|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 14:15:48 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. . 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…) Funny though that uprooting kids from WVHS to move them to MVHS after 1 year of HS-- costing some of them varsity sports positions the first year and other extra curricular impacts was just fine - splitting families and siblings as you mention, butthat was OK. The SB and many others saw no issue with that- especially if their kids were not involved. If we supposedly optimized our spending by buying a piece of land cheaper ( and maybe worth a whole lot less- who knows without an appraisal) - then why should we not optimize the filling our buildings. When the bubble - which clearly exists district wide - even though not at your school - passes we will have to close buildings or severly underutilize them wasting money... some areas were used as pawns to 'optimize ' the filling of MVHS - period. I know first hand..but again that was OK -- so why wasn't optimizing what we already had and planning to see our way clear and save over $100M ? And maybe your ES does not stay at WVHS - or all parts of your area at Gombert- it was good enough to move our kids 8+ miles away - and have a MS 6+ miles away -- what should be good for one should be good for all. The part of sit down and shut up here that I hated most was that our area had to bite it big time to make this work- yet when people talk about movement in the future and optimizing space that is somehow unacceptable ? Why ? No one gave us a choice did they ? And to say they made the decision earier- they ALL were clearly aware of the actual population and population growth based on their IWN financial filings - the days of 10,400 and split shifts was already clearly known - raised one last time in a SB meeting by a SB member- and totally ignored. So there was plenty of time to reverse course before one red cent was spent on the new property - the other 6 members cohse to ignore - and even as late as 2 months ago were telling the papers that 3000 kids will be in MVHS- when they know what a fallacy that is. Continuing to live the lie is abominable. How long did they continue to have Justin print $124M in the Herald ? Until they had to file their financials then they claimed $146.5 M was under budget... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 14:16:39 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. you mean put the space where the kids are ? What an outrageous ENTITLED idea  |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 14:17:36 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. the fact that overall ES population has shrunk 2-3% each year of the last 4 means nothing I guess |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 14:20:29 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. and for the decades after that we will have a huge space surplus - so spend $150 for 10 years ( actually it's more like 6 but I won't quibble) - the 2 HS with freshman centers will be more than enough just a few years from now- that planning group- which contained the current SUper got it right.. special interets took over after that - pure and simple. I guess we are overlooking the 600 seat $12M addition Howie had priced to take care of the bubble-- until M2 and crew came up with the NIU bullshit numbers and scare tactics.. and at 3000 each - ( which a few years from now will be more kids than we have)- what do you do with the freshman center @ NVHS ? Let is sit and rot ? And by that time there will be at least 1 more MS grossly under optimized... |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 14:24:32 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. if they just did what was right for ALL the kids in the area we wouldn't have had the drama.....you can place that solely on special interests and interest in legacies. OH yeah, and let's not even talk about the safety factor which became a non issue after being a huge issue at first. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 16, 2010 16:16:24 GMT -6
Doc, when the situation arises that the NVHS freshman center is no longer needed (10 plus yrs), it gets converted back to a middle school. This will save huge commute time to the POOR folks that now trek up to 5 plus miles to get to Crone middle school. Then the district sells the extra middle school in a up market. Win - Win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 16, 2010 16:19:38 GMT -6
Up market?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 17:05:04 GMT -6
Doc, when the situation arises that the NVHS freshman center is no longer needed (10 plus yrs), it gets converted back to a middle school. This will save huge commute time to the POOR folks that now trek up to 5 plus miles to get to Crone middle school. Then the district sells the extra middle school in a up market. Win - Win. are you a member of Obama's financial team ? Up market- really ? So that 30% value loss will be all gone by then ? That is a lot longer than 10 years off- and the school ( and at least 1 other MS and 2 ES's will be un-needed before then. and 5 miles -- psshaw--- that's practically next door for the boundary planners in 204 - trust me ,,we're lucky we even have an ES that close- and looking at attendance figures -one day we may not. and just for the record I was at the outlet mall today so I decided to get off @ Eola ...starting at the light outside MV - 24 minutes and 8+ miles later I was home,, and that was at 2:43 PM -- nowhere near any real heavy traffic but I salute your optimism -- |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 16, 2010 17:12:15 GMT -6
Doc, I would definitely not consider myself a member of the Obama's financial team, and my optimism in his team's ability to get necessary items done was very short lived.
