|
Post by macrockett on Sept 29, 2009 13:07:38 GMT -5
The question I have is this: could all of this have been done cheaper, especially in light of the fact that in 5 years we hit peak enrollment and in 10 years our high school enrollment, according to your work, will be almost 300 students less than it was last year? I was specifically thinking about actual reality into the future. I am not so much interested in a hypothetical, academic, question about the past. For example, I am not going to spend much time wondering about this question, either: could we have built NV cheaper and not made it the most expensive HS built in the US at that time? As an aside, I disagree with your phrasing of could something "have been cheaper." I dont want "cheaper", i want to maximize long-term educational value for the investment. (I am sure that could be a long side discussion!) Yes, these enrollment projections do make me think. And here are some things that I think: 1. for a long long time in this school district (more than dozen years) our three HS will be plenty full of students. 2. at no time within a dozen years or more will a reasonable 204 resident look at HS enrollments and say "gee, this HS is so small we should go back to two HS's instead of three." 3. families moving into the district and buying homes will know they will be sending their children to HSs that are of similar sizes to those in neighboring communities (Plainfield, Oswego, Naperville, other Upstate 8 schools). They wont be discouraged by megaschools. 4. the boundaries (surprisingly, perhaps) hold up well into the future with low probability of any future boundary changes needed. We all know how unsettling and disruptive boundary changes are....we do families and kids and neighborhoods much good by minimizing these. 5. We are well positioned to accomodate a resumption of housing growth, when it occurs. Please see my comments to Momto4. Beyond that Gatordog, re #5, I would like to see your research on the growth to come. Re #4, had we added on to existing buildings, the preference of those responding to the survey in 05, boundaries would have remained the same, or at the very least, far less obtrusive. #3, your personal preference, not mine. I wasn't aware that was a "need of the community" or even a preference for that matter, especially based on the survey responses. #2 your opinion, not fact. #1 plenty full? hard to understand how you reach that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 29, 2009 13:17:05 GMT -5
Mac. GD also mentioned his analysis was for zero growth, which is what these numbers represent...kids already in the school system. I suppose you don't think the area will recover at some point and start adding kids into the system, in which case 204 is good to go for the foreseeable future. WVP, over 1000 high schools have closed in Illinois (google glorydays + Illinois). Many because of declining enrollment. The reasons why graduating seniors are not replaced one for one with an entering student are numerous. So to answer your question highlighted above, based on looking at a number of the closings to date, no. What I believe is the decline as shown in our actual numbers will continue. There may be some blips, but the trend, imo, will continue as it did for so many other schools.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 29, 2009 13:25:19 GMT -5
Let's put it this way: At $140M+, it could not possibly have cost any more. What if MV were built at Brach Brodie site? We didn't need to spend what we did on the materials and labor -- the land is a separate debate. $75M plus land would have built a fine HS. If the amount spent on NV was eye-opening, the amount spent on MV is breathtaking. We went from $65M including land for the "Taj Mahal" to more than double that for MV.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 29, 2009 14:25:37 GMT -5
..... And here are some things that I think: 1. for a long long time in this school district (more than dozen years) our three HS will be plenty full of students. 2. at no time within a dozen years or more will a reasonable 204 resident look at HS enrollments and say "gee, this HS is so small we should go back to two HS's instead of three." 3. families moving into the district and buying homes will know they will be sending their children to HSs that are of similar sizes to those in neighboring communities (Plainfield, Oswego, Naperville, other Upstate 8 schools). They wont be discouraged by megaschools. 4. the boundaries (surprisingly, perhaps) hold up well into the future with low probability of any future boundary changes needed. We all know how unsettling and disruptive boundary changes are....we do families and kids and neighborhoods much good by minimizing these. 