|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 15, 2010 18:53:35 GMT -6
Arch,
Thankfully Arch our immediate area is probably as close to an oasis as possible in the midwest area. Contrary to what some would say our district and our sister district 203 are still very good places to receive a first rate education. Taxes are high but they are high all over our immediate viewing area and fortunately our business tax base is still strong.
When comparing other communities such as those to our immediate south and southwest our tax rate is very competitive and our close in location is a real plus. With the large number of foreclosures in newer locations the price pressure should make our area very price competitive.
Stable tax base, great education, along with superior location should help our area in the long run. It is now time for sweat equity and good old hard work!
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 15, 2010 19:24:21 GMT -6
As we enter a period of stagnant growth accompanied with high unemployment and a low formation of family households it is good to note that these conditions do not last forever.
One only needs to go back in history 30 years and note some definite similarities. Many near in suburbs and some western suburbs lost up to 15% of their population as the kids emptied from the bedrooms and went off to college or professions after college. Once the boomers came of age and formed new households the economy started to gain a foothold (mid 1980's).
I suspect the same thing will happen in 6-10 years as the boomers kids start to form their own households in earnest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 15, 2010 19:25:05 GMT -6
I think we see two different outcomes for the next 10-20 years for the area. The state and federal debt is a boat anchor that did not exist in today's form 30 years ago. College costs are up and wages are down and many coming out of college are working where they did when they were in HS.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 15, 2010 19:27:46 GMT -6
Arch, I suspect the outcome will be somewhere in between what each of us has presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 15, 2010 22:26:59 GMT -6
I thought this was interesting from this yrs enrollment report. (no new conclusion here that hasnt been discussed.. But this newest data still shows this to very much be the case): WV and MV combined Freshman class totals 1301. 1st graders in WV and MV feeder schools total at least 1381. (ignores the part of Peterson that goes to WV)
For these two HS areas, there are more 1st graders in the school system than current freshmenFor NV, Freshman class totals 1014 And 1st graders in NV feeder schools total about 666. Yes, this has been said before....but here is another way to pretty clearly see: for a large part of the district, there is no enrollment 'bubble'. But there are no doubt enrollment bubble issues for a parts of district. We will need to plan the future accordingly. Gatordog I could take tidbits of data and mold them to just about any shape I want but tidbits aren't material when you are looking at a school district in its totality. Your "tidbits" distort the real picture. Arch has it right in that you have to look at the totality in 4 year blocks, that is the only thing that is relevant in terms of the HSs. Anything less is meaningless. While your "tidbit" of information may be correct, the fact is we have a bubble, nothing more, nothing less, and that bubble will contract back to FY 2009 levels in 2019. Over 900 HSs have closed in Illinois in its history. Many of them for the reason they went through a growth phase where more families were moving into an area (ie, students were coming into the district faster at a point in time than were leaving). Over time that reverses (as students leave faster than new ones coming in). It shouldn't be a difficult concept for anyone to comprehend. left out the 2009 where levels will contract to in 2019 |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 15, 2010 23:26:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 6:36:37 GMT -6
I just read a very different take...this report said many boomers will be staying put in their big homes longer because of the depreciated values...at least til home prices recover?? Which the same article "claimed" could be at least ten years. Nothing's a given and basically one guess is as good as the next. outlook this AM was 3 more years of depreciating home prices then a U shaped slow recovery- in the 10 year range you mention. People are not moving out of their homes because their equity has been sucked ry - no money for down payment on smaller house..they are going to ride it out. Also the last 3 houses that sold here- the people who moved in - in each case had no school age kids- they we basically my age..2 were relocates where their company paid for it -- One from Michigan and the other from Ohio. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 6:39:58 GMT -6
