I just got an email from D41 with an update on the newest facilities plan. Now I am really confused. Weren't we told that there was NO WAY we could build on the Spalding site? I don't have the backpack propaganda anymore - tossed it out after the ref failed. But I am left wondering how they will sell us on building on the very site that was supposedly deemed 'unbuildable.'


Here is what item #2 said in today's email:
Build an elementary school at the vacant Spalding site to create school sizes better suited to their sites and eliminate the majority of the portables. Over time, the other schools could be renovated. Hadley would need an addition as well as renovations. Spalding, the only possible school site owned by the district, is located north of St. Charles Rd. and east of Main St.

D87parent, if my memory serves me (and I have yet to test it against my archived material that I did not toss out), I don't think that the district at first said that Spalding was not buildable. It was certainly considerable not buildable for the purposes the district was pitching -- 5/6 center school. Well it wasn't buildable unless the district decided to flex its eminent domain muscle (which you will recall that unfortunate chapter in our history) and leveled houses for a bus lane. Somehow it seems the argument that a grade center school could not be built at Spalding became the common mantra that nothing could be built on the site. It was also said that the four elementaries in the district could not be built onto, as well.

I think that you can still access the original facilities committee report, which contains some very (obviously) compelling reasons why the super school at Hadley was the best approach. While we all know how that story ended, there is still interesting reading within the report, like the reasons not to build at Spalding. And if you want to see what happens to the dollars in the building at Spalding scenario see the financial planning document . I believe that the presentation focused on building a grade center school on Spalding v. Hadley, there are still some valid points. Building a new school will require some administrative costs that will, no doubt, strain the funds, but perhaps the dollars are already in place?

In any event, it will be interesting to see how this all ends. What kind of support does the district expect to get from a community that has no trust and for good reason? Times were different when all of the facilities talk began. I have a feeling we will not get back to those "greener" times any time soon.

Ohma,

Since the ref got voted down, what has enrollment done? Has it grown or become smaller?

bitterboy, it appears that enrollment is flat. A quick glance at the April 2007 enrollment report indicated a total of 3602 (which includes 75 Pre-K at risk). The January 2009 report indicates total enrollment of 3,609 (which includes 79 Pre-K). I include the Pre-K numbers because, prior to all facilities planning, Pre-K was not housed in the district facilities and was half the size. A careful reading of the Facilities Report indicates that we were bracing for an enrollment to top over 4,100 (a whole school's worth of kids have yet to materialize).

I still am trying to figure out what all the money from the 2001 referendum went. Class sizes are rising or staying flat, even as we add portables. I read references to state/federal requirements that require special spaces for special groups of instruction. I've got to believe there are some opportunities to use our existing spaces more efficiently.

Here is the last comment from the Hadley New Horizons document that was just published:

"Unknowns: District enrollment has grown gradually by about 400 students over the last 10 years. The district has conducted several independent demographic projections, all of which indicate stable-to-moderate growth. Projections are educated guesses at best, especially when planning for children who are not yet born. It is unknown how economic conditions will affect enrollment, whether the new developments planned within the D41 attendance area will come to fruition, and how the socio-economic features of the district population will change, features that directly affect the services the district must offer and the space those need. "

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
I have a feeling we will not get back to those "greener" times any time soon.

You are so clever.
Thank you for being such a good resource.
Oh, and don't forget to vote April 7.

There are two working meetings of the Masters Facilities Plan Committee left, so I feel like the cake is still baking and I don't want to open the oven door. But I'll hazard a few comments on the D41 communication of today.

The options that the committee retained for its deepest analyses are a choice, essentially, between housing students where they are now (the existing 5 sites), and housing students in a new building with some minor renovations at some or all of the remaining schools. It is possible that the new elementary building option could even allow for a later decision to return to a K-6 model. But that is a future decision. One important thing to remember is that this is intended to be a master plan for short, mid, and long term planning.