5. We are well positioned to accomodate a resumption of housing growth, when it occurs. Please see my comments to Momto4. Beyond that Gatordog, re #5, I would like to see your research on the growth to come. Real estate people say that Ashwood is slated to be about a White Eagle size subdivision. So that would bring in about an ES worth of students into the SD. When, nobody knows. My guess (and I am sure this is hope of the propery owners , real estate agents hoe, tradesmen, local business owners,etc) is that it will be sometime before never! Other than that, I make no demographic predictions. I am just directly looking at the what is on hand today, current enrollments. this is something that interested me, and surprised me, from the table I generated. Adding on to NV may have been a good solution for now until the next 5 or 6 yrs. But then, that space at NV would not be were the capacity was needed. And for the 5 or so years after that its WV that would be in need of space. This enrollment data is pretty interesting. The "passing of the bubble" or the future drop in enrollment is currently confined to the old NV area. The old WV area is growing. It is not clear cut that long-term needs would have been met for the entire district by adding onto NV. I think, looking at the demographic data, and seeing that building on to NV has suspect value long term, a good argument could have been made that if the community didnt want to invest in more square footage capacity for our schools, so be it. Instead we could have used existing capacity as best we could. This could have meant an initial move of students from NV area to WV. Then, after a few years, a move back into NV. let me put it this way. Neighboring communties north, south, east and west do not have 4000+ student HS's. They are in 2000-2500-3000 range. I am taking that as evidence of a consensus preference, not just a personal one. Concerning these last two items, I am trying to look at it as an average 204 resident. Let me ask you: looking at the enrollment projections for the three schools, what school year is it that the average person would say: "Gosh, look how goofed up our HS enrollments are. Something is wrong, something must be done?" is it 2015? is it 2020? I say, people will see the HS enrollment numbers as reasonable. I am pretty confident of that conclusion, although you may feel different.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Sept 29, 2009 15:20:11 GMT -5
The question I have is this: could all of this have been done cheaper, especially in light of the fact that in 5 years we hit peak enrollment and in 10 years our high school enrollment, according to your work, will be almost 300 students less than it was last year? I was specifically thinking about actual reality into the future. I am not so much interested in a hypothetical, academic, question about the past. For example, I am not going to spend much time wondering about this question, either: could we have built NV cheaper and not made it the most expensive HS built in the US at that time? As an aside, I disagree with your phrasing of could something "have been cheaper." I dont want "cheaper", i want to maximize long-term educational value for the investment. (I am sure that could be a long side discussion!) Yes, these enrollment projections do make me think. And here are some things that I think: 1. for a long long time in this school district (more than dozen years) our three HS will be plenty full of students. 2. at no time within a dozen years or more will a reasonable 204 resident look at HS enrollments and say "gee, this HS is so small we should go back to two HS's instead of three." 3. families moving into the district and buying homes will know they will be sending their children to HSs that are of similar sizes to those in neighboring communities (Plainfield, Oswego, Naperville, other Upstate 8 schools). They wont be discouraged by megaschools. 4. the boundaries (surprisingly, perhaps) hold up well into the future with low probability of any future boundary changes needed. We all know how unsettling and disruptive boundary changes are....we do families and kids and neighborhoods much good by minimizing these. 5. We are well positioned to accomodate a resumption of housing growth, when it occurs. I didn't realize there was a body of work showing that larger high schools were a deterrant to people moving to the area. I guess those people who really want their kids to go to New trier or Sandburg ( much bigger than either of our schools were ) are idiots. And the fact they are two top performing schols is a fluke ... did our class sizes get smaller ? nope The boundaries hold up well for who?. This is a ridiculous statement in my neighborhood GD .Yep holds up well enough where 3 people I know are using other addresses to send their kids to other local schools and more have left for private school. Yep, how fortunate we are. . and two main HS's and 2 freshman centers is the right comparison base- very few areas have freshman centers
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Sept 29, 2009 15:36:53 GMT -5
Let's put it this way: At $140M+, it could not possibly have cost any more. What if MV were built at Brach Brodie site? If it was not expedited the cost would have been not much more--and transportation costs yearly would have been less - forever. but based on real atendance numbers and factoring in the economy - would still have been the wrong decision to build regardless of location
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 30, 2009 7:11:41 GMT -5
