Goals for 3rd High School

[fence]

Well I would just say that one can't pick a site that is at an extreme point in the district, and then at the same time think that we will not be disrupting a large number of kids to fill it, and in this case, one that wouldn't require a dismissal of the "equitable" distribution of students whatever that has come to mean. That's just reality. A northern site, if that's the only place we can put the HS, would essentially need to empty WV as rew said, so that it could be filled with the central and near south students who you couldn't with any sense of logic ask to travel to a far north site.

[rew]

I would just like to clarify my nasty post. It was in response to the suggestion that the AME MV be a smaller capacity school and overcrowd NV and WV potentially.

I don't think that's what we voted for, I feel we voted first and foremost to ease overcrowding. My own kids have been in overcrowded schools since the day they started in 204.

In my rant I reeled off WV schools and I was called out for naming all these Title1 schools...I was just running the list down Eola in my head. I was not making boundary suggestions.

[gatormom]

rew said:

I would just like to clarify my nasty post. It was in response to the suggestion that the AME MV be a smaller capacity school and overcrowd NV and WV potentially.

I don't think that's what we voted for, I feel we voted first and foremost to ease overcrowding. My own kids have been in overcrowded schools since the day they started in 204.

In my rant I reeled off WV schools and I was called out for naming all these Title1 schools...I was just running the list down Eola in my head. I was not making boundary suggestions.

Thank you for your explanation rew. That makes a lot of sense and I agree with you. We need a high school that can handle overcrowding today and in the future.

[fence]

It does make sense. And if we do pick a school that's in an extreme location, it will be a very a very unfortunate and painful boundary decision. Which I think we all can live without, no matter who we are. I just really dread the idea - it would be a truly no-win situation.

[gatordog]

rew said:

I would just like to clarify my nasty post. It was in response to the suggestion that the AME MV be a smaller capacity school and overcrowd NV and WV potentially.

I don't think that's what we voted for, I feel we voted first and foremost to ease overcrowding. My own kids have been in overcrowded schools since the day they started in 204.

rew, I understood your allegory. I did not find it nasty, it wasn't to be taken literally. Its good to think "big picture", and you did that fine. We need that!

But you said the word yourself...potentially overcrowd.

I am not suggesting we cavalierly settle for a smaller HS. What I am suggesting, is we need to ask about what the growth model is really forecasting. Especially if a north site picked.

The ref was sold based on future enroll of 10,200 to be handle by 4200+3000+3000 seat HS. If I recall (and I am pretty sure about this), that enrollment figure was an average btw two different models, independently done. The lower model, I think, was showing ~9700 peak or thereabouts. What if more time, more data is showing that this lower number is more accurate? Then you could quite optimally meet HS needs with 4200+3000+2500.

It cannot hurt for the district to sharpen the pencil a little on this. (Another reason: it could also be considers as possible way to account for escalating construction costs to keep it on-budget)

But, to stay on topic, rew has a REAL concern here. We need to do boundaries right to minimize the chance of future boundary changes. I think that should be added as goal on doctorwho's original list. Explicitly add this for item 3.

[rew]

I think it is a big risk in a district that is not built out.

But, if we are going to build a smaller school then why not build it at BB?

At least then if the lower projections are wrong in five years, we can add to a BB MV and fill it readily.

[gatordog]

rew said:

I think it is a big risk in a district that is not built out.

But, if we are going to build a smaller school then why not build it at BB?

At least then if the lower projections are wrong in five years, we can add to a BB MV and fill it readily.

I agree its a risk. But maybe more recent data could guide how big the risk would be.

If warrented by the data, a smaller HS at BB would absolutely be a consideration. There would be some corresponding tweaks to the boundaries.

I wonder if this has been considered behind the closed doors? Or maybe they are sticking with the original growth numbers, period. None of this would have anything to do with negotiations. I see no reason they cannot come right out and say if this is sensible option, independent of location.

[proschool]

gatordog said:

rew said:

I would just like to clarify my nasty post. It was in response to the suggestion that the AME MV be a smaller capacity school and overcrowd NV and WV potentially.

I don't think that's what we voted for, I feel we voted first and foremost to ease overcrowding. My own kids have been in overcrowded schools since the day they started in 204.

rew, I understood your allegory. I did not find it nasty, it wasn't to be taken literally. Its good to think "big picture", and you did that fine. We need that!

But you said the word yourself...potentially overcrowd.

I am not suggesting we cavalierly settle for a smaller HS. What I am suggesting, is we need to ask about what the growth model is really forecasting. Especially if a north site picked.

The ref was sold based on future enroll of 10,200 to be handle by 4200+3000+3000 seat HS. If I recall (and I am pretty sure about this), that enrollment figure was an average btw two different models, independently done. The lower model, I think, was showing ~9700 peak or thereabouts. What if more time, more data is showing that this lower number is more accurate? Then you could quite optimally meet HS needs with 4200+3000+2500.

