|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 10:23:42 GMT -5
We have accepted that the train has left the station. We're just pointing out that there were other options. But to what end? We are where we are now, so let's accept and move forward. Someone made a claim (that there were no other viable options) and we attempted to refute it. Part of "moving forward" is trying to assess what went right and what went wrong. We don't live in a vacuum. If we are smart, we will learn from our mistakes. Take the A/C issue in the elementary schools. A conscious and deliberate decision was made to exclude A/C from the schools and use a blueprint that made retrofitting it very expensive. Now, years later, most people seem to agree it was a mistake. But why was that mistake made? It wasn't an oversight. It was made because the decision makers at the time, in an attempt to manipulate referendum results, felt that adding a few extra million to the ref would jeopardize its success. We are paying for that mistake because retrofitting would now cost several multiples of the cost of the original estimate. We have paid an extraordinary amount to expedite the opening of MV. I believe this cost (plus the long-term added transport costs) to be greater than the savings of the land vs. BB. Perhaps when we come to the next big decision, we will learn from our mistakes. And if I am proven wrong, such as with the added transport costs I am predicting, then I will learn from my mistakes as well.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 10:28:39 GMT -5
..... We're just pointing out that there were other options. Yes there were other options.....they were reviewed discussed and eventually not chosen. Not everyone will ever like the decisons made. We are discussing enrollment in this thread. I think the discussion of options, which as obviously pointed out, has already been decided upon and executed, is getting this thread off track. Here is an enrollment comment: Look at the K class, the Class of 2022. Add up the enrollments of the feeder ES's. I will approximate Owen as MV feeder, Gombert as WV feeder, and Peterson (without all the Ashwood growth, yet) as NV feeder. NV feed (8 ESs): 710 students MV feed (7 ESs): 734 students WV feed (6 ESs): 588 students In the far future, could demographics switch so that its MV that has the largest graduating class? Are we seeing evidence of this right now? I have a hunch this has to do with older neighborhoods in the north, people reaching retirment, moving away, selling homes to younger couples, and so on. This is interesting to me: maybe we should not assume that NV will always be the biggest school. I know I am just looking at one class worth. But maybe this is the time frame when NV Gold might close....when today's K are near graduation? Of course this is all with zero growth, which is a tough assumption to make over the course of a dozen yrs) In trying to project future enrollment, it is certainly useful to look at ES and MS levels. But I think you have to look at the overall economy as well. Is it possible people cannot afford the taxes any more and move out? However, you do bring up an interesting point. Assuming I am right about the economy driving people away, perhaps it will drive them not completely out but rather to lower priced homes in the north. (No disrespect intended for the north.) In other words, fewer people occupying "mansions" in the south and more people moving toward MV. I cannot completely dismiss this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 1, 2009 10:53:51 GMT -5
We are discussing enrollment in this thread. I think the discussion of options, which as obviously pointed out, has already been decided upon and executed, is getting this thread off track. Here is an enrollment comment: Look at the K class, the Class of 2022. Add up the enrollments of the feeder ES's. I will approximate Owen as MV feeder, Gombert as WV feeder, and Peterson (without all the Ashwood growth, yet) as NV feeder. NV feed (8 ESs): 710 students MV feed (7 ESs): 734 students WV feed (6 ESs): 588 students In the far future, could demographics switch so that its MV that has the largest graduating class? Are we seeing evidence of this right now? I have a hunch this has to do with older neighborhoods in the north, people reaching retirment, moving away, selling homes to younger couples, and so on. This is interesting to me: maybe we should not assume that NV will always be the biggest school. I know I am just looking at one class worth. But maybe this is the time frame when NV Gold might close....when today's K are near graduation? Of course this is all with zero growth, which is a tough assumption to make over the course of a dozen yrs) In trying to project future enrollment, it is certainly useful to look at ES and MS levels. But I think you have to look at the overall economy as well. Is it possible people cannot afford the taxes any more and move out? However, you do bring up an interesting point. Assuming I am right about the economy driving people away, perhaps it will drive them not completely out but rather to lower priced homes in the north. (No disrespect intended for the north.) In other words, fewer people occupying "mansions" in the south and more people moving toward MV. I cannot completely dismiss this scenario. Which would then make even more sense that the school be located in the North as it has been.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 1, 2009 11:00:00 GMT -5
