Sun article 4/2

[asmodeus]

If the referendum fails:

• Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM

Did anyone actually believe this threat? There are so many obstacles in making that work, I couldn't possibly see that happening. Like the recent talk about 4-day weeks...it's absurd on its face and any real chance of it happening would mean the end of D204.

The SB (along with the PR group it hired) were certainly guilty of fear mongering.

[lacy]

Apr 7, 2010 12:44:57 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

If the referendum fails:

• Students will be forced to attend split shifts 7 AM to Noon & 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM

Did anyone actually believe this threat? There are so many obstacles in making that work, I couldn't possibly see that happening. Like the recent talk about 4-day weeks...it's absurd on its face and any real chance of it happening would mean the end of D204.

The SB (along with the PR group it hired) were certainly guilty of fear mongering.

Yes, and the fact that people are wise to it means we are less likely to buy their spin now or in the future.

[Arch]

Apr 7, 2010 11:36:04 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Apr 7, 2010 9:03:26 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

I felt the freshman center and frontier campus were stop gap measures

My personal experience was that the WV Freshman Center, due to it being so isolated across two busy roads, did not work so well in being inclusive for the freshman into the HS experience. I am glad its gone. I think WV will be better off without it.

I think (I have no direct experience of course) that the NV Gold campus integrates much better into the campus life. I think this structure makes much more sense here.

My daughter to this day feels more attached to WV than to MV... and she was at the freshman center. You say your personal experience... do you mean your kid's or YOURS ? I thought you were older than HS age.

[gatordog]

Apr 7, 2010 12:15:03 GMT -6 macrockett said:

You will have to post something to support what you say Gatordog. In the conclusions on page three of this document (and others for that matter that I site in the long and winding road) winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005_Report.pdf quite clearing the preference is add to existing buildings. I do not see any ambiguity, with respect to that issue, in any of the three documents I have posted in the other section.

........

I need to see more than your statement above, which doesn't support your conclusion.

Look directly at the raw data survey responses:
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005SurveyResults.pdf

I see ambiguity.

And in the other document, the final summarizing report, there are about a dozen pages explaining the classroom capacty section. There is nothing absolutely definitive here. Otherwise, they maybe could have said it a bit more succinctly. This survey and report to me are about shades, not black & white.

But really, I dont know where to take this discussion.... if the public opinion was so strong that adding onto existing buildings was the clear cut preference, they should have voted differently.

[southsidesignmaker]

What is with the small sample size of this survey:
Look directly at the raw data survey responses:
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005SurveyResults.pdf

I am assuming the district did a much more in depth survey with a much larger group.


Of course at this point it is water under the bridge, as the vote is done along with the built high school.

[macrockett]

Apr 7, 2010 13:19:56 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Apr 7, 2010 12:15:03 GMT -6 macrockett said:

You will have to post something to support what you say Gatordog. In the conclusions on page three of this document (and others for that matter that I site in the long and winding road) winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005_Report.pdf quite clearing the preference is add to existing buildings. I do not see any ambiguity, with respect to that issue, in any of the three documents I have posted in the other section.

........

I need to see more than your statement above, which doesn't support your conclusion.

Look directly at the raw data survey responses:
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005SurveyResults.pdf

I see ambiguity.

And in the other document, the final summarizing report, there are about a dozen pages explaining the classroom capacty section. There is nothing absolutely definitive here. Otherwise, they maybe could have said it a bit more succinctly. This survey and report to me are about shades, not black & white.

But really, I dont know where to take this discussion.... if the public opinion was so strong that adding onto existing buildings was the clear cut preference, they should have voted differently.

I'm looking at the data, gatordog. If you want to add two lines together then 89% were favorable to additions whereas 66% were favorable to a 3d HS. No matter which way you slice it, the survey preference was additions. The District's own survey consultant concluded that. So did the Beacon. It may be ambiguous to you but on that point, it is pretty clear to me.

As to capacity, you nor I ever discussed that.

I can't speak for the way people voted in 06, but the only choice they were given was up on down on a 3d high school. Were they given all the facts to make an informed decision? Were there District representations made as to the outcome if the referendum failed? My conclusions have already been stated on those points, based on documents I have posted.

[macrockett]

Apr 7, 2010 13:30:39 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

What is with the small sample size of this survey:
Look directly at the raw data survey responses:
winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/8_18_2005SurveyResults.pdf

I am assuming the district did a much more in depth survey with a much larger group.