We needed additional middle school and high school capacity and now we have it. We need capacity for our current students plus growth at all levels and now we have it (though it still seems wrong we have portables at Young). We had too many students in our high school and middle school buildings, and over the next couple of years that will be resolved. Could it have been done more cheaply? Probably, but if people were looking for cheap rather than with excellent quality they may have chosen to live somewhere other than 204. People could get by with much lower taxes by moving just over the western border of our district. I agree that we should now and always focus on the district as a whole, and on providing the best we can for the students in our district and we should look at what should be done going forward, not on what any set of people would rather have seen happen in the past. It should feel like we are all on the same side, but it doesn't. You are consistent Momto4. First, cheaper doesn't necessarily mean low quality. I look at things in terms of effective and efficient as I have said elsewhere. Why? It is the best compromise in a world where everyone is not equal. For example, I think it is fair to assume many of the families who come to D204 are here for the special needs focus and programs. As we all know many of these families are already under significant financial pressures due to the additional costs they incur for their childrens' benefit. If these families, or even those who also live here that are financial constrained for other reasons, can't afford that marginal tax increase, what should they do? Move? Just because you can easily afford it, doesn't mean others can. In addition, you talk as if there is an undeniable need for additional capacity, yet I haven't seen you support that position. In the end what I see is an expression of personal preference rather than addressing the needs of the community in the most effective and efficient way. I realize the resources of this District like any other are not endless and sooner or later there will be a point where hard decisions will have to be made by families who just cannot afford it any more and will be forced to leave. If I follow the tenants of effective and efficient, rather than my personal preferences, I believe I am doing my part in considering those less fortunate than I. That is what I mean by community. I'm sorry, but my opinion continues to be that in most cases the cheapest solution is almost never a good quality solution. I know when I replaced my dishwasher last year I didn't even glance at the cheapest one available (nor at the most expensive ones either). Though research has shown a "best size" for student bodies to be something significantly smaller than what we have (1000 or 1500 maybe? I forget) we didn't choose to go with this most expensive solution to the crowding in our HS and MS levels (building multiple schools), but went with building one additional school, still leaving one huge and two large high schools, and more reasonably sized middle schools. I am glad the voters approved building an additional HS and that this also allowed us to open an additional MS. I have said over and over I wish it had happened in 2005. Then the school would have been open earlier at the other location and probably for less money. Though there were many who hated that location as well. Are you saying that people couldn't afford the tax increase from the 2006 referendum? I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not talking about taxes directly even though obviously cost at some point translates to tax rates. I thought that due to refinancing the 2006 referendum did not raise tax rates. I'm just saying that many people choose to live here for a good quality education and we as a community should not want choices made that cause that quality to decrease. For example, under Dr. D and even now we seem to have some larger number of students in classrooms and many would agree that this is not best for the quality of education. Please don't claim to have any knowledge about what I can or cannot afford in terms of taxes or moving. I did not in any way suggest that anyone should move, for reasons of not being able to afford taxes or any other reason. I only said that most people who chose to raise their children here don't want the quality of education to go down due to choosing the cheapest available options. I could be wrong. Those without children in the system could possibly be happy with the cheapest available options regardless of quality, or not if it eventually makes their home difficult to sell (in a better economy). Of course I don't want anyone's home to become unaffordable to them and the 2006 referendum should not have caused that to happen. Yes, I firmly believe that we needed the additional capacity, and now we have it, so I don't see the point of arguing whether the need was fact or opinion. The way I see the facts, we needed the capacity. Obviously your interpretation is different. No need to discuss. The thing to do at this juncture if you wish to help those less fortunate is not to waste time rehashing the past, but to work with those in charge to come up with solutions to upcoming problems that will be the least harmful to all. Being provided with a top notch education is something that is helpful to those at all socio-economic levels and something that I do not want to see suffer if we can help it.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 30, 2009 8:45:11 GMT -5
Building two or three smaller schools would have been cheaper, not more expensive. The average to build a HS holding 1,000 kids is about $18 million (not counting land).