But to what end? We are where we are now, so let's accept and move forward. Someone made a claim (that there were no other viable options) and we attempted to refute it. Part of "moving forward" is trying to assess what went right and what went wrong. We don't live in a vacuum. If we are smart, we will learn from our mistakes. Take the A/C issue in the elementary schools. A conscious and deliberate decision was made to exclude A/C from the schools and use a blueprint that made retrofitting it very expensive. Now, years later, most people seem to agree it was a mistake. But why was that mistake made? It wasn't an oversight. It was made because the decision makers at the time, in an attempt to manipulate referendum results, felt that adding a few extra million to the ref would jeopardize its success. We are paying for that mistake because retrofitting would now cost several multiples of the cost of the original estimate. We have paid an extraordinary amount to expedite the opening of MV. I believe this cost (plus the long-term added transport costs) to be greater than the savings of the land vs. BB. Perhaps when we come to the next big decision, we will learn from our mistakes. And if I am proven wrong, such as with the added transport costs I am predicting, then I will learn from my mistakes as well. Yes there were other options. They were discussed and deemed not viable by those we put in charge of making those decisions. You may disagree with their assessment. Until someone comes up with a future predictor that is 100% there will always be decisions that were made in the past that could have been different in the future. That will never change.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 11:04:40 GMT -5
I conceded I cannot dismiss that scenario -- but I do not seriously believe that the SB was prescient enough to consider that in their decision to build on Eola.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 11:06:20 GMT -5
True, but most would agree that learning from previous mistakes goes a long way to improving the odds of success in the future.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 1, 2009 11:12:42 GMT -5
True, but most would agree that learning from previous mistakes goes a long way to improving the odds of success in the future. Agreed I'm just trying to figure out exactly what "Previous mistake" you are referencing here......
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 1, 2009 11:52:58 GMT -5
......I believe this cost (plus the long-term added transport costs) to be greater than the savings of the land vs. BB. ....... Again, I would welcome seeing the analysis that leads to this transportation cost conclusion. And you must quantify it in some estimated way, since you are understandibly comparing it to a known (and very significant) land cost difference. Some of us considered this cost in a real-time way, right when the boundary/site decision was before the district. And the SB. Our concl was the SB/Admin was sensible: there isnt much difference. Nothing on the scale that would pay-back the large present value cost of more expensive land. If you keep saying transportation costs are higher, I will keep asking you to prove it. Waiting several years down the road is NOT an acceptable method of proof for taking action. That is only useful for "I told you so". That is the way lawyers think....look back in past and prove your case to assign blame. Executives and leaders (and parents and taxpayers) must analysize things NOW and make choices now. Oop, off topic from Enrollment, again!
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 12:15:14 GMT -5
There are many to choose from:
1. Relying on bogus data to form conclusions about student populations 2. Expecting a landowner to disregard current market prices 3. Offering a quick take price of $600k per acre and then refusing to pay less than that when a jury determines the fair price We could go on and on, but those would be for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 12:19:38 GMT -5
I'm only saying to wait because all of my previous analysis, based on deductive reasoning, is continually disregarded. It was the DISTRICT that refused to present an analysis, saying only that the bus company agreed to TEMPORARILY charge the same for Eola. It is the DISTRICT that to this day refuses to show the current bus routes!
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 1, 2009 12:51:41 GMT -5
..... I'm only saying to wait because all of my previous analysis, based on deductive reasoning, is continually disregarded. Your deductive reasoning said "more". And it stopped there. Is it 10% more, 1% more, or 0.01% more? You are trying to compare savings to a known land cost. To do so, you must quantify your savings. I am not disregarding your reason, I am just suggesting for us to consider it further you must include some quantification for comparison. Thats all.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 1, 2009 13:40:59 GMT -5
..... I'm only saying to wait because all of my previous analysis, based on deductive reasoning, is continually disregarded. Your deductive reasoning said "more". And it stopped there. Is it 10% more, 1% more, or 0.01% more? You are trying to compare savings to a known land cost. To do so, you must quantify your savings. I am not disregarding your reason, I am just suggesting for us to consider it further you must include some quantification for comparison. Thats all. When the district provides access to the data, then you will see quantification. But you will not see that any time soon, because at one point the board actually claimed that their own analysis showed a decrease in overall miles at Eola vs. BB. That defies plausibility and is why I believe the district is breaking its back (taking the fuel purchasing and routing away from the bus company) to come in with good number.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Nov 11, 2009 12:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Nov 11, 2009 13:02:37 GMT -5
Compare some things from last school year's enrollment report (10/2/08): Yr ES total MS total HS total | 0809 13,290 6917 8530 | 0910 13,219 6916 8964 |
|
|
|