One parcel, two trials?

[bob]

doctorwho said:

happymom said:

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

The ES number could go down because the class that went MS could be larger then the K class coming in.

[doctorwho]

harry said:

doctorwho said:

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...

still did not answer the question - even a little -- who are you moving out of Scullen MS to the reto fitted Peterson MS in this scenario ? And Scullen parents - would you have been OK with that ?

[momto4]

lacy said:

momto4 said:

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 this is acceptable to you? I think it would not be to many.

More like unavoidable. I have already written this is one of the reasons I'm glad not to be within the boundaries of the new HS. However the benefits of having a third HS more than outweigh some missed opportunities in the first couple of years. What would you propose be done about this? I don't think juniors and seniors should be forced to change schools.

[harry]

bob said:

harry said:

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.

During the Gold campus regime bob

[doctorwho]

harry said:

bob said:

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

ebb and flow -- we already had people screaming on this very board that they were going to waste money on signage to convert Waubonsie Gold back to a MS -- please

[doctorwho]

bob said:

doctorwho said:

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

The ES number could go down because the class that went MS could be larger then the K class coming in.

so if we live with overcrowding for 15 - 20 years - we will 'weather' the storm if that trend continued -- sounds like a plan

[harry]

doctorwho said:

harry said:

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...

still did not answer the question - even a little -- who are you moving out of Scullen MS to the reto fitted Peterson MS in this scenario ? And Scullen parents - would you have been OK with that ?

The 6th graders as driven (I believe) posted. Use Petersen or complain about overcrowding...

[bob]

harry said:

bob said:

What? We voted on a HS twice. I don't remember a MS being part of either referendum.

During the Gold campus regime bob

Could you specify that then? Going back that far brings in another whole ball of wax that still pisses me off.

[harry]

doctorwho said:

bob said:

The ES number could go down because the class that went MS could be larger then the K class coming in.

so if we live with overcrowding for 15 - 20 years - we will 'weather' the storm if that trend continued -- sounds like a plan

On your 'speculation' if the MS/HS is up to 750 and , as the majority of posters here always bring up that 204 is at near buildout, why are we NOT building a new MS instead of a 3000 seat HS???

[doctorwho]

harry said:

doctorwho said:

still did not answer the question - even a little -- who are you moving out of Scullen MS to the reto fitted Peterson MS in this scenario ? And Scullen parents - would you have been OK with that ?

The 6th graders as driven (I believe) posted. Use Petersen or complain about overcrowding...

I don't believe most there would be happy with that -- based onprevious reactions

[blankcheck]

One more time. Everyone keeps saying how overcrowded we are - SO why are they doing nothing about it right now, today, this year?

[doctorwho]

harry said:

doctorwho said:

so if we live with overcrowding for 15 - 20 years - we will 'weather' the storm if that trend continued -- sounds like a plan

On your 'speculation' if the MS/HS is up to 750 and , as the majority of posters here always bring up that 204 is at near buildout, why are we NOT building a new MS instead of a 3000 seat HS???

because we gain a MS when the HS opens ?

I for one do not want 5000 + student high schools

[Arch]

harry said:

doctorwho said:

so if we live with overcrowding for 15 - 20 years - we will 'weather' the storm if that trend continued -- sounds like a plan

On your 'speculation' if the MS/HS is up to 750 and , as the majority of posters here always bring up that 204 is at near buildout, why are we NOT building a new MS instead of a 3000 seat HS???

I believe the idea was to gain back the 2 MS's that are now freshmen centers.

[lacy]

doctorwho said:

happymom said:

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

We're building a high school for an enrollment increase of 500 - 750 kids?

And why aren't we talking about Happy Mom's post - instead the conversation is about retrofitting Petersen (which wouldn't have been a bad idea).

But what about HappyMom's post? Kinda like that white elephant in the room everyone wants to ignore....

[lacy]

momto4 said:

lacy said:

And this is acceptable to you? I think it would not be to many.

More like unavoidable. I have already written this is one of the reasons I'm glad not to be within the boundaries of the new HS. However the benefits of having a third HS more than outweigh some missed opportunities in the first couple of years. What would you propose be done about this? I don't think juniors and seniors should be forced to change schools.

So since it's not your kid, the benefits outweigh the missed opportunities (that other kids will have to deal with). Is that what you're saying?