|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 21, 2007 12:43:43 GMT -6
A middle school could be built for much less, and on land we already own. And that's where the over-crowding is. Then use the Frontier campuses to alleviate overcrowding at the high schools and add onto them as necessary. Sounds brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2007 12:44:36 GMT -6
In order for a decrease enrollment, the K grade plus the historical 1 grade increase must net out to be a loss of 219 or a huge move out of students currently enrolled.
|
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2007 12:46:10 GMT -6
Thanks for citing your examples moving and thanks driven for giving more balanced examples and yes, The SB didn't forecast the growth of Scullen or just about ANY school correctly as many have had add on after add on Petersen should have been turned into a 6th grade school replete with all of the computers etc needed for 6th grade. A waste of money?? Not by todays outlook!!!! Still no 3rd HS on the Horizon. If the SB had implemented using Petersen correctly TWO YEARS AGO, we might not have had to add portables, which is where we are today and there wouldn't have been screaming when they spent the rework monies to upgrade from ES to MS ( labs and such) and then had to change back when other schools open ? They are criticized for every nickel they spend - this would have been one more 'poor planning' criticism Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2007 12:47:00 GMT -6
Will the students at Metea have the same opportunities as the rest of the district if there are not enough funds to finish the building when it opens (or it has to be scaled back)? It's my opinion that the students at Metea in the early years will NOT have the same opportunities as the students in the other schools regardless of facilities because they will be missing the juniors and seniors. Academically this should be fine, but it will affect most extra-curriculars and some elective courses. And what did the new students at NV face 10 years ago ? If everyone remembers I already started communications to Kathy Birkett among others to consider varsity sports (this is a U8 decision ) for those sophomores who move into MV in 2009 - or yes - they will lose out somewhat -- as well as to raise awareness on the other extra curriculars - and was roundly chastised by some here -- now it is a worry ? gee ! I am sure all that can be done will be done for that first class - and right now I am more focused on getting them the space to learn as the SB should be also - once that is secured - there is PLENTY of planning time to work on the other items. As a community we need to work to ensure they do get the best of all opportunities -- what remains to be seen is if the community can actually work together on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2007 12:48:08 GMT -6
and there wouldn't have been screaming when they spent the rework monies to upgrade from ES to MS ( labs and such) and then had to change back when other schools open ? They are criticized for every nickel they spend - this would have been one more 'poor planning' criticism Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site they were 'pro active ' with the gold campuses and are still criticized for that - so I disagree.. also who at Scullen was signing up to go there ? You seem to speak a lot for Scullen not being a member of that school. One of the nasty lies spread by CFO during the pre vote was that Scullen would be split and holy heck broke loose. So who exactly are you volunteering to go to the retro fitted MS ? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2007 12:48:49 GMT -6
and there wouldn't have been screaming when they spent the rework monies to upgrade from ES to MS ( labs and such) and then had to change back when other schools open ? They are criticized for every nickel they spend - this would have been one more 'poor planning' criticism Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site So retrofit a whole EM to a MS to then retrofit back to EM when that area develops. So what happens if that area has a housing boom in two years and an influx of EM students comes in? What do you do then? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 21, 2007 12:51:31 GMT -6
Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site they were 'pro active ' with the gold campuses and are still criticized for that - so I disagree.. Reality and history is convenient to 'forget' or 'overlook' sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2007 12:53:42 GMT -6
they were 'pro active ' with the gold campuses and are still criticized for that - so I disagree.. Reality and history is convenient to 'forget' or 'overlook' sometimes. , yep - they were pro active based on the student population forecasts that include the cities inbolved -- now today they are roundly criticized for that decision -- face it -- if they said the sky was blue, some would say they were idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2007 12:55:02 GMT -6
Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site So retrofit a whole EM to a MS to then retrofit back to EM when that area develops. So what happens if that area has a housing boom in two years and an influx of EM students comes in? What do you do then? answer : criticize the school board and blame them ....and say " here they go again asking for more money " |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2007 12:57:16 GMT -6
