enrollment graphs

[cantretirehere]

204parent said:

cantretirehere said:

So why are we getting our panties in a knot?

The current HS enrollment is 7,617. With the kids currently in the system, current class sizes are about 2,300, so HS enrollment will be about 9,200 without any further growth. Since you can see on the graph that enrollment is still slowly increasing (just like 203), we need more space.

Don't forget, we also need more MS space.

204parent ,
Your graph shows a steady increase because it is using figures that contain enrollments from current 6th grade through 12th grade classes. That is as it should be for the purposes of that graph. However, because that graph does not directly address the enrollment figures for the lower grades in our district it is not efficient for use in the argument of needing a 3rd high school.

As you can see from my graphs at the beginning of this post, when you break out the classes under discussion there is a more pronounced leveling and even some dipping in the enrollment figures of the lower grades. A referendum is occuring due to what is happening in the lower grades not because of what is happening in the upper grades.
CRH

[cantretirehere]

204parent said:

cantretirehere said:

Read the last paragraph of my post. I used the district's current enrollment figures for those classes. Not sure what you're asking for.

So the %increase for each class takes into account the growth of each class from when they were in 1st grade through this year. It doesn't take into account any growth in these classes for future years, so the %increase is a little low.

Yes - it is a little low. But if you look at the trend of that percentage decreasing yearly since 1999, we can safely assume that it will continue to decrease into the future. Unless all of the builders have a huge building spurt and those houses fill with kids. Even if that happens, we would have a huge plummet in that percentage in following years because there is a finite amount of land in the district. Once we are built out that percentage should remain relatively stable and low. We can see that it is already starting to decrease.

[204parent]

cantretirehere said:

204parent said:

The current HS enrollment is 7,617. With the kids currently in the system, current class sizes are about 2,300, so HS enrollment will be about 9,200 without any further growth. Since you can see on the graph that enrollment is still slowly increasing (just like 203), we need more space.

Don't forget, we also need more MS space.

Your graph shows a steady increase because it is using figures that contain enrollments from current 6th grade through 12th grade classes. That is as it should be for the purposes of that graph. However, because that graph does not directly address the enrollment figures for the lower grades in our district it is not efficient for use in the argument of needing a 3rd high school.

As you can see from my graphs at the beginning of this post, when you break out the classes under discussion there is a more pronounced leveling and even some dipping in the enrollment figures of the lower grades. A referendum is occuring due to what is happening in the lower grades not because of what is happening in the upper grades.

No, that's not correct. My graphs show total enrollment K-12, so they are very relevant. CFO predicted a bubble last year because of the dip in this year's 1st grade class, but this year's K class is the largest in history, so the bubble theory is incorrect.

[stinks]

CRH,

So are you saying that we will see negative growth after a point? If not, then 204P's comment that we are in a 203 type situation would seem to hold.

[proschool]

cantretirehere said:

204parent said:

So the %increase for each class takes into account the growth of each class from when they were in 1st grade through this year. It doesn't take into account any growth in these classes for future years, so the %increase is a little low.

Yes - it is a little low. But if you look at the trend of that percentage decreasing yearly since 1999, we can safely assume that it will continue to decrease into the future. Unless all of the builders have a huge building spurt and those houses fill with kids. Even if that happens, we would have a huge plummet in that percentage in following years because there is a finite amount of land in the district. Once we are built out that percentage should remain relatively stable and low. We can see that it is already starting to decrease.

But aren't you just saying that the rate of increase is starting to decrease? The student population is still trending upward.

As we are out of land there will be less room for additional houses but we won't be getting rid of any of the housing that we have now.

Anyone can see that even if there was no increase whatsoever that a 3rd Hs would be put to good use.

Even with a third high school we are only preparing for a small increase in student population. If class sizes only increase by 10% all three high schools will have to operatae at near 100% capacity. WV and NV are not at 100% capacity now but from what I hear they can be pretty uncomfortable at times.

[admin]

I really think we are going to in the 2200-2300 level for the next 5-6 K classes with next year being a really big class.


I f we have 3 3000 HS running at 90% optimal still puts it at 8100 kids. IIRC, Bradshaw did say that they will first sell off a MS before closing a HS.

[JB]

cantretirehere said:

jb said:

CRH,

I understand the spreadsheet logic up to 2005-2006. How did you calculate the numbers in the green box?

Read the last paragraph of my post. I used the district's current enrollment figures for those classes. Not sure what you're asking for.

OK, got ya. You're saying, for example, that the current 8th grade class is 2155, and that's were the 9th grade number for 2006-2007 comes from.

What about the 1,061 ES, 714 MS, and 886 HS children that are projected from the currently planned developments?

What about 405 ES, 270 MS, and 215 HS potential new children from the vacant land at Bronk, Wagner, and other parcels?

www.ipsd.org/Uploads/DEC1_VACANT%20PARCEL%20LOCATION.pdf

And what about the wildcard of property that could be rezoned commercial to residential? This isn't even talked about in the district's chart. However, it is very real. Kimball Homes is proposing rezoning 24 acres tonight, which would allow them to put 284 townhomes on 42 acres. They also want to build more 3 bedroon units. The problem is, this rezoning is not going to stop anytime soon.

I guess it is comforting that even this extremely conservative growth projection is pointing to a severe capacity crunch.

[stinks]

I agree. All the other emotional and personal issues aside, it seems that we really do need an additional highschool. And, based on 203 as the closest example of a long term case study, we won't see a decrease but rather continue to slowly increase as we go along. And this is based on conservative assumptions.

I think the knotting of our undergarments is warranted.

[Arch]

link

Look at the ramp up during the telcom hiring craze around here... I don't really see any real 'drawing back back' to the area like it was before.

I just with they had more recent data online to sift through.

[cantretirehere]

stinks said:

CRH,

So are you saying that we will see negative growth after a point? If not, then 204P's comment that we are in a 203 type situation would seem to hold.

At a point - but not sure what point. Even the district doesn't know what is happening with the open land as is evident from some of the last posts.

[cantretirehere]

Does anyone know what the highest max extremist enrollment ever prediction for this district is??

[stinks]

cantretirehere said:

stinks said:

CRH,

So are you saying that we will see negative growth after a point? If not, then 204P's comment that we are in a 203 type situation would seem to hold.

At a point - but not sure what point. Even the district doesn't know what is happening with the open land as is evident from some of the last posts.

It just seems to me that the odds are less in favor of a bubble and more in favor of some type of protracted growth--be it high rate or some middling paced increase.

I get the feeling that no matter how much the new condos are being objected to, they will go through and be built in the configuration most favorable to the builder--in this case 3BR units. It just seems to be the nature of this city.

[wvhsparent]

cantretirehere said:

Does anyone know what the highest max extremist enrollment ever prediction for this district is??

I think that would be the NIU study which IIFC put the HS population at over 13000, and total SD over 37000.
I cannot find the links to it anymore

[blankcheck]

CRH-thanks for the graphs. Every year since 1999-00, you are seeing a gradual decline in enrollment. During this period of time, there were huge developments ongoing. (Timber Creek for example). Now that they will not be opening Peterson due to lack of enrollment, I do not see the need for another high school. We spent how much? on Peterson and it will sit empty? Even HC said that Ashwood is taking a lot longer to build then they thought. All that land still open is zoned for WV. Will people spend that much on a home?

[admin]

Where do you see a declining enrollment?

1st grade
99-00 2052
00-01 2258
01-02 2266
02-03 2192
03-04 2189
04-05 2316
05-06 2251