Of course at this point it is water under the bridge, as the vote is done along with the built high school.

It is a statistically valid survey SSSM.

Yes, it is a fact, the vote is done and the HS has been built. I don't think anyone on this Board is arguing otherwise.

[asmodeus]

It is a statistically valid survey SSSM

The sample size may be sufficient but what about the randomness of the samples?

In my opinion, the questions were poorly written (for example, "DK" is used throughout, whereas "Don't Know" or "Unsure" are used in other places. For Q4, asking whether you favored or opposed the 1st ref, what does "Refused" mean? (The other choices are Favored, Opposed, and Not Sure/Don't Know.) If this group can't write a professional survey, how do we know they know anything about random samples?

[gatordog]

Apr 7, 2010 12:24:41 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Apr 7, 2010 11:22:43 GMT -6 gatordog said:

I disagree that adding on to NV was THE solution.....

Again, you provide no facts to support your conclusion. A statement, without more, proves nothing.

Add up ES enrollments for the old WV area. Take it all the way forward through todays K students. With no growth, WV would have had more than 4500 students. Thats for ever year on the horizon. And beyond you have to assume. My statement is that building an addition onto NV would not have helped this long term problem.

....

The fact is gatordog, you may want the HS where it is, but the majority of the kids are in the southern third of the District. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. In addition, buildable lots on the southern end of the District dwarf those on the northern end. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The majority kids now, but what about in a decade? The big bubble in school enrollments, is in the south. The northern enrollments are more stable. In fact, if you take today's K enrollments and mulitply by four, MV could be a larger HS than NV. It has to do with the age of the neighborhoods, turnover of new families. But I agree with something you said about buildable land in the south, I hope future growth is able to sanely develop here.

And just to summarize what I wanted, and what drove my voting: my prime want was a third HS. I would have supported it at any of the possible sites. (I sorely wish we had passed the first yes vote and had this thing built cheaper, quicker, at BB. It wasnt to be, unfortately----in my opinion)

[asmodeus]

The majority kids now, but what about in a decade? The big bubble in school enrollments, is in the south. The northern enrollments are more stable. In fact, if you take today's K enrollments and mulitply by four, MV could be a larger HS than NV. It has to do with the age of the neighborhoods,

I don't understand this. I would think that excluding new growth, the demographics of the north and south would remain the same. Why would people in the south have fewer kids over time? Because their houses are bigger or smaller? Please elaborate.

[gatordog]

Apr 7, 2010 14:10:27 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

The majority kids now, but what about in a decade? The big bubble in school enrollments, is in the south. The northern enrollments are more stable. In fact, if you take today's K enrollments and mulitply by four, MV could be a larger HS than NV. It has to do with the age of the neighborhoods,

I don't understand this. I would think that excluding new growth, the demographics of the north and south would remain the same. Why would people in the south have fewer kids over time? Because their houses are bigger or smaller? Please elaborate.

Age demographics, based on age of the neighborhoods. With 30+ yr neighborhoods in the north, a house sale in the north very well could be one of SSSM's "old farts" with grown-up children selling to a young couple. Net gain of school-age kids.

In the south, with newer neighborhoods, a sale could be family with kids selling to family with kids. Lower probability of the "old fart" factor.

SSSM's terminology has come in quite handy

[doctorwho]

Apr 7, 2010 14:52:00 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Apr 7, 2010 14:10:27 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

I don't understand this. I would think that excluding new growth, the demographics of the north and south would remain the same. Why would people in the south have fewer kids over time? Because their houses are bigger or smaller? Please elaborate.

Age demographics, based on age of the neighborhoods. With 30+ yr neighborhoods in the north, a house sale in the north very well could be one of SSSM's "old farts" with grown-up children selling to a young couple. Net gain of school-age kids.

In the south, with newer neighborhoods, a sale could be family with kids selling to family with kids. Lower probability of the "old fart" factor.

SSSM's terminology has come in quite handy

Ok- how does that explain:
1/ MW - approx 20 years old and losing kids every year - the core area is down significantly from 10 years ago
-- and I canly supply facts for my subdivision, but I would say maybe 10% are original homeowners, many houses turned over multiple times so where's that influx of kids ?
2/ Owen ( again about the same age) NEVER getting anywhere near what was predicted for them- regardless of where they draw from
3/ White Eagle is only slightly less aged than Watts, much built about the same time - and their population pattern is completely different

so unless there are some hard facts that support this-- I am having trouble 'taking it on faith'

[macrockett]

Apr 7, 2010 14:00:25 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Apr 7, 2010 12:24:41 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Again, you provide no facts to support your conclusion. A statement, without more, proves nothing.