Thank you for the salute regarding optimism, please note that I feel a sustained recovery is not a short term or middle term reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 16, 2010 17:51:04 GMT -6
You're buying hand over fist presently to make a killing in the coming up market, right? I like optimism as much as the next guy, but I would not bet my (or your) wallet on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 16, 2010 18:17:59 GMT -6
...... 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. There is a premise that we probably disagree on. Or at least its an issue that your solution shows absolutely no concern for: WV was not working so well in 2008 with the frosh center configuration. Things such as classes were cancelled because lack of space, scheduling complications like 9 am lunch, freshman isolated and less involved in main campus actives because of the bldg location. And the same was occuring at MS in this area Granger, Still, Scullen certainly. And guess what.... 2008 was not a " bubble" at all at WV, but a sustained period into the forseeable future (such as adding up to K enrollment ). Crowding was going to get worse, and stay worse, with no allievation plan in sight. The majority of my neighbors were concerned about this. Many others around the district in WV area were concerned. And as it turns out, the majority of voters across the district had enough concern to realize that more should be done than just add on space at NV. The 3rd HS gave a good solution to these issues. And as SSSM points out, we are on a reasonable path to support three ~3000 seat HS's that are near equivalent in building function. that road is waayyy in my rear-view mirror  |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 16, 2010 18:41:53 GMT -6
...... 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. There is a premise that we probably disagree on. Or at least its an issue that your solution shows absolutely no concern for: WV was not working so well in 2008 with the frosh center configuration. Things such as classes were cancelled because lack of space, scheduling complications like 9 am lunch, freshman isolated and less involved in main campus actives because of the bldg location. And the same was occuring at MS in this area Granger, Still, Scullen certainly. And guess what.... 2008 was not a " bubble" at all at WV, but a sustained period into the forseeable future (such as adding up to K enrollment ). Crowding was going to get worse, and stay worse, with no allievation plan in sight. The majority of my neighbors were concerned about this. Many others around the district in WV area were concerned. And as it turns out, the majority of voters across the district had enough concern to realize that more should be done than just add on space at NV. The 3rd HS gave a good solution to these issues. And as SSSM points out, we are on a reasonable path to support three ~3000 seat HS's that are near equivalent in building function. that road is waayyy in my rear-view mirror When the class sizes start rising and programs start getting canceled I'll be sure to send everyone over to you and SSSM. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 16, 2010 19:19:00 GMT -6
...... 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. There is a premise that we probably disagree on. Or at least its an issue that your solution shows absolutely no concern for: WV was not working so well in 2008 with the frosh center configuration. Things such as classes were cancelled because lack of space, scheduling complications like 9 am lunch, freshman isolated and less involved in main campus actives because of the bldg location. And the same was occuring at MS in this area Granger, Still, Scullen certainly. And guess what.... 2008 was not a " bubble" at all at WV, but a sustained period into the forseeable future (such as adding up to K enrollment ). Crowding was going to get worse, and stay worse, with no allievation plan in sight. The majority of my neighbors were concerned about this. Many others around the district in WV area were concerned. And as it turns out, the majority of voters across the district had enough concern to realize that more should be done than just add on space at NV. The 3rd HS gave a good solution to these issues. And as SSSM points out, we are on a reasonable path to support three ~3000 seat HS's that are near equivalent in building function. that road is waayyy in my rear-view mirror my oldest was at WVHS when the most kids ever were there - at Neuqua opening -- had some of the same 'hardships' for a short period - but somehow lived thru it and it all settled down Now we are really grasping at straws here- so we spent $150M to fix Waubonsie ? Really ? Oh and no other changes could be made- our high priced administrators had no solutions - well that's great news. Yes the freshman center was 'inconvenient across Ogden" however please don' talk to me about inconveniences- 6 & 8 mile travels across tracks and leaving at the crack of dawn is harmful to students also..no one made any sacrifices for us. The solution for NVHS - the 600 seats could easily have accomodated another school moving from WVHS to there - but I remember some from an area familiar to you trying to cut a deal with M2 to stay at Waubonsie and not be sent to NVHS for a myriad of reasons when BB was the site. Or is my memory failing me ? "And as it turns out, the majority of voters across the district had enough concern to realize that more should be done than just add on space at NV." you don't believe this either. The majority of voters got out due to scare tactics of 10,400- 11,000 and in the future more HS students, split shifts , loss of extra curriculars and other nice completely false pictures painted by a few SB members. Let's not get revisionist in history-- I wrote a good number of those talking points / meeting focuses and press releases...so let's be honest here. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 16, 2010 20:23:13 GMT -6
Doc, a good number of folks in the southern reaches of the district took a look at the "train wreck" of not building a third high school when uncontrolled residential growth went on unabated.
One did not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that sector G was going to be all residential which if not for a tough economy and developers building only million plus houses, could have put further pressure on NVHS.
Add a slick ad campaign (which I am sure you are aware of) stating no increase in taxes for the foreseeable future, it is no wonder the second referendum passed with flying colors. A bonus for many of the "unaffected school families" was the centralized location which most voters in most neighborhoods agreed on. Seemed at the time to be a "win - win" for almost all 204 resident families.
I am still convinced that if the centralized school location was built many concerns would have evaporated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Sept 16, 2010 20:45:45 GMT -6
I am still convinced that if the centralized school location was built many concerns would have evaporated. If you are talking about the safety ones, I would agree with you. Financial concerns going forward would still be there. |
|