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Sept 30, 2009 9:17:16 GMT -5
You are consistent Momto4. First, cheaper doesn't necessarily mean low quality. I look at things in terms of effective and efficient as I have said elsewhere. Why? It is the best compromise in a world where everyone is not equal. For example, I think it is fair to assume many of the families who come to D204 are here for the special needs focus and programs. As we all know many of these families are already under significant financial pressures due to the additional costs they incur for their childrens' benefit. If these families, or even those who also live here that are financial constrained for other reasons, can't afford that marginal tax increase, what should they do? Move? Just because you can easily afford it, doesn't mean others can. In addition, you talk as if there is an undeniable need for additional capacity, yet I haven't seen you support that position. In the end what I see is an expression of personal preference rather than addressing the needs of the community in the most effective and efficient way. I realize the resources of this District like any other are not endless and sooner or later there will be a point where hard decisions will have to be made by families who just cannot afford it any more and will be forced to leave. If I follow the tenants of effective and efficient, rather than my personal preferences, I believe I am doing my part in considering those less fortunate than I. That is what I mean by community. I'm sorry, but my opinion continues to be that in most cases the cheapest solution is almost never a good quality solution. I know when I replaced my dishwasher last year I didn't even glance at the cheapest one available (nor at the most expensive ones either). Though research has shown a "best size" for student bodies to be something significantly smaller than what we have (1000 or 1500 maybe? I forget) we didn't choose to go with this most expensive solution to the crowding in our HS and MS levels (building multiple schools), but went with building one additional school, still leaving one huge and two large high schools, and more reasonably sized middle schools. I am glad the voters approved building an additional HS and that this also allowed us to open an additional MS. I have said over and over I wish it had happened in 2005. Then the school would have been open earlier at the other location and probably for less money. Though there were many who hated that location as well. Are you saying that people couldn't afford the tax increase from the 2006 referendum? I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm not talking about taxes directly even though obviously cost at some point translates to tax rates. I thought that due to refinancing the 2006 referendum did not raise tax rates. I'm just saying that many people choose to live here for a good quality education and we as a community should not want choices made that cause that quality to decrease. For example, under Dr. D and even now we seem to have some larger number of students in classrooms and many would agree that this is not best for the quality of education. Please don't claim to have any knowledge about what I can or cannot afford in terms of taxes or moving. I did not in any way suggest that anyone should move, for reasons of not being able to afford taxes or any other reason. I only said that most people who chose to raise their children here don't want the quality of education to go down due to choosing the cheapest available options. I could be wrong. Those without children in the system could possibly be happy with the cheapest available options regardless of quality, or not if it eventually makes their home difficult to sell (in a better economy). Of course I don't want anyone's home to become unaffordable to them and the 2006 referendum should not have caused that to happen. Yes, I firmly believe that we needed the additional capacity, and now we have it, so I don't see the point of arguing whether the need was fact or opinion. The way I see the facts, we needed the capacity. Obviously your interpretation is different. No need to discuss. The thing to do at this juncture if you wish to help those less fortunate is not to waste time rehashing the past, but to work with those in charge to come up with solutions to upcoming problems that will be the least harmful to all. Being provided with a top notch education is something that is helpful to those at all socio-economic levels and something that I do not want to see suffer if we can help it. Quite the narrow view on ' cheaper ' Maybe the proper word sequence should have been 'more efficient' - but I think everyone knew the spirit of what was meant. Some people obviously choose to associate 'bricks and mortar' with quality of education - the two are mutually exclusive. The school my daughter now attends is over 100 years old- the results speak for themselves - a Taj Mahal is not needed for a quality education....especially one that did nothing for class size so exactly how long term was the situation improved now that we all know the real atttendance numbers. The kids sit in a different building. getting educational return for your money is different than trying to do things on the 'cheap' ( i.e. poorer quality teachers / books / no equipment etc) . Question: when you go out to buy a car do you spend as much as humanly possible to get you from here to there- or do you purchase transportation on many factors and in fact ' cheaper ' is the better decision ( unless that Ferrari and Bentley are in your garage ) - oh and then finance those cars and refinance your current debt for another 20 years? cheaper was still not cheap - $12M addition and likely a MS - but savings $100M or more looks pretty good rightnow facing growing deficits in 204 - with a muchless than rosey picture ahead.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 30, 2009 10:08:59 GMT -5
