|
Post by steckdad on Sept 7, 2009 23:10:17 GMT -5
how is 203 fine and 204 screwed when they border each other? It's not like east and west Germany!!
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Sept 8, 2009 10:06:09 GMT -5
how is 203 fine and 204 screwed when they border each other? It's not like east and west Germany!! simple- one is overbuilt - one is not..so any future reductions, even being equal will have different effects.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 8, 2009 12:26:14 GMT -5
how is 203 fine and 204 screwed when they border each other? It's not like east and west Germany!! simple- one is overbuilt - one is not..so any future reductions, even being equal will have different effects. Do you mean that 204 has too much HS capacity? Such a problem to have, especially as more homes fill the undeveloped land in 204. Speaking of 203, how about 203 remodeling Naperville Central for $88M?
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 8, 2009 14:07:43 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/1749262,6_4_NA03_LETTERS_S1-090903.article Someone posted on the Sun website that "We recently learned that District 204's high school enrollment declined this year, just as they were opening a 200 million high sxhool. Until we start electing responsible people who represent the people instead of their own self interests and ambitions, one can expect the lies, corruption and fraud to continue." Where do people get this sort of misinformation? Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Sept 8, 2009 18:21:16 GMT -5
simple- one is overbuilt - one is not..so any future reductions, even being equal will have different effects. Do you mean that 204 has too much HS capacity? Such a problem to have, especially as more homes fill the undeveloped land in 204. Speaking of 203, how about 203 remodeling Naperville Central for $88M? hopefully they are not doing construction during school hours because that could be very dangerous
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 28, 2009 21:24:47 GMT -5
I don't recall if these numbers have been posted anywhere, nor do I know which day of enrollment figures shows this but twice recently I heard that our current number of high school students is 8784 and we have 9261 students currently in grades 4-7.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 29, 2009 0:46:51 GMT -5
Using the given 2009-10 all grade level enrollments, I feed them forward into their respective HSs. For the split ESs I divide them like this: Owen 70% MV, 30% WV Gombert 80% WV, 20% MV Peterson 85% NV, 15% WV. I am fairly confident of the first two, less so for Peterson. For those currently in MS, I divide them like this: Scullen 50% WV, 50% NV. Still 75% WV, 25% WV On the time scales i am looking at, these move in and out of HS relatively quickly. Note: I completely gave up on figuring a split for today's 8th graders (the class of '14). I understand some had choice to stay at current MS or go to the new one, if applicable. Therefore, I approximate the Class of 14 numbers and distribution as equal to the Class of '13. For the really young kids, once I could no long use groups of 4 years for HS entrollment (today's 2nd graders), I simply take the senior class size and multiply it by 4. Numbers in italics have an assumption in them. Regular numbers are simply moving forward grade level enrollments, with the above split percentages. Here is the enrollments, and the distribution between HSs given the current boundaries and enrollments. sch yr 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
| MV 2568
2748
2870 2856 2834 2875 2778 2878
| WV 2731
2816
2679 2637 2539 2555 2558 2445
| NV 3920
3670
3489 3331 3099 3118 2936 2806
| TOT 9218 9226 9234 9136 9038 8823 8472 8548 8272 8128
|
|
Interesting analysis Gatordog. Let me see, that right column shows a peak in 2014-15, 4-5 years from now, at 700 more students that we had last year if I am not mistaken. So what did we do? We built a 3000 capacity high school at a cost of $50k per seat and added on the operating costs that go with a third high school, when we are about 5 years from peak enrollment? 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? Should we focus on enrollment at MVHS as you seem to do, which is created by a number of steps, including the closing of WV gold, shifting some of those students into WVHS as well as shifting other students from other areas into WVHS and then shifting students out of WVHS to MVHS (drawing from areas which cover 1/2 of our District)? Or should we focus on the District as a whole and the costs incurred? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 29, 2009 8:02:24 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.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 29, 2009 8:36:47 GMT -5
Does anyone know what the totals were for grades 4-7 when this year's 9-12 were in those grades?
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 29, 2009 9:48:47 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.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 29, 2009 9:49:09 GMT -5
nteresting analysis Gatordog. Let me see, that right column shows a peak in 2014-15, 4-5 years from now, at 700 more students that we had last year if I am not mistaken. So what did we do? We built a 3000 capacity high school at a cost of $50k per seat and added on the operating costs that go with a third high school, when we are about 5 years from peak enrollment? 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? Should we focus on enrollment at MVHS as you seem to do, which is created by a number of steps, including the closing of WV gold, shifting some of those students into WVHS as well as shifting other students from other areas into WVHS and then shifting students out of WVHS to MVHS (drawing from areas which cover 1/2 of our District)? Or should we focus on the District as a whole and the costs incurred? What do you think? 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.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 29, 2009 10:45:09 GMT -5
That is how most reasoned, thoughtful analyses are done.
Let's put it this way: At $140M+, it could not possibly have cost any more.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 29, 2009 11:47:43 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?
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 29, 2009 12:31:02 GMT -5
.... That is how most reasoned, thoughtful analyses are done. speaking of reasoned and thoughtful analysis, I certainly do appreciate these. Yet, to apply such thoughtful analysis to decisions irrevocably made in the past, that is the realm of historians. Its great if some want to look at the third HS decision in 2009 from a historical point of view. People can later look at the decision in 2019 and 2029, too. What will the historical perspective be from then? (we dont know of course). Let me offer an idea: if you want to be a historian of the 3rd HS decision making and results, I believe that the 2nd HS decision making done the previous decade in 204 should also be a part of the context. That is what historians do....they try to bring to bear broad context. If one limits themselve to only 2006 and beyond, will you get a full historical prespective on the course the district took with MV? Again, I have no interest at all in being this historian. And people I talk to dont seem to have much interest either in such history. We are working with our students today and looking forward to their future.
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Sept 29, 2009 12:51:41 GMT -5
nteresting analysis Gatordog. Let me see, that right column shows a peak in 2014-15, 4-5 years from now, at 700 more students that we had last year if I am not mistaken. So what did we do? We built a 3000 capacity high school at a cost of $50k per seat and added on the operating costs that go with a third high school, when we are about 5 years from peak enrollment? 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? Should we focus on enrollment at MVHS as you seem to do, which is created by a number of steps, including the closing of WV gold, shifting some of those students into WVHS as well as shifting other students from other areas into WVHS and then shifting students out of WVHS to MVHS (drawing from areas which cover 1/2 of our District)? Or should we focus on the District as a whole and the costs incurred? What do you think? 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.
|
|