As we enter a period of stagnant growth accompanied with high unemployment and a low formation of family households it is good to note that these conditions do not last forever. One only needs to go back in history 30 years and note some definite similarities. Many near in suburbs and some western suburbs lost up to 15% of their population as the kids emptied from the bedrooms and went off to college or professions after college. Once the boomers came of age and formed new households the economy started to gain a foothold (mid 1980's). I suspect the same thing will happen in 6-10 years as the boomers kids start to form their own households in earnest. I think the one wild card difference between the period you mention and also coming out of the last depression was that the company was not anywhere near as upside down trade balance wise as we were still a manufacturing power that generated jobs. Also there was not the low cost off-shore workforce that dominates the white collar force as today-- where companies have sent 12-15 million jobs to Brazil / Vietnam/ India/ Dingapore etc ( know this first hand) - and those jobs will never return. What is going to spur this recovery ? I hope something, but the answers this time are much more difficult for the reasons I mention |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 6:46:20 GMT -6
I thought this was interesting from this yrs enrollment report. (no new conclusion here that hasnt been discussed.. But this newest data still shows this to very much be the case): WV and MV combined Freshman class totals 1301. 1st graders in WV and MV feeder schools total at least 1381. (ignores the part of Peterson that goes to WV)
For these two HS areas, there are more 1st graders in the school system than current freshmenFor NV, Freshman class totals 1014 And 1st graders in NV feeder schools total about 666. Yes, this has been said before....but here is another way to pretty clearly see: for a large part of the district, there is no enrollment 'bubble'. But there are no doubt enrollment bubble issues for a parts of district. We will need to plan the future accordingly. Gatordog I could take tidbits of data and mold them to just about any shape I want but tidbits aren't material when you are looking at a school district in its totality. Your "tidbits" distort the real picture. Arch has it right in that you have to look at the totality in 4 year blocks, that is the only thing that is relevant in terms of the HSs. Anything less is meaningless. While your "tidbit" of information may be correct, the fact is we have a bubble, nothing more, nothing less, and that bubble will contract back to FY levels in 2019. Over 900 HSs have closed in Illinois in its history. Many of them for the reason they went through a growth phase where more families were moving into an area (ie, students were coming into the district faster at a point in time than were leaving). Over time that reverses (as students leave faster than new ones coming in). It shouldn't be a difficult concept for anyone to comprehend. the bubble exists for the district - period...why are we trying to look at 'sections' - which may or may not hold up anyway. We spent $150M as a DISTRICT - not as a section of a district, unless someone wants to take it off my damn tax bill. We needed to use our resources wisely as a WHOLE - which we did not, and that costs ALL of us. The extra transportation costs to move Watts and Coulishaw to the far end of the district affect all of us, not just some.The refinancing of existing debt and $17M in bond premiums cost ALL of us, not some. The only way to look at this is as a whole, not as well this little corner of the world likes it because it is convenient. when the population of Neuqua drops and we close the freshman center and it sits for non use, that does not just affect those in that area- it affects all of us. The way to plan to future is NOT to overbuild today - which we have just done. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 16, 2010 8:58:18 GMT -6
Yes Arch, and while the Federal government tossed another $10 billion to teachers just recently, those days are over. So not only is the State insolvent, the voters are telling the Federal government to turn off the spigot (i.e. stop printing money (anyone look at the price of gold in $$ lately?). Our District has to understand that in some respects we are on our own and we have to plan accordingly. Be more efficient, period, in everything you spend money on. |
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 16, 2010 11:31:25 GMT -6
Gatordog I could take tidbits of data and mold them to just about any shape I want but tidbits aren't material when you are looking at a school district in its totality. Your "tidbits" distort the real picture. Yes, it is always possible to take "tidbits" of data and "mold them into any shape".... its a fair point for you to bring that up. But in this case, I believe it is absolutely a fair and realistic way to group the data as I did, and have done before. Let me try to better explain. Families at many schools just look in general way at their personal situation and say...."gee my oldest is in 8th gr, now my youngest is into 1st gr. Well, way back when they were in 1st gr, yeah there were that same number of students/sections as there are now." (mental conclusion, and a fair one, no bubble). Our another one, in years to come starting nxt year when we start graduating normal sized graduating classes at MV and WV: "way back when my adult child graduated from there, he/she was in class of x students. Now my neighbors kids are graduating and the class size is