Quite the narrow view on ' cheaper ' Maybe the proper word sequence should have been 'more efficient' - but I think everyone knew the spirit of what was meant. Some people obviously choose to associate 'bricks and mortar' with quality of education - the two are mutually exclusive. The school my daughter now attends is over 100 years old- the results speak for themselves - a Taj Mahal is not needed for a quality education....especially one that did nothing for class size so exactly how long term was the situation improved now that we all know the real atttendance numbers. The kids sit in a different building. getting educational return for your money is different than trying to do things on the 'cheap' ( i.e. poorer quality teachers / books / no equipment etc) . Question: when you go out to buy a car do you spend as much as humanly possible to get you from here to there- or do you purchase transportation on many factors and in fact ' cheaper ' is the better decision ( unless that Ferrari and Bentley are in your garage ) - oh and then finance those cars and refinance your current debt for another 20 years? cheaper was still not cheap - $12M addition and likely a MS - but savings $100M or more looks pretty good rightnow facing growing deficits in 204 - with a muchless than rosey picture ahead. Nope, I don't associate the "bricks and mortar" with the quality of education. Would your daughter's school be able to provide the same quality of education and extra-curricular opportunities if they needed to house twice as many students? My child is now in a class of around 600 versus a class of over 1000. I consider this to be a major difference, others may not. Funny you should bring up cars as you and I have had lengthy conversations about them. I started out shopping for a really cheap car for my oldest based on some incredibly low sounding numbers in sales ads. As you know, what I found there were in fact really cheap cars and I wasn't willing for my teen to drive something like that, yet buying a new car of the quality we wanted was not affordable. We had to find another solution, but going without a car wasn't one of them. The district did not go with the cheapest nor the most expensive (IMO) possible solution, but one that does well serve the students.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 30, 2009 10:20:55 GMT -5
Gatordog, I know an agent on site at Ashwood Park. Per that agent, it is dead there. I suggest you drive over there and take a look. I live right next to it. If that is your example of growth, you should look elsewhere.
Have business to attend to most of today so I will respond tomorrow to the rest of your statements. Ditto for momto4.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Sept 30, 2009 10:39:55 GMT -5
Quite the narrow view on ' cheaper ' Maybe the proper word sequence should have been 'more efficient' - but I think everyone knew the spirit of what was meant. Some people obviously choose to associate 'bricks and mortar' with quality of education - the two are mutually exclusive. The school my daughter now attends is over 100 years old- the results speak for themselves - a Taj Mahal is not needed for a quality education....especially one that did nothing for class size so exactly how long term was the situation improved now that we all know the real atttendance numbers. The kids sit in a different building. getting educational return for your money is different than trying to do things on the 'cheap' ( i.e. poorer quality teachers / books / no equipment etc) . Question: when you go out to buy a car do you spend as much as humanly possible to get you from here to there- or do you purchase transportation on many factors and in fact ' cheaper ' is the better decision ( unless that Ferrari and Bentley are in your garage ) - oh and then finance those cars and refinance your current debt for another 20 years? cheaper was still not cheap - $12M addition and likely a MS - but savings $100M or more looks pretty good rightnow facing growing deficits in 204 - with a muchless than rosey picture ahead. Nope, I don't associate the "bricks and mortar" with the quality of education. Would your daughter's school be able to provide the same quality of education and extra-curricular opportunities if they needed to house twice as many students? My child is now in a class of around 600 versus a class of over 1000. I consider this to be a major difference, others may not. Funny you should bring up cars as you and I have had lengthy conversations about them. I started out shopping for a really cheap car for my oldest based on some incredibly low sounding numbers in sales ads. As you know, what I found there were in fact really cheap cars and I wasn't willing for my teen to drive something like that, yet buying a new car of the quality we wanted was not affordable. We had to find another solution, but going without a car wasn't one of them. The district did not go with the cheapest nor the most expensive (IMO) possible solution, but one that does well serve the students. aside from a specialty HS in LA- the most expensive HS in the country - not the most expensive route ? If you referring to BB- if they did not expedite BB the costs would have virtually been similar. Number of students in a class vs # of students in a classROOM are totally different. St Francis is half our size and has outstanding scores also- so I fail to see your point there. New trier one of the best HS's in the nation and has 5000 students- so that argument doesn't work for me. we would not have been going without - an addition to NV and a new MS ( keeping the freshman centers) was NOT going without. The kids weren't learning in the playground.. My oldest was at WVHS when it was more crowded than last year- her and her friends had no issues at all..same goes for Watts when there. So you went a route of not spending the most money you could with the car- good for you sounds like the right move to me- I wish our SD had done the same thing - they bought the Rolls instead. This rate of appeasement to something that some believe is nice - cannot continue as we are in debt up to our ears for the next 20 years. It would be nice to have A/C in the ES's also- but NOW we cannot afford that - we spent it to have the same size classrooms 3 miles north.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 30, 2009 10:45:19 GMT -5
Have business to attend to most of today so I will respond tomorrow to the rest of your statements. Ditto for momto4. Have a good day, macrockett! One important point I need to make is that I was not advocating anyone should move, I was pointing out that people chose to live where they live for some reason. If they chose Oakhurst over the neighborhood immediately to the west of Kautz Rd, for example, I expect this means that low property taxes were not their highest priority. If someone wanted to pay low property taxes, they will likely have chosen to live in a district that relies more on state $$ and less on local property taxes (and/or somewhere with relatively lower property values), in spite of any perceived or real quality differences in the level of education provided.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 30, 2009 10:48:08 GMT -5
Gatordog, I know an agent on site at Ashwood Park. Per that agent, it is dead there. I suggest you drive over there and take a look. I live right next to it. If that is your example of growth, you should look elsewhere. Have business to attend to most of today so I will respond tomorrow to the rest of your statements. Ditto for momto4. Dead NOW != Dead FOREVER There's undeveloped land in 204 that is zoned residential. Should the SD assume that this land will never be built out? I don't think so. And, as far as enrollment bubbles go, 203 seems to have been sustaining theirs for a number of years.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 30, 2009 11:02:53 GMT -5
Nope, I don't associate the "bricks and mortar" with the quality of education. Would your daughter's school be able to provide the same quality of education and extra-curricular opportunities if they needed to house twice as many students? My child is now in a class of around 600 versus a class of over 1000. I consider this to be a major difference, others may not. Funny you should bring up cars as you and I have had lengthy conversations about them. I started out shopping for a really cheap car for my oldest based on some incredibly low sounding numbers in sales ads. As you know, what I found there were in fact really cheap cars and I wasn't willing for my teen to drive something like that, yet buying a new car of the quality we wanted was not affordable. We had to find another solution, but going without a car wasn't one of them. The district did not go with the cheapest nor the most expensive (IMO) possible solution, but one that does well serve the students. aside from a specialty HS in LA- the most expensive HS in the country - not the most expensive route ? If you referring to BB- if they did not expedite BB the costs would have virtually been similar. Number of students in a class vs # of students in a classROOM are totally different. St Francis is half our size and has outstanding scores also- so I fail to see your point there. New trier one of the best HS's in the nation and has 5000 students- so that argument doesn't work for me. we would not have been going without - an addition to NV and a new MS ( keeping the freshman centers) was NOT going without. The kids weren't learning in the playground.. My oldest was at WVHS when it was more crowded than last year- her and her friends had no issues at all..same goes for Watts when there. So you went a route of not spending the most money you could with the car- good for you sounds like the right move to me- I wish our SD had done the same thing - they bought the Rolls instead. This rate of appeasement to something that some believe is nice - cannot continue as we are in debt up to our ears for the next 20 years. It would be nice to have A/C in the ES's also- but NOW we cannot afford that - we spent it to have the same size classrooms 3 miles north. $88M for remodeling Naperville Central, without adding any significant capacity seems rather "expensive", too, but that ref passed, as well. And, MV is the most expensive until the next 3000-student, comprehensive HS is built in the next year or two, in an area with land costs that are comparable to 204's.
|
|