It is entirely possible that the committee could recommend both plans for the Board's consideration. To be sure, the committee reviewed several other options, too. They were not retained for further study, for reasons that will be identified by the final report.

Any facility construction requiring referendum will be a choice made by the next and/or future Boards. Options screened out by the MFP committee could very well be revisited, only time will tell. The MFP committee was not tasked with and has not discussed cost estimates except in the most general, relative terms and even then the discussions tended toward capital costs. Additional administrative and operational costs for a new building didn't really enter discussions. All such costs (capital and O&M) would be factors to be considered by the new/future BOE's in relation to dollars sought, and not this committee.

Thanks Ohma. Reading DTM's quote however, leads one to believe that the district is growing, when in fact, for the last 2-years it has remained stable.

quote:

District enrollment has grown gradually by about 400 students over the last 10 years

and

quote:

The district has conducted several independent demographic projections, all of which indicate stable-to-moderate growth.

but then it qualifies itself by stating:

quote:

Projections are educated guesses at best

and

quote:

It is unknown.....

WTF? If they know that the student population has remained constant for the last two years (which they do), why not state that. Cite the real facts.

Hypotheticals which were done prior to the ref in 2007 should not be used, if since then, the district has real data, particulalry if that data does not support the hypothetical. At the very least, in order not to be misleading, the district should include both data sets side-by-side when disseminating such information. Doing so, would allow us to make educated decisions, don't you think?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bitterboy,

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:

WTF? If they already know that the student population has remained constant for the last two years, why not just state that. Cite the real facts.

Hypothetical projections should not be used if they have real data or, at the very least, include both which would then allow us to make eductaed decisions. This is what pisses me off.

Shouldn't be too terribly difficult for them to do something I've done in the past on these boards, and frankly don't care enough to do again. Take those much-vaunted studies conducted over the past 3 or so years, and compare their projections with what has actually occurred. Seems like it would be a lot simpler than their convoluted prose.

IIRC, the repeated studies all projected some amount of growth, offering low, medium, and high predictions. And they consistently acknowledged that their predictions for the immediate future were far more likely to be accurate than any predictions further out into the future.

What have we seen? Across the board "growth" during the "most predictable" first few years has been significantly below the lowest predictions. Why is that so hard to admit?

If you want to flog the spectre of huge future growth, the least you will have to do is pony up for some new studies, as the past ones have proven themselves to be worthless. Of course, there is no reason to believe the new studies will be any more accurate than the last ones...

quote:

Originally posted by DTM:

I still am trying to figure out what all the money from the 2001 referendum went. Class sizes are rising or staying flat, even as we add portables.

Again, doesn't seem all that complicated. Whatever the money has been (and continues to be) spent on, doesn't seem to be doing the desired job. How can such a huge influx of cash have been so woefully insufficient? How the heck did the district set its priorities? Before even suggesting that additional money is needed, show us a clear timeline indicating additional tax revenue and where it went. Why doesn't the district consider raising funds by reversing some of its recent spending decisions?

I find it rather strange that D41 still continues to pursue building another school for a declining enrollment despite the economy/recession. If space and/or finances are an issue, why continue to employ all those middle level administrators (count them to see the #). Also do we really need literacy and math specialists in each building who really don’t work with kids but mainly work with teachers? I am the only one who questions this????????

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
to top over 4,100 (a whole school's worth of kids have yet to materialize).

Don't you know there is an entire schools worth of kids housed in portables right now!!!!! How insensitive to their needs can you be.

quote:

Originally posted by Helen Back:
...a declining enrollment despite the economy/recession.

The enrollment has shown no signs of decline. They have remained flat or very minor increases over a good many years. Just to keep the facts straight.

Don't know if this is relevant, but in speaking to a mother of a D41 special needs child who currently attends a school in D89 because that's what was arranged for the child, her child will be able to attend school in D41 (Franklin specifically) next year.

