|
Post by gatordog on Jul 27, 2009 16:17:24 GMT -5
ES capacity data. The enrollment numbers are last year's, for the 08-09 school year. The individual building capacities are from post's I read by the blue board's rew and JB.--[ -edit: These bldg capacities differ from another document , see post below for comparison. reference note--these capacities are from SD 2008 document at www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17433_2.pdf
I am using full building capacity, and district states that ideal functional capacity is 90% for an ES. So assume target capacity for an ES is 90%. Edit: In the table below, I am not certain of these bldg capacities.School BD BR BUIL CLO COWL FRY GT GOM GRA KEN LON MCC OW PAT PET SB ST WAT WEL WE YNG | full cap 650 850 850 650 850 950 700 650 850 850 476 850 850 950 850 950 850 850 950 850 850 | enroll 521 660 558 451 669 851 621 523 631 701 416 639 566 701 472 807 698 595 856 558 796 | % cap 80 78 66 69 79 90 89 80 74 82 87 75 67 74 56 85 82 70 90 66 94 |
|
My first quick thought is that Young does seem to be the most crowded ES. A second quick thought would be, would it make sense to permenantly re-assign some sensible "pocket" of ~50 students in the Young area to maybe Brooks? edit: FYI on a district-wide basis, I figure we are at ~78% of full capacity.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Jul 27, 2009 16:40:00 GMT -5
ES capacity data. The enrollment numbers are last year's, for the 08-09 school year. The individual building capacities are from post's I read by the blue board's rew and JB. I am using full building capacity, and district states that ideal functional capacity is 90% for an ES. So assume target capacity for an ES is 90%. School BD BR BUIL CLO COWL FRY GT GOM GRA KEN LON MCC OW PAT PET SB ST WAT WEL WE YNG | full cap 650 850 850 650 850 950 700 650 850 850 476 850 850 950 850 950 850 850 950 850 850 | enroll 521 660 558 451 669 851 621 523 631 701 416 639 566 701 472 807 698 595 856 558 796 | % cap 80 78 66 69 79 90 89 80 74 82 87 75 67 74 56 85 82 70 90 66 94 |
|
My first quick thought is that Young does seem to be the most crowded ES. A second quick thought would be, would it make sense to permenantly re-assign some sensible "pocket" of ~50 students in the Young area to maybe Brooks? edit: FYI on a district-wide basis, I figure we are at ~78% of full capacity. That would be a start -- look at the range on thse %'s And remember Watts keeps adding far away satellites just to stay where it is -- Owen added a huge block from Builta and is still very low. This is why they said they were going to do all the boundaries - startng with ES...and that would have been the right thing to do.. the question is why did't they ? They were very confortable with the ISAT mix they arrvied at and wanted to look no further, that's one reason. (not saying they still couldn't have ended up with close to the same ISAT mix - but they didn't bother to put as much effort nto the boundaries as some private citizens did - which is just sad. With ES population continuing to drop - building consolidation has to be a future consideration Thanks for re posting those numbers - it shows clearly the inequity in level of crowdedness ( word ? ) -
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jul 27, 2009 19:34:17 GMT -5
My first quick thought is that Young does seem to be the most crowded ES. A second quick thought would be, would it make sense to permenantly re-assign some sensible "pocket" of ~50 students in the Young area to maybe Brooks? I think all the small pockets of kids have already been peeled off of Young and sent to either Brooks or Watts over the last few years. As far as I am aware, the subdivisions left feeding Young are: Cambridge Countryside (off of Butterfield) Ginger Woods (half is 204, also off of Butterfield) Cambridge Chase and the Concord homes that are immediately south of MVHS. Oakhurst North With the possible exception of Gingerwoods, these are all fairly sizable subdivisions. (I'm not sure how many elementary kids from Gingerwoods there are that are in the 204 side.) I think the families in them are also skewing a little younger (i.e. their bubble is behind the surrounding area) because the houses are a little newer than most of the rest of the north end of the district. I don't know that any other nearby school can swallow any of these subdivisions whole without being put in the same position we have at Young.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jul 28, 2009 7:50:46 GMT -5
IIRC the Builta folks went to Springbrook, not Owen.
