look at the actual enrollment figures for 05 and 09 you can see there is virtually no change between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 9, 2009 19:56:58 GMT -6
Macrockett,
I will pose a more concise question. With the third high school in the works since the referendum, and total high school population not exceed 8800+/-, being common knowledge in 2007, why would the report in March 2008 make any difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 20:34:46 GMT -6
Macrockett, I will pose a more concise question. With the third high school in the works since the referendum, and total high school population not exceed 8800+/-, being common knowledge in 2007, why would the report in March 2008 make any difference. Again, the 'only way'... according to this guy (again, from April 14th 2008, before a shovel full of dirt flipped) winsome.cnchost.com/204/SBMEET/200804014-M2-stairwells.wmv |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 9, 2009 20:35:38 GMT -6
Macrockett, I will pose a more concise question. With the third high school in the works since the referendum, and total high school population not exceed 8800+/-, being common knowledge in 2007, why would the report in March 2008 make any difference. How would you define it as 'common knowledge' ? How many people in this district do you think know that ? What communication was sent out ? We get updates on the IPSD web site every time they install a toilet- when did that communique go out ? They have the tools- just don't use them. There were presentations after 2007 that used 10,400 - why was that ? No time to change it ? The first PUBLIC acknowledgement I saw was the financial filing in March 2008 and that was also not posted anywhere officially now was it ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 9, 2009 20:39:31 GMT -6
When the vote was taken for the referendum the count was 10,400 - not 8700. The boards own documents show many ways of addressing the 8700 -just as they had put forth in 2001 and again in 2005, for a fraction of $150M. I believe the board knew full well 10,400 was baloney before the vote - but some of the same people who wanted the 3rd HS over the freshman centers were going to get their way, and their Neuqua come Hell or high water - at all of our expense. ( Remember the manta on split shifts before the vote - and cutting extra curriculars- any made up crap to get the ref passed) - if you don't remember I can forward you some of the documents released that I authored based on the 10,400 BS I was handed and unfortunately bought.) So yes, when the correct numbers were know and before we had turned one shovel full of dirt or bought any land that wasn't appraised..those previous alternative plans should have been sent back to the public. The $124M ( really $150M) was passed on a ruse. 10,400 would require a 3rd HS - 8700 sure as heck does not. And remember that 8700 will be closer to 8200 or less not that far into the future - then what ? And lets be honest - if Springfield gets it's way and they pass the 2% additional sales tax ( a pay cut for everyone working) - and the Fedds get their way and you will have to pay for your own health insurance, no more company sponsored % contribution... and 39 new taxes on services - coupled with crippling property taxes- 8000 may be a large number in 5 years... I remember we had a poster here for years whose moniker was cantretirehere................I totally get that now...and cantlivehere is likely closer to the truth The sad part about this whole thing Doc is no one ever bothered to completely price the alternatives out. Had they called in a professional to price out the alternatives, complete with capital, finance and operating costs, it would have been a real eye opener, especially using actual enrollment numbers. And had such a comparison been presented to the public, complete with those costs I would be amazed if the majority of the district would accept the current plan. Sadly, the community was never given that option. And if you look at the actual enrollment figures for 05 and 09 you can see there is virtually no change between the two. I understand the 600 seats @ NVHS along with correcting the hallway situation was priced @ $12M and sent to Howie -- I have seen the letter proposing this solution |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 20:42:29 GMT -6
Macrockett, I will pose a more concise question. With the third high school in the works since the referendum, and total high school population not exceed 8800+/-, being common knowledge in 2007, why would the report in March 2008 make any difference. Remember the March 08 #s are the latest projections, as opposed to actual enrollment figures. In my opinion, as I have stated often the actual enrollment figures have always been the best indicator, and in the last four years, there has been very little change in them. What the March 08 projections did, imo, was take away any doubt going forward that something was going to happen in the future that would deviate from the actuals. So whether you looked at actual movement of kids though the system or the latest projections of any changes expected in the future, from looking at the best information available I assume, your conclusion would be the same. We needed capacity for about 725 additional HS students. Even if you gross that up somewhat to allow for some classes sizes being smaller because fewer students were taking a particular class, it is hard to justify 3000 additional seats. I have heard all the arguments SSSM, I have looked at this in so many ways from my background in accounting, etc., it is very hard, imo, to justify the course we took. I understand there are those that disagree. But had the District hired a professional, who could have laid this out with a complete comparison of alternatives, I think it would be much clearer to everyone. That was never done. Instead, our Board set out in ad hoc fashion without having all the facts and considering all the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by gekfromthefarnorth on Jun 10, 2009 10:09:37 GMT -6
HELP, I would like to add a memo that I wrote to the admin - board on March 3, 2006. I can copy in the test but are unable to include two jpg's that are an interagle part of the discussion and I guess my point at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 10, 2009 10:18:34 GMT -6
HELP, I would like to add a memo that I wrote to the admin - board on March 3, 2006. I can copy in the test but are unable to include two jpg's that are an interagle part of the discussion and I guess my point at the time. I can host the entire document online if you would like... and give you a URL to it that you can include in your postings. Private message me for details, if you want. Optionally, you can post it to any of the free file hosting services out there and they will basically do the same thing... give you a URL for referencing/retrieving it. Just google for: Free File Hosting and take your pick. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 10, 2009 10:56:27 GMT -6
gekfromthefarnorth,
Check your private messages for links.
