Jump to content
My daughter is a 30+ student class which has out of district students. It is simply a lie to say that classes would be the same size if they stopped accepting out of district students into the overcrowded schools.
Second, if everything was so well thought out then why can't they respond with facts and analysis to the mathematical facts showing their demographic study uses a method less reliable than using births to locals? And then why should we believe in a projection showing a 30% increase in elementary school enrollment when birth to locals has decreased 30% 2012-2014 compared to 2007-2009?
If they can desire to spend $92M then they should be able to spend a few hundred dollars and get a demographic update answering those questions.
And the cost of a $71M high school that is not needed is $71M which is still a significant sum to the community.
Specifically, why trust projections of rapid enrollment growth based upon kindergarten enrollment 4 years ago and last year's kindergarten enrollment instead of using births to locals? Births to locals accurately predicted this year's decrease in K enrollment. SSSD's method projected over 4% growth.
Births to locals decreased 30% 2012-2014 from 2007-2009 and so how can the be ignored as if it won't affect future enrollment?
Oh, you made the same mistake as others in this plan. You never asked if the projections of rapid growth were reliable and based upon relevant data.
SSSD's demographer used a method in which kindergarten class 3 years ago and this year's kindergarten class are used to project the growth in kindergarten classes for the next five years. Nobody suggests that the kindergarten students 3 years or this year will be the kindergarten students for the next five years, but that is the sloppy lazy method used. And it projects a large 30% increase in elementary school students over the next 5 years.
If they used a method recognizing that local births are the primary source of future kindergarten students then they would have realized that births to local residents have declined by 30% in 2012-2014 from 2007 to 2009. And thus our long term issues is not a rapid 30% increase in enrollment, but handling the larger number of current students as smaller classes are to follow. The 10% decrease in 2015 kindergarten students was expected by the method using local births and not the 4% increase projected by SSSD.
This construction bond solves a problem much different than what exists.
Building the new church for Easter Sunday service attendance....
when the congregation is mostly old and about to get smaller as they die off
and moving the church from downtown to 3 miles west at the edge of city limits
And I suspect that downtown businesses are not seeing evidence of a 30% increase in kids under 5 so they know that the projections of rapid increase in number of local students is false so this plan is not needed.
I disagree that their electioneering makes going to school "uncomfortable". My daughter felt sorry for the guy with the terrible job. I said he is probably volunteering because he thinks he is right.
If he was standing in a place where it was convenient to talk with him (instead of a place that jammed up cars leaving the parking lot) and parents realized it was a BoE member then I think he would gotten an earful from parents upset that the schools allowed yet more out of district students. The kids don't seem to be complaining about crowding issues so the problems are probably much less than as described. But if the district staff thinks overcrowding is a big problem as outlined in their public letter then staff making the problem worse by admitting more out of district students is extremely wrong.
I know parents that don't understand how we can have overcrowded schools and yet SSSD accepts more out of district students. I've been asked how can this be and the state needs to fix the law. I tell them Aspen, Cherry Creek and so on, use the law as written to not let out of district overcrowd their schools. And then I'm asked "Then why is Steamboat accepting students into crowded schools?" to which my answer is that a question they refuse to answer. They like the money from additional students more than anything else.
A question that fundamentally misstates the function of city council. City Council's job is not to micromanage the police dept and hire police officers.
The police dept and HR is responsible for hiring police officers. If they believe some city policy is impairing the hiring of police officers then they should ask that to be changed by the city council.
I think anyone that says that SSSD is a high performing district without also saying that is as expected shows a serious lack of understanding. SSSD students come from a very favorable demographic with a high number of well educated parents. So parents make it a priority that their kids do well. At back to school night, I overheard one parent tell a teacher that she was willing to pay for tutors and so on to make sure her son was getting As and Bs. So she was asking the teacher for quick notice of any indications of less than B level work. Things like that make high school performance much easier.
As for leadership by elected officials, that is done primarily by asking probing questions and making sure the administration staff has good answers.
How in the world current BoE can sit there and be told that their demographer "stands by" his current projections show an complete failure of leadership. Is the demographer standing by projections using 2014 enrollment showing 30% growth by 2019 or projections with the exact same method using 2015 enrollment showing less than 10% growth by 2019? I have no idea what their demographer is standing by. That he has a method and didn't make errors in utilizing his method?
And then the current BoE accepts that births are "volatile". So where are the calculations showing that using local births is a less accurate predictor than the demographer's model using current and 3 year ago kindergarten enrollment to predict future kindergarten enrollment. And doesn't the school district have in their student profile info the year to year counts of how many students have moved in and how many have moved out? In particular, how many kindergarten or 1st grade students were born in district, in area and moved here should be valuable info in building a more accurate model to predict future K/1st grade enrollment.
Leadership in an elected board means asking the full time government staffers to present convincing info to support important decisions. That leadership is not trusting stuff because staff is explicitly trusted since staff has made good suggestions in the past.
I intend to vote for every candidate that shows skepticism and is not an ideologue of any sort. For the BoE, that means voting against any incumbents and any candidates that fully support 3A/3B. If a candidate cannot recognize that current BoE failed to ask essential questions then that person is not qualified to serve.
“Anytime you put money into the schools, it’s going to be seen from the outside as a good thing,” said Cam Boyd
Oh, so then it would be better to pass a bond measure ever few years and not consider a long term solution?
Though, what is generally good for a community is the opposite of what is good for a real estate agent
As for when the high school is likely to exceed capacity, none of the current classes of kids in the school system or those currently born will go to a high school over capacity.
If the blob born 2007-2009 were followed by continuing years of increasing growth then we could have projected that we would be heading towards capacity issues. But right as that group gets over 800 students at the high school and threaten to cause capacity issues then the 2010 kids come along as a smaller class and 2012-2014 births suggest significantly smaller classes to follow.. Thus, I think a good demographer could say with a high level of confidence that the high school will not be over capacity before 2030.
But high school should be expected to have 800 high school students in 5 years and be at those levels for several yeas so it would be wise to plan to handle that.
So we should build a new high school now because we might need it in 20 years? Spend $92M because we can?
We are being asked to build school facilities for a 30% increase in elementary school students over the next 4 years and neither city or county is expecting anything close to that sort of growth. With 2012-2014 local births being 30% lower than births 2007-2009 (the blob) then any normal school district would be talking about declining enrollment. But our lazy demographer uses a method that says SSSD kindergarten enrollment as of Oct 1 2011 and Oct 1 2014 are the two critical facts and projects 30% elementary school growth by 2019 from those two numbers.
The ridiculous nature of those projections are exposed since if using Oct 1 2012 and Oct 1 2015 kindergarten enrollment then suddenly there is less than 10% growth by 2019. In less than a year, using the exact same method, growth projections would have decreased from 30% to less than 10%. Give our lazy demographers a few months to consider the local decline in births and soon enough he'll project a decline of 10%.
And in this situation we are expected to approve $92M in bond to handle projected 30% growth by 2019?
Maybe the Yes2 folks should hold a weekly money burning party. Just charge a dollar per day for everyone since the last money burning party and see how many show up to burn their money.
Last login: Saturday, October 10, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.