IMO it is silly to not bus at least some portion of kids to Brooks. The SB is all about what they have done in the past with the siblings yet they aren't considering moving some kids temporarily like they did in the past? Very strange. And now the portables are gone from Scullen to be moved to another school over 90% capacity while other schools sit below capacity? I'm a bit disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 28, 2009 7:52:00 GMT -5
My first quick thought is that Young does seem to be the most crowded ES. A second quick thought would be, would it make sense to permenantly re-assign some sensible "pocket" of ~50 students in the Young area to maybe Brooks? I think all the small pockets of kids have already been peeled off of Young and sent to either Brooks or Watts over the last few years. As far as I am aware, the subdivisions left feeding Young are: Cambridge Countryside (off of Butterfield) Ginger Woods (half is 204, also off of Butterfield) Cambridge Chase and the Concord homes that are immediately south of MVHS. Oakhurst North With the possible exception of Gingerwoods, these are all fairly sizable subdivisions. (I'm not sure how many elementary kids from Gingerwoods there are that are in the 204 side.) I think the families in them are also skewing a little younger (i.e. their bubble is behind the surrounding area) because the houses are a little newer than most of the rest of the north end of the district. I don't know that any other nearby school can swallow any of these subdivisions whole without being put in the same position we have at Young. Surpisingly there are a lot of little kids (ES Level) in Ginger Woods I would not be surprised if it would be close to 50. Cambridge Countryside is a larger and the homes range about 150-200k lower, so I'm sure it would be more. It seems that Brooks could handle a little over 100 before hitting 90%.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jul 28, 2009 8:01:51 GMT -5
ES capacity data. The enrollment numbers are last year's, for the 08-09 school year. The individual building capacities are from post's I read by the blue board's rew and JB. I am using full building capacity, and district states that ideal functional capacity is 90% for an ES. So assume target capacity for an ES is 90%. School BD BR BUIL CLO COWL FRY GT GOM GRA KEN LON MCC OW PAT PET SB ST WAT WEL WE YNG | full cap 650 850 850 650 850 950 700 650 850 850 476 850 850 950 850 950 850 850 950 850 850 | enroll 521 660 558 451 669 851 621 523 631 701 416 639 566 701 472 807 698 595 856 558 796 | % cap 80 78 66 69 79 90 89 80 74 82 87 75 67 74 56 85 82 70 90 66 94 |
|
My first quick thought is that Young does seem to be the most crowded ES. A second quick thought would be, would it make sense to permenantly re-assign some sensible "pocket" of ~50 students in the Young area to maybe Brooks? edit: FYI on a district-wide basis, I figure we are at ~78% of full capacity. OK, I admit I had to cringe when GD brought out the "numbers" again but this peaked my interest..... I noticed all the schools that are way under capacity are all, with the exception of MW, south of 75th. The SB could easily have sent some kindergartners from Fry to WE as well just like they shipped the Ashbury kids to Builta. For some reason, they would rather do the portables or be crowded and keep the kids in their neighborhood school.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jul 28, 2009 8:24:37 GMT -5
I assume the portables are not included in the capacity figures...so why would Yound need portables if they are under capacity?
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jul 28, 2009 9:39:59 GMT -5
I assume the portables are not included in the capacity figures...so why would Yound need portables if they are under capacity? The capacity isn't always where they need it. For example, if there are 125 kids in 3rd grade, that is 5 classrooms worth of kids with room for 3 to 4 more per classroom. They can't go down to 4 classrooms because that would be more than 30 kids. This looks like extra capacity, but it isn't usable capacity if you need room to add another classroom for first grade because the population is way up.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jul 28, 2009 9:44:26 GMT -5
Surpisingly there are a lot of little kids (ES Level) in Ginger Woods I would not be surprised if it would be close to 50. Cambridge Countryside is a larger and the homes range about 150-200k lower, so I'm sure it would be more. It seems that Brooks could handle a little over 100 before hitting 90%. Possibly. It does seem like those far north subdivisions would be the likely candidates. I found it interesting that Brooks is having to add a 5th kindergarten classroom this year for the first time since 2004. The incoming 1st through 3rd grades are smaller than the incoming 4th-6th grade classes were, so it seemed like the capacity would free up even further. With the upswing with this kindergarten year, it will be interesting to see if this continues.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 28, 2009 9:53:09 GMT -5
I assume the portables are not included in the capacity figures...so why would Yound need portables if they are under capacity? hang on, it may be because my table didnt have the correct bldg capacities. Allow me to make an update....
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 28, 2009 10:14:05 GMT -5
This table looks different when using another set of bldg capacities. Maybe the earlier table's building capacities are over-estimated? In this table, I will use ES available capacity for the March 3, 2005 Construction Grant application to the Illinois State BOE. (used to support initial third HS ref, I believe) Again the target, and this is shown on the grant form, is to be at 90% of available, a utility factor to get to optimal capacity. School BD BR BUIL CLO COWL FRY GT GOM GRA KEN LON MCC OW PAT PET SB ST WAT WEL WE YNG | full cap-SD form 556 708 781 627 684 869 627 628 556 781 519 689 703 689 850 689 710 732 869 654 781 | enroll 08-09 521 660 558 451 669 851 621 523 631 701 416 639 566 701 472 807 698 595 856 558 796 | % cap 94 93 71 72 98 98 99 83 114 90 80 93 80 102 56 117 98 81 99 85 102
|
|
Note: I am confused by the orange ones....did Springbrook and Graham get some additions done since 2005? In general though, this shows a different story. Quite a few ES's now are above the optimal capacity. Now, district-wide, we had 2008-9 enrollment of 13290, and full capacity of 14701, right at 90% full capacity. edit-SD form did not have Peterson on it, not yet built. So I retained the previous estimate.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jul 30, 2009 11:50:40 GMT -5
Concerning ES building capacities, both the above tables are "right", they just reference different sources. That can get confusing. The 2005 construction grant has different building capacities than the document on the SD website, at www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17433_2.pdfMaybe there is difference in definitions? I dont know. But it is confusing. The 2205 capacities are surely calculated from some formula in a spreadsheet... given that they are listed in tenths! For example the 2005 Grant application says Crone has "available capacity" of 984.1 while the current document says 1200.
|
|