Add up ES enrollments for the old WV area. Take it all the way forward through todays K students. With no growth, WV would have had more than 4500 students. Thats for ever year on the horizon. And beyond you have to assume. My statement is that building an addition onto NV would not have helped this long term problem.

....

The fact is gatordog, you may want the HS where it is, but the majority of the kids are in the southern third of the District. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. In addition, buildable lots on the southern end of the District dwarf those on the northern end. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The majority kids now, but what about in a decade? The big bubble in school enrollments, is in the south. The northern enrollments are more stable. In fact, if you take today's K enrollments and mulitply by four, MV could be a larger HS than NV. It has to do with the age of the neighborhoods, turnover of new families. But I agree with something you said about buildable land in the south, I hope future growth is able to sanely develop here.

And just to summarize what I wanted, and what drove my voting: my prime want was a third HS. I would have supported it at any of the possible sites. (I sorely wish we had passed the first yes vote and had this thing built cheaper, quicker, at BB. It wasnt to be, unfortately----in my opinion)

Since it is your position gatordog, why don't you create a spreadsheet and show everyone the breakdown, by year and by elementary school.

As far as the future, anything is possible. It is hard to project into the future without facts. Right now, and I suspect in the future, the majority of homes in the District are south and east of 34 (approximately 70%). In addition, I would say 85-90% of available residential land (and lots) is south of 75th.

I don't think there is a snowballs change that anytime soon, if ever, the center of the student population density will be anywhere close to MVHS.

As far a the HS is concerned, everyone is entitled to there vote and their opinion. I have never challenged that. What is important to me is a voter who has all the facts provided by an objective and biased free Board.

I believe our resources are limited and if we make decisions based on something other than the truth, at the time of the vote, we jeopardize the future of residents of this District.

I believe I have laid out all the material facts that exist and that those facts call into question the actions of our Board and the wisdom of building a third HS.

[doctorwho]

Apr 7, 2010 12:30:48 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Apr 7, 2010 11:22:43 GMT -6 gatordog said:

I disagree that adding on to NV was THE solution. For example, how would that have helped address the issue that the MV attendance area is growing in student population? (almost certainly due to SSSM's older area population turnover).

Maybe to the old NV attendance area, this would be seen as some solution to their issues. But not for the rest of the district. I disagree that this would have been a superior solution.

Do you have facts to back up that northern growth statement ? I have facts that say that ES populations is down 4 consecutive years in 204 -- totalling over a 9% drop. I also have facts that show Watts base attendance area has dropped by almost 30% from it's 'hey say' when the addition was put on.

Yes the north got the solution THEY wanted- and no one else -- some areas got totally screwed ( and may get it again if there is a future need to close ES's) - so one needs to be careful when throwing around the phrase "rest of the district'. Is Watts in that ' rest of the district' you mention ? My area has one of the longest MS commutes- the longest HS commute and may soon have a long commute to ES... the add on was NOT only a NV solution, sorry.

And an extra $125M or so for any solution over another workable solution should not be something that makes anyone proud..

it's easy to throw someone else's money at a problem- it actually takes a plan to work out a difficult solution..

still waiting for:

facts to support the 'northern growth'
how this 'entire district' best solution applies to Watts
why an extra $125M over and above the other 'fix' is a good investment

[macrockett]

Apr 7, 2010 13:59:28 GMT -6 asmodeus said:

It is a statistically valid survey SSSM

The sample size may be sufficient but what about the randomness of the samples?

In my opinion, the questions were poorly written (for example, "DK" is used throughout, whereas "Don't Know" or "Unsure" are used in other places. For Q4, asking whether you favored or opposed the 1st ref, what does "Refused" mean? (The other choices are Favored, Opposed, and Not Sure/Don't Know.) If this group can't write a professional survey, how do we know they know anything about random samples?

You will have to take that up with CCO and the District Asmodeus. My hope is CCO, who is in the business of suveys, etc. knows what they are doing. I could be wrong. As to the survey, my focus is on one subject, the preference of the voters of this District re how best to satisfy our capacity needs.