It cannot hurt for the district to sharpen the pencil a little on this. (Another reason: it could also be considers as possible way to account for escalating construction costs to keep it on-budget)

But, to stay on topic, rew has a REAL concern here. We need to do boundaries right to minimize the chance of future boundary changes. I think that should be added as goal on doctorwho's original list. Explicitly add this for item 3.

IIRC, the low growth model was just the number of children in the system now relied on the impossible assumption that no students will come from future housing. I don't undrstand why the administration presnted it at all.

[gatordog]

proschool said:

IIRC, the low growth model was just the number of children in the system now relied on the impossible assumption that no students will come from future housing. I don't undrstand why the administration presnted it at all.

It was a while ago, and memories can get fuzzy. I am pretty sure it was presented, as a conservative growth model. If it was just simply no future students added....it was a very bad model!

Per post by bob a while back:
Using current enrollment here are the HS numbers for the nine years

9143 2016
9165 2015
9106 2014
9192 2013
9228 2012
9133 2011
8907 2010
8591 2009
8086 2008

[wvhsparent]

gatordog said:

proschool said:

IIRC, the low growth model was just the number of children in the system now relied on the impossible assumption that no students will come from future housing. I don't undrstand why the administration presnted it at all.

It was a while ago, and memories can get fuzzy. I am pretty sure it was presented, as a conservative growth model. If it was just simply no future students added....it was a very bad model!

Per post by bob a while back:
Using current enrollment here are the HS numbers for the nine years

9143 2016
9165 2015
9106 2014
9192 2013
9228 2012
9133 2011
8907 2010
8591 2009
8086 2008

so using your growth assumption of around 9700 Students is approx 550 over the "no growth model" and a little over 1000 students with the full growth model.
In the current climate I would expect the growth to be closer to your number.
Now if they still can build to the Full growth model, I say go for it. Should then give all schools some elbow room.

Also not considered in these is the Frontier Campus and it's potential of 600 students.

[proschool]

Thanks for reminding me about the growth models. It has been a while since I looked at them. I do rememeber that that I considered the low growth model to be unrealistically low.

I would like to add an observation. If the housing market is slows down everyone expects it to result in less students in the district. That may be true in the short run but the birth rate is not decreasing as far as I know. If there are less homes in the future and just as many kids there could just be more kids per home.

[sam2]

gatordog said:

proschool said:

Per post by bob a while back:
Using current enrollment here are the HS numbers for the nine years

9143 2016
9165 2015
9106 2014
9192 2013
9228 2012
9133 2011
8907 2010
8591 2009
8086 2008

Can someone help me with the numbers. I understand the numbers in Bob's post. But I cannot help but notice that the peak is in 2012 and that it is only 321 higher than the 2010 enrollment. If we are building a school for 3,000 students, and if 2010 is the first year that the new school can be opened, where are those 2,700 ( 3,000 - 321) students in 2009? If you look at the historical projections, from the last referendum and the two before that, the common fact is that we have never hit the projected level of students.

I understand that there will likely be more growth, and it will be south, but I think it's unreasonable to think it's going to result in an 2,700 more high school students than we have now. I've been here for 20 years, we were at WVHS before Nequa was built, it was less than ideal, but it was certainly not the end of the world.

It seems to me that there was talk of overcrowding at the elementary level, yet we now have 61 classrooms available for all day kindergarten.

Maybe it's time to let go of our hardened opinions and take a fresh look at the numbers......I know there is a lot of emotion, I know what we voted for, but the reality is that we are going to find a place for a lot more students than we originally planned for -- we have no choice....two years later, the numbers begin to go down -- except for the impact of growth....and growth will not be 2,700 students in the the next 5 years....

Ideally, we'd be building MV now and there'd be a lot of space in 2009, but that is not the situation today....

[wvhsparent]

I think one has to consider that most of the new construction areas left in 204 are designed for the move-up buyer from outside the district, and most people are not moving-up right now, rather, staying put.
Tighter restrictions on mortgages are not helping either.
Now if the builders were to change their direction and go with more affordable homes, 300k range, that might cause a faster growth. I , however do not see them doing that.

[bob]

It seems to me that there was talk of overcrowding at the elementary level, yet we now have 61 classrooms available for all day kindergarten.

The overcrowding is in the middle school.

This is what I think we should do:

1) build MV on budget
2) Turn NV frosh campus to a MS
3) Sell WV frosh campus
4) Take money from selling WV frosh campus and pay down bonds. Not to pay for any overrruns.

We add a MS and go with 3 3000 seat HS. Also, we end the disaster of building freshman campuses.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

It seems to me that there was talk of overcrowding at the elementary level, yet we now have 61 classrooms available for all day kindergarten.

The overcrowding is in the middle school.

This is what I think we should do:

1) build MV on budget
2) Turn NV frosh campus to a MS
3) Sell WV frosh campus
4) Take money from selling WV frosh campus and pay down bonds. Not to pay for any overrruns.

We add a MS and go with 3 3000 seat HS. Also, we end the disaster of building freshman campuses.

All well and good, but we would still technically not have enough room without the 1 Freshman campus