I don't know specific details as to this child's situation and/or whether an entire classroom will be moved or if the child will be mainstreamed into a Franklin classroom (I don't think the latter is the case based on our conversation). She just mentioned it to me in a positive way because she will finally have all of her kids together at the same school with the same days off, vacations etc. Anyway, could that be causing space issues?

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:


Shouldn't be too terribly difficult for them to do something I've done in the past on these boards, and frankly don't care enough to do again. Take those much-vaunted studies conducted over the past 3 or so years, and compare their projections with what has actually occurred.

I did this as well, two years ago as a candidate, and I can update it and post a graph, hopefully tonight. There's always the issue of including or not including pre-K and ECE (historical numbers from way back don't always have those included so you have to be careful when comparing).

For the MFP committee, we were assuming our current enrollment remains steady. Not to say that there isn't flexibility for some growth in the options.

I haven't been able to find the NIU study on my hard drive yet, so attached are charts of the Kasarda study only.

enrollment.jpg (186 KB, 60 downloads) Enrollment Study

scale changed to see better

enrollmen_scale_changed.jpg (175 KB, 73 downloads)

FYI, those graphs are total students - including ECE and preK.

It seems that the trend line points toward lower enrollment or at least a lower one than the boards lowest estimate.

quote:

Originally posted by taxpayer:
It seems that the trend line points toward lower enrollment or at least a lower one than the boards lowest estimate.

That is not how I read it. To me it looks like the actual attendance is between Sears "good" and "better."

The study's lowest estimate called for declining enrollment, Bob? Funny, I don't recall that, but I certainly take your word for it. Thanks for taking the time to present this. You really display the openness I wish the district offered consistently and up front.

In any event, now at a point 3 years past those studies - where they admit they become less and less accurate - it sure seems like they should be tossed out (at least to the extent the district was planning based on the "middle" or "higher" estimates.)

The board could spend some of their referendum bounty to order up some new studies - but I wonder why they would expect them to be any more accurate than the previous ones.

Another thought re: future enrollment. Just my WAG, but I can imagine the current economic situations might be convincing at least a few folk to postpone any intentional expansion of their families.

But this is all crazy thought. We all know we have to build some kind of a school somewhere RIGHT NOW! Don't we? If not a superschool at Hadley, then a neighborhood school at the previously unworkable Spalding site. And if that idea gets shot down, well, they'll come up with some other idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:

The study's lowest estimate called for declining enrollment, Bob? Funny, I don't recall that, but I certainly take your word for it.

The Kasarda report was presented to the previous BOE on 4/16/07, so the Hadley referendum request was based upon the NIU studies, not the Kasarda. It was the NIU studies that both showed increases, similar, if I remember correctly, to the Kasarda "high" projection. The Kasarda "low" was the first one in recent memory to project a decline. You can read the Kasarda study here. But Kasarda's best guess was his "mid" projection, which still showed an increase.

quote:

We all know we have to build some kind of a school somewhere RIGHT NOW! Don't we? If not a superschool at Hadley, then a neighborhood school at the previously unworkable Spalding site. And if that idea gets shot down, well, they'll come up with some other idea.

Remember, the Spalding "unworkable" pertained to a 5/6 grade center of the size they were contemplating at the time.

What is missing from these charts is a straight line showing current capacity of the buildings. Such a line could make it clear whether there is a chance of "declining our way out of it" so to speak. But deciding where that line should be is the trick, as it depends heavily on curriculum/program requirements and class size targets - at each individual building. All I can tell you is that at our current program requirements and class sizes, that line is sufficiently below the Kasarda "low" that only a drop beyond the rate of the Kasarda "low" would get us there.

Now the MFP committee is tasked with considering current enrollment stable, and current programs remaining as-is. Add to that the consensus (unanimous, I believe) feeling of the committee that portables in perpetuity are not acceptable, and the recommendation for building is not a surprise.