about the same' (again, mental conclusion, no bubble). Of course overall there is a bubble trend. And you can see it when looking at overall district-wide info. But I really think this is quite relevant: to a large number of people at a large number of schools, they will find it a bit confusing to hear people talk about a bubble. That is and will be contrary to their personal experience. Right now, when D204 is talking about a " bubble" (how to deal with it, how to plan for it, when/if will it turn around) we need to be specific. I would go as far as call it the "NV attendance area bubble". I believe that much more accurately defines the issue. Let me go on to say that this issue vary much was glossed over by two-HS only supporters. For the two-HS to have sustained us for the next dozen yr and more ("efficient building utilization", you are assuming that student population can seamlessly by moved back and forth between buildings. Yes, you are right...that literally can be called "efficient bldg optimization". But clearly has COSTS on split families, spit schools, administrative complexity, fluid boundaries year to year to year. In a few posts early, rew mentioned just that: get your MS and HS assignments in the mail in each August. One final point: concerning the issue of "taking tidbits of data" and "molding it".....I believe that is exactly what you have been doing when you tout "adding onto NV" as the "best" solution to the issues we were facing back in 2005 and 2006. THAT to me takes incomplete and partial information in order to justify a"best" answer only in a small time frame and for a small part of the district. And it failed to look at, consider, and address long term capacity concerns for the majority of the district. But enough on that, that is the past. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 16, 2010 12:00:30 GMT -6
The district attacked the high school enrollment issue first with freshman centers and then with Frontier campus (which has housed almost exclusively student in the NVHS area). Both of these strategies were at best a short term fix to the fact that we have and are going to have for the next decade +/- 9000 high school students. Set up the high schools for 3000 each and get on with it, of course it would have been great with a little less drama.
Of course districts like ours are all about drama... Just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 16, 2010 12:02:52 GMT -6
It sounds like you are more worried about people's "perceptions" than actual numbers now.... and the actuals have to be cherry picked to line-up with an intended 'perception' that wants to be conveyed.
That's what it sounds like to me. There's a bubble. Plain and simple. What someone thinks about the district population when trying to reminisce when their kid was in first grade is irrelevant.
Numbers just are.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Sept 16, 2010 12:20:07 GMT -6
Personally I find it rather humorous that gatordog defines an "NV attendance area bubble" in the same breath that admonishes macrockett for proposing "adding onto NV" as the "best" solution .
It would seem that given a bubble in one area of the district, the much reduced cost expansion of those facilities was in hindsight exactly the right solution.
Instead we will piss away 150+ million and wind up shuttering WV in a few years. What a waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 16, 2010 13:54:24 GMT -6
Yes, it is always possible to take "tidbits" of data and "mold them into any shape".... its a fair point for you to bring that up.
But in this case, I believe it is absolutely a fair and realistic way to group the data as I did, and have done before. TO WHAT END? WHAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE?
Let me try to better explain. Families at many schools just look in general way at their personal situation and say...."gee my oldest is in 8th gr, now my youngest is into 1st gr. Well, way back when they were in 1st gr, yeah there were that same number of students/sections as there are now." (mental conclusion, and a fair one, no bubble). Our another one, in years to come starting nxt year when we start graduating normal sized graduating classes at MV and WV: "way back when my adult child graduated from there, he/she was in class of x students. Now my neighbors kids are graduating and the class size is about the same'(again, mental conclusion, no bubble).
YES, I AGREE. THE EDGES OF HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AT THE HS LEVEL WERE ABOUT 8500 STUDENTS TO 9200 STUDENTS. WHAT CREATED THE UPPER EDGE WAS THE BUBBLE CLASSES, WHICH WHEN LOOKING AT 4 YEAR BLOCKS ADDED AN APPROXIMATELY 725 KIDS TO A 4 YEAR BLOCK OF KIDS. WHEN YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 4 IT AFFECTS ANY PARTICULAR CLASS YEAR BY ABOUT 181 KIDS VS A CLASS SIZE OF AROUND 1150 OR ABOUT 15%. SO IT WOULDN’T NECESSARILY BE SEEN AS THAT DIFFERENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
Of course overall there is a bubble trend. And you can see it when looking at overall district-wide info. But I really think this is quite relevant: to a large number of people at a large number of schools, they will find it a bit confusing to hear people talk about a bubble. That is and will be contrary to their personal experience.