A middle school could be built for much less, and on land we already own. And that's where the over-crowding is. Then use the Frontier campuses to alleviate overcrowding at the high schools and add onto them as necessary. Sounds brilliant. Sounds what a former SB candidate spouted. So where are you going to add on at WV? |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2007 13:01:14 GMT -6
Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site they were 'pro active ' with the gold campuses and are still criticized for that - so I disagree.. also who at Scullen was signing up to go there ? You seem to speak a lot for Scullen not being a member of that school. One of the nasty lies spread by CFO during the pre vote was that Scullen would be split and holy heck broke loose. So who exactly are you volunteering to go to the retro fitted MS ? The SB admitted that they proposed a MS cause that's what the voters would vote for...Didn't do their homework then and it continues today... |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2007 13:03:27 GMT -6
A middle school could be built for much less, and on land we already own. And that's where the over-crowding is. Then use the Frontier campuses to alleviate overcrowding at the high schools and add onto them as necessary. Sounds brilliant. Sounds what a former SB candidate spouted. So where are you going to add on at WV? The SB told a group of parents @ Steck that an addition onto WV was estimated at 25 to I believe 40M So the space is there to do it, unless, or course, they did not look into this bid with any conviction |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2007 13:04:07 GMT -6
Just an FYI, I was with several teachers/admins over the weekend and don't know how many people are aware that: 1) The teachers that were moved to be Intervention Specialists in the district were done so because the district did not need 19 teachers. These IS specialist positions were created to keep from riffing 19 teachers. According to the admin person -- enrollment is down. The bubble is in middle school and will stay there. This persons feeling is to take the land we have, build the MUCH NEEDED middle school on it, then build an addition onto WV and NV and save $40 million dollars. I don't know about the additions at WV and NV, but apparently the SD knows exactly where they can do it so apparently it has been looked at. This person does know about elementary numbers and they are down. 2) Also with looking at reallocating the 19 teachers the class sizes went up. Our new Super does not think class size matters once the class size is over 16. Does this relate to BB -- well, it sounds like the SB may have to rethink what their options are and what they need to do. As a taxpayer and parent -- not real happy if this is going to drag out and not the original solution we were promised. I would rather see the SB acknowledge IF (and that statement truly is an "IF") numbers are decreasing and deal with the middle school issues and then make reasonable solutions to the high school problems. I know we need extra space at the high schools (I have one at WV now), but accord to admin the southern end of the district is much worse and the addition there could have helped NV a lot along with an addition onto the back parking lot at WV. This would keep the gold campus and alleviate the space crunch for the interim. Apparently, 203 is having the same problem with declining numbers and they have to deal with Central. Just FYI. Okay -- what if the ES school number is flat but the MS/HS enrollment is up 500 ? 750? - just a guess  pure speculation Do we still not need the facility as is being claimed here ? We'll have hard numbers at the end of September - right now all speculation |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2007 13:04:13 GMT -6
they were 'pro active ' with the gold campuses and are still criticized for that - so I disagree.. also who at Scullen was signing up to go there ? You seem to speak a lot for Scullen not being a member of that school. One of the nasty lies spread by CFO during the pre vote was that Scullen would be split and holy heck broke loose. So who exactly are you volunteering to go to the retro fitted MS ? The SB admitted that they proposed a MS cause that's what the voters would vote for...Didn't do their homework then and it continues today... What? We voted on a HS twice. I don't remember a MS being part of either referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2007 13:05:31 GMT -6
Disagree They would have been looked at as being proactive and not inert. And boy could they be heros today if Petersen had been retrofitted for 6th grade...Then maybe again, we wouldn't be in the pickle that we are in today with MS issues and no 3rd hs or MS in site So retrofit a whole EM to a MS to then retrofit back to EM when that area develops. So what happens if that area has a housing boom in two years and an influx of EM students comes in? What do you do then? It's called being able to ebb and flow with the tide it takes much more work to do it this way and much more responsible with tax payer dollars |
|
