rates of increase in enrollment

[JB]

District 204 will level out at about 31,500 - 32,000 kids.

We are following a classic " S "growth curve. Slow start-up, high growth, then a gradual rise to a plateau. You see the same patterns in population growth, increasing use of new technology, spread of disease, and even market saturation.

Yes, the rate of increase is decreasing, but don't be fooled by that smokescreen designed to confuse you. We will continue to grow for at least 10 years, much like we've seen in D203 next door.

[wvhsparent]

I am not really certain we will top 10,000, but still thats enough for 3 Hs

[cantretirehere]

fence said:

I don't think we can say that enrollment is really declining, its just not increasing by as much from a % and there's a big difference. Especially since the numbers are large now, and any incremental increase over zero can be significant.

Never said it was declining (yet)- read my post.

Using the current 2-5 with an additional 1000 kids added in to equal 10,400 kids by 2009 or 2012 or whenever doesn't reflect a one year growth rate of 13%. That actual student population would be coming from compounding a current population by x% increase for x number of years to get to that number.

Never said that 13% was a one year increase - said it would occur over the seven years from the time 2-5 was in elem til they were in HS

At the highest level of growth in the heyday of the south housing boom, in 1991, there was an increase of 87.66% on that year's number of 1901 students. That's an increase of 1,666 students. An increase of 11.6% (this year's increase) on a number 7607 is 882 students (8489).

I understand this and I believe that was DW's point that doesn't change the fact that the districts rate of increase in enrollment is going down - your own numbers show that: 1901, 1666, 882. We are adding a smaller amount of students. Yes still adding (I repeat yet again - where's that horse), but that # is going down.

Here's the actual numbers that were added to each class from 2-5 til the time they were in HS, starting with the 1992-93 2-5 class which is the 1999-00 HS class, and moving up to this year's HS class. 1462,1445,1422,1306,1078,1000,792. We can see that the numbers that these classes grow throughout the seven years is gowing down. Why then does the SD say that the 2005-06 2-5 group of kids is going to grow by 1200 kids? This is bucking the trends.

Even if you decrease the next year, to say 10%, that's 849 more students the next year (9337). Then drop that down again, to say 8% and that's 747 more students (10,083). Say the next year is 5%. That's another 504 (10,587). And so forth.

You could use the spreadsheet you already set up to do some modeling for the next 10 years using some various % increase numbers and see where it ends up.

Even with the slowing increases, I don't think we can accomodate the increases with what we've got. Clearly yes, at some point we've got to stabilize, and we are nearing the end of the double digit growth I hope. Otherwise, 3 high schools aren't even going to be enough.

I agree with you. I could use the spreadsheet to check out various %, but that would be data manipulation.

I also agree with you that we are going to have to deal with the increases that are yet to come - I will again requote myself: "I don’t disagree that we have some crowded years ahead, and as such I do agree that steps need to be taken to alleviate what I believe will be a temporary situation. I do not agree that a 3rd high school is necessarily the BEST option."

Personally - at the time the Neuqua idea was being tossed around, a bunch of us thought that it would be better to build two smaller cheaper (some would say uglier) HSs that were designed to handle additions. Instead we got the Taj. IT WOULD HAVE PASSED. We knew that there would be crowding issues even as of a few years ago. We were nixed. Then at the time of the Freshman campus debate we said again - c'mon, what's it gonna take to wake you up. We were 'forced' to "think outside the box" and swallow the Freshman campuses. The parent think tank, that was made up of volunteers to "decide" on the best option for overcrowding, was not allowed by Howie to even present the option of a 3rd high school to the SB for consideration. At that time a 3rd HS ref would have passed EASILY. And here we were last year not even through the 2nd year of Freshman campus. At that point they say we need a 3rd HS? We are probably about 1/2 way through this bubble thing and ?NOW? they say we need a 3rd HS? SD is a day late (actually quite a few years late) and how many millions short?

[rew]

CRH...Personally - I was here when the fresh ctr ref was being pushed and , yes, I wanted a third HS then. But to say IT WOULD HAVE PASSED is a bit of a stretch.

There were a lot of NO votes back then, and they weren't saying "NO - 3rd HS please".

Maybe you were saying it and maybe I was saying it, but that was an ugly battle as well, with a huge number of people screaming "Taj" and claiming the district went way overboard at Neuqua...(which I have never said, but). People were aghast ..$65M !!!!

And I have NO love loss for HC. He has been shortsighted and lowballing enrollment since the day I arrived.

I still say, if we are in a bubble, then build the third HS now.. and when the bubble bursts, IF it bursts, sell Still and Scullen and use NVGold as a MS and now you have three HSs with 3000 capacity.

But you have also covered your backside, if the enrollment sticks..it gives us what we need now and into a future none of us can predict with certainty.

[fence]

Data modeling is NOT data manipulation. Every company on the face of this earth uses forcasting as the most basic form of evaluation, budgeting and growth/cost management. The fact that you just said that is really scary to me.

I guess I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Projecting that we will have nearly 10,000 kids in the system in 2012 actually follows your own thought process of a continuous decrease in the typical % increase numbers, from what they are today. If you would just do some projections on your own spreadsheet you could see that. Then you wouldn't be confused as to how the district could be projecting what its projecting.

And how could you have voted for a new HS in 2001, but be sitting here today saying that it is unnecessary? That would mean that in 2001, you would have only thought you needed an entire new school for 10 years or so.... I think its clear that this district has a track record of implementing unsustainable solutions. And it appears, history continues to repeat itself.

[rew]

I took a drive throught the desserted ghost town, Ashwood park today and lo and behold the place was full of construction guys.

They have started the TH portion on the corner, the bulldozers were buzzin'.