AGAIN, I AGREE.
Right now, when D204 is talking about a " bubble" (how to deal with it, how to plan for it, when/if will it turn around) we need to be specific. I would go as far as call it the "NV attendance area bubble". I believe that much more accurately defines the issue.
DITTO HERE AS WELL. WITH JUST UNDER 50% OF OUR STUDENTS SOUTH OF 87TH STREET, THE BUBBLE AFFECTED NVHS MORE THAN WVHS.
Let me go on to say that this issue vary much was glossed over by two-HS only supporters. For the two-HS to have sustained us for the next dozen yr and more ("efficient building utilization", you are assuming that student population can seamlessly by moved back and forth between buildings. Yes, you are right...that literally can be called "efficient bldg optimization". But clearly has COSTS on split families, spit schools, administrative complexity, fluid boundaries year to year to year. In a few posts early, rew mentioned just that: get your MS and HS assignments in the mail in each August. THERE IS A BIG DISTANCE BETWEEN LIVING WITH 2 HS AND ADDING A THIRD, BASED ON THE FACTS (SEE THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD--LOTS OF FACTS EXISTED WHEN THE BOARD MADE THE PLUNGE…)
MY SUGGESTION WAS TO ADD TO NV FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1--THAT IS WHERE THE BUBBLE REALLY WAS.
2--IT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE CENTER OF THE STUDENT POPULATION DENSITY.
3--NOT ONE STUDENT WOULD HAVE TO RELOCATE.
4--THE COST WAS MUCH LESS, ABOUT $60M LESS (AND I’M BEING GENEROUS AND ALSO SAVINGS OF ABOUT $35M IN INTEREST EXPENSE). I TALKED WITH THE ARCHITECT THAT DID THE ORIGINAL CROUSE ESTIMATE AND ADDED 24 CLASS ROOMS (8 ON EACH WING 2 STORY), A SOUTH HALLWAY CONNECTING THE WINGS TO PRECLUDE THE TRAFFIC JAM IN THE MAIN HALLWAY (WHAT A NIGHTMARE), AND ADDITIONAL CAFETERIA SPACE.
WHY ADD VS A NEW HS?
1--THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED
2--TALKING ABOUT ONLY 725 MORE STUDENTS AT MOST. THE ADDITIONAL SEATS COST $50K PER.
2--THE ADDITIONAL SPACE WAS NEEDED FOR MAX 10 YEARS. YET WE BUILD A 50+ YEAR BLDG.
3--THE GROWTH IN THE DISTRICT WAS OVER…DONE.
One final point: concerning the issue of "taking tidbits of data" and "molding it".....I believe that is exactly what you have been doing when you tout "adding onto NV" as the "best" solution to the issues we were facing back in 2005 and 2006. THAT to me takes incomplete and partial information in order to justify a"best" answer only in a small time frame and for a small part of the district. And it failed to look at, consider, and address long term capacity concerns for the majority of the district. But enough on that, that is the past.
GATORDOG, THAT IS A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT. READ “THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD.” READ THE ABOVE. WE DIDN’T START BUILDING THAT HS UNTIL AFTER ALL THAT INFORMATION WAS READILY AVAILABLE. AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEMBER WAS PAYING ATTENTION. SAD TO SAY MANY OTHERS WERE CLUELESS OR HAD THEIR OWN AGENDAS.
IF I USED TIDBITS, IT IS THE MOST EXTENSIVE USE OF TIDBITS I HAVE EVER SEEN!
SORRY FOR THE CAPS, USED TO DISTINGUISH TEST. NOT SHOUTING AT YOU
|
|