|
|
|
|
Post by gekfromthefarnorth on Jun 10, 2009 11:25:12 GMT -6
To the point of full disclosure I have been against the this HS NO mater where it was sited. In 2006 I wrote this memo to the Admin and SB to voice my displeasure and point out exackly how I came to the conclusion of no need. See memo and I have included a plot of the included two graphs of 204 & 203 attendance data. winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Analysis.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Attendance_Data.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/203_dec_1_Attendance.pdfI still believe this (NO NEED). I am probably preaching to the choir on this one. But let me go one step further. In the end, I walked away from this with the idea that their were many ways to skin this cat. The numbers would come out to something in 5 - 10 years and at that time it would be obvious as to what would be required. In the interim the schools would be less crowded and I think that the Admin's job of educating out students would be made easier. When I wrote the memo, I felt that the bond issue would go down a second time and another solution would be proposed. Obviously that didn't happen. Here is where I differ from most. I made my case BUT I was willing to accept the multiple solutions to a problem. I moved on. So, I will now predict that the NV freshman center will be gone in 10 years. D204 will have HS capacity of 9 - 10k and we will be at 80 -85 % capacity. ALL will be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 10, 2009 12:08:25 GMT -6
To the point of full disclosure I have been against the this HS NO mater where it was sited. In 2006 I wrote this memo to the Admin and SB to voice my displeasure and point out exackly how I came to the conclusion of no need. See memo and I have included a plot of the included two graphs of 204 & 203 attendance data. winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Analysis.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Attendance_Data.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/203_dec_1_Attendance.pdfI still believe this (NO NEED). I am probably preaching to the choir on this one. But let me go one step further. In the end, I walked away from this with the idea that their were many ways to skin this cat. The numbers would come out to something in 5 - 10 years and at that time it would be obvious as to what would be required. In the interim the schools would be less crowded and I think that the Admin's job of educating out students would be made easier. When I wrote the memo, I felt that the bond issue would go down a second time and another solution would be proposed. Obviously that didn't happen. Here is where I differ from most. I made my case BUT I was willing to accept the multiple solutions to a problem. I moved on. So, I will now predict that the NV freshman center will be gone in 10 years. D204 will have HS capacity of 9 - 10k and we will be at 80 -85 % capacity. ALL will be fine. I am glad you were able to move on - I cannot for fear of more repeat spending like we just had. You have moved on - however you and I and everyone else are stuck with paying for the White Elephant virtually for our lives here - when there was no need to do so. The tax bill has remained and not moved on. Now we are going to be asked again for let's say $20M-$25M more to fund this -- and I say - sorry no. They haven't even done due diligence the the additional transportation costs for boundaries that require horrible commutes to that school... there is ZERO fiscal responsibility back to the taxpayers. I have moved past the fact we have a 3rd high school and acknowledge the fact it will be on the site it is - but also cannot move past the fact that all safety issues have not been properly addressed- and should be before 1 person sets foot in the school. The issue remains, some of those who shoved this thing down our throats are still making decisions and would do the same today - regardless of any facts you or I or anyone else provides. Where does the spending and the private agendas end ? We cannot afford to continue like this... So whether they close NV freshman center ( acknowledge that as a possibility - or Waubonsie Valley HS ( also a possibility depending on real estate market then) - we have wasted at least $100M of our money ( and maybe more if another ref is approved) - that's just unacceptable to sit back and not try and influence future outcomes of elections to stop this -- do you agree ? Also - please take this the right way because I appreciate the sense in your posts - so this is not directed at you - but some may move on easier because the effect on them is less than on other- by your moniker this school will be closer for your area and friends and neighbors - for mine it is a nightmare. Changing boundaries would not get me past the financial irrepsonsibility of this or stop the continuance of trying to get a board change to stop this - but coupled with the correct safety procedures could make it to not be an everyday poke in the eye as well. Does that make sense ? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 10, 2009 12:56:35 GMT -6
To the point of full disclosure I have been against the this HS NO mater where it was sited. In 2006 I wrote this memo to the Admin and SB to voice my displeasure and point out exackly how I came to the conclusion of no need. See memo and I have included a plot of the included two graphs of 204 & 203 attendance data. winsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Analysis.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/D204_Attendance_Data.pdfwinsome.cnchost.com/204/HFO/203_dec_1_Attendance.pdfI still believe this (NO NEED). I am probably preaching to the choir on this one. But let me go one step further. In the end, I walked away from this with the idea that their were many ways to skin this cat. The numbers would come out to something in 5 - 10 years and at that time it would be obvious as to what would be required. In the interim the schools would be less crowded and I think that the Admin's job of educating out students would be made easier. When I wrote the memo, I felt that the bond issue would go down a second time and another solution would be proposed. Obviously that didn't happen. Here is where I differ from most. I made my case BUT I was willing to accept the multiple solutions to a problem. I moved on. So, I will now predict that the NV freshman center will be gone in 10 years. D204 will have HS capacity of 9 - 10k and we will be at 80 -85 % capacity. ALL will be fine. Excellent letter ( I just read it ) -and hit all the same points many of us have raised, from MS need- not high school- to first hand knowledge that moving schools for kids- whatever the reason, is not the simple movement some members of our board try and tell people it is. |
|
And I think calling is fine, however, I like the hard copy. I have found that minds can change but documents can't. (Been in the business world a long time...)
