MV/WV/NV future enrollments Sept 29, 2009 13:07:38 GMT -5
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!)
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?
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.