Land off 248th/by Pencross Knolls had a rezoning hearing sign up on it. The developer wants it to be residential.

Guess not everybody thinks market has dried up

[soxfan]

rew said:

I took a drive throught the desserted ghost town, Ashwood park today and lo and behold the place was full of construction guys.

They have started the TH portion on the corner, the bulldozers were buzzin'.

Land off 248th/by Pencross Knolls had a rezoning hearing sign up on it. The developer wants it to be residential.

Guess not everybody thinks market has dried up

From what I've heard, that area was originally slated to be the "Mandalay Club"- an area with around thirty homes. Recently it fell through. I'm not sure what the future status of the property is.

[warriorpride]

rew said:

I took a drive throught the desserted ghost town, Ashwood park today and lo and behold the place was full of construction guys.

They have started the TH portion on the corner, the bulldozers were buzzin'.

Land off 248th/by Pencross Knolls had a rezoning hearing sign up on it. The developer wants it to be residential.

Guess not everybody thinks market has dried up

Anyone know what it's currently zoned as?

[rew]

I thought someone said it was church property. The signs says rezoning for 33 homes. This is on the east side of 248th adjacent to Tall grass, not the west side (Mandalay Bay??)

[rew]

Sorry Soxfan, maybe that is Mandalay Bay...I was never sure where it was, just thought it was bigger than thirty homes. Perhaps you are right then. Thanks

[soxfan]

rew said:

Sorry Soxfan, maybe that is Mandalay Bay...I was never sure where it was, just thought it was bigger than thirty homes. Perhaps you are right then. Thanks

REW,

You were right, it was originally slated for church property. Initially we'd heard it was going to be a mosque but for some reason that fell through. Here's what I read about the current status of the property.


Development near 248th gets thumbs-down

By Ann Hanson

SUN STAFF
It wasn't so much the plans as the location that led the Plan Commission to deny recommendation of the Mandalay Club to the City Council on Wednesday night.

City planner Dan DeSanto said Thursday that the proposal was generally well-received by the commissioners.

"Everybody liked the plan," he said, citing such features as density and connections to paths.

But the 14.39-acre site it was slated for, on the east side of 248th Avenue between Lapp Lane and Landsdown Avenue on the city's southwest side, was designated for "community facilities" in the 2002 Southwest Community Area Plan, an amendment to the 1994 Sector G plan.

DeSanto said the view shared by the commissioners, who voted 6-0 against the plan, was, "If we let this go to single-family, then we're missing an opportunity to have a community facility in that location, whether it's a church or other type of community gathering place."

In 2002, the property was owned by a church. The developers of Mandalay Club, Kramer Kobler, argued that because the church was no longer planning to build there, a residential development was the best use.

"(The plan designation) reflected ownership of the property and not necessarily the best use or the city's desired use," Len Monson, attorney for the developer, said when the project was presented to the commission in early January.

In its report at Wednesday's commission meeting, city staff recommended the panel vote against the development because the Southwest Community Area Plan showed a need for more community facilities in that part of the city.

Another concern city staff had was the additional students a residential development would add to already crowded schools in Indian Prairie District 204.


Contact Ann Hanson at [e-mail] or [phone].

[warriorpride]

What's the date on the Sun article?

[soxfan]

warriorpride said:

What's the date on the Sun article?

It was 2-3-2006

[rew]

Thank you so much Soxfan, great post! I'll go by the sign again and see...is it an old sign or is something new on the horizon??

[cantretirehere]

fence said:

If you would just do some projections on your own spreadsheet you could see that. Then you wouldn't be confused as to how the district could be projecting what its projecting.

Actually, I did do some modeling. That is how I came up with my “crystal ball” figure.

warriorpride said:

what's your max projection?

cantretirehere said:

My crystal ball tells me around 9700.

The median of the differences in the IIE rate from one year to the next for the last 14 years was 5.6%. The average was 5%. (The last 6 years the median was 5.4% and the average was 5.6%). I could have subtracted 5% from this year’s IIE rate to arrive at next year’s IIE rate and each year after that. That would have given me an enrollment of 6808 for the 2012 year of HS. Even I don’t think it would be reasonable to believe that there will be less kids in HS in 2012 than there are this year. So I decided to tone it down a bit to play it safe. Since the trend has been for the IIE rate to go down I decided to play it extremely safe and just lower the IIE rate for each year after this year’s by a measly 1%. That gave me a IIE rate of 4.62% to apply to this year’s 2-5 graders. That gave me an enrollment figure of 9625 which I played safe again and rounded up to 9700 for my max enrollment figure.

cantretirehere said:

BTW, I have e-mailed the SB, asking where I am so terribly off base.

I rec’d a response.

The SB applied a 5.6% rate of increase in enrollment to this year’s 2-5 grades to arrive at their 9700 low end estimate. So my high estimate is the SB’s low estimate.


The SB arrived at their high end figure by adding 1146 from their vacant land worksheet to the 9200 2-5 graders of this year and then rounding up.

That was the answer in a nutshell.

This puzzles me in that if they assume 1146 high school students will come from the remaining 10% of vacant land in the district, then that assumption makes that land more than 35% more dense in high school students than what currently exists in the developed part of our district today. The SB is also predicting that district 204 community will not mature due to the fact that we do have a strong school district (per their response). I can’t totally agree with that position either. I think this community has a lot to offer all age groups and that is one of the reasons I was intending on retiring here. I think the idea that people move out once their kids are grown also discounts a strong desire to remain near one’s family. I know a lot of people who don’t retire to warmer climes because they have family in the area and so they stay put. So basically my figures and the district figures differ in that I don’t believe that the homes going in on the “back 40” are going to as horribly kid dense as the district believes, and I think that we will see more aging in the district than the SB thinks will happen.