To that end, I took a look at the Enrollment Projections through the 2015-2016 school year and compared them to three building scenarios - the current structure, the NASD proposal, and the NOC proposal of a fourth elementary. This approach would allow for either a 9-12 HS or a 10-12 HS with 9th returning to the MS.
What is clear is that the current buildings will not meet the anticipated enrollment.
The NASD MS proposal does not resolve our space issue, instead it reallocates it. The new MS will only use 2/3 of its capacity, the Elem's will also be underutilized, but the IS will soon be near capacity and the HS will be over capacity.
There are plans by the NASD regarding the HS. The plan is to convert the current library into classrooms, the current gym into a library, and build a new gym. All of this will cost money, though, and the one thing the Board has acknowledged is that it can't currently meet its budget, nor can it do so in the future with the MS project. Given the borrowing required for the MS, one would have to wonder if we could even fund this project when the time comes - and it is coming soon according to the numbers.
Adding a fourth elementary will give us some flexibility and buy us some time. We can either keep 9-12 or shift to a JR/SR High structure (as I've shown below). Bringing the 9th grade to MS will open up the HS, but it will also crowd the MS, the 9th grade class size will need to be watched closely.
Given the fiscal concerns it does seem that the NASD proposal costs too much for a solution that doesn't address one of our biggest pending problems - the HS, while leaving a brand new building about a 1/3 empty for the foreseeable future.
The new elementary may only be a partial solution. It may have to be combined with some combination of HS construction to best serve 9th grade students, but compared to the NASD proposal it better meets our space needs.
Here are the numbers:
| Current Buildings | Capacity | Grades | 2001 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
| HS | 1648 | 9-12 | 1251 | 1613 | 1632 | 1677 |
| MS | 1256 | 6-8 | 1101 | 1155 | 1203 | 1239 |
| ELEM | 2200 | K-5 | 1769 | 1853 | 1894 | 2123 |
| Proposed Buildings | Capacity | Grades | 2001 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
| HS | 1648 | 9-12 | 1251 | 1613 | 1632 | 1677 |
| MS | 1340 | 7-8 | 755 | 775 | 784 | 830 |
| IS | 1256 | 4-6 | 985 | 1042 | 1066 | 1167 |
| ELEM | 2200 | K-3 | 1130 | 1191 | 1247 | 1365 |
| Alternate Proposal | Capacity | Grades | 2001 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 |
| HS | 1648 | 10-12 | 899 | 1218 | 1199 | 1274 |
| MS | 1256 | 7-9 | 1107 | 1170 | 1217 | 1233 |
| ELEM | 3200 | K-6 | 2115 | 2233 | 2313 | 2532 |
7 comments:
Seems like a vaible alternative.
Sorry, had a bugger of a time with rendering the table. Earlier huge gaps existed now its all run together.
Neither is great, but at least you can see it all on one screen now.
Sorry about that.
WOW!
Clearly, neither the status quo nor the districts plans do a thing to help the HS, as both scenarios show it exceeding capacity by 2015.
Clearly the alternative offered by NOC appears to be the most effective in that it keeps our schools within capacity over the same period.
What concerns me is that if we proceed with the district proposal, we will have to take yet another hit some time down the road to expand the HS.
I am sure there will be some nay-saying about moving 9th grade back to the MS, but since they are so close, there shouldn't be any effect on getting to activities.
I fully agree that moving 6th grade back to the elem is a good idea based on maturity. My guess is that the MS admins already figured this out, which is why the 6th graders have a seperate dance from 7-8.
My only big question is, why couldn't our district officials figure this out as a collective group while Ross pulled it together by himself?
Ross, ever thought of running for the School Board? You would have my vote.
Ross,
How can anyone dispute the numbers? There it is in black and white, plain and simple. The alternate proposal is the one that makes sense. Thanks for making it obvious.
Cindy
Ross
I am certainly not an authority on this, but I just wanted to point something out. Most high schools in Pa now consist of grades 9-12 becuase the Pa graduation requirements consist of courses that must be completed in a 4 year span. I don't know how to insert a link on this blog but if you do a search on Pa graduation requirements you can read the Pa code. Many high schools provide the student with the same guidance counselor in grades 9-12 so an accurate tracking can be made of course work accomplished. Also, by having 9th grade in the high school the 9th graders have better access to all courses and extracurricular clubs and organizations. In researching the subject, there are some educators who are advocating 9th grade centers.....but in order to this there would have to be duplication of facilities.
I don't disagree that 9-12 is a more common grouping for the reasons you note (and I too am no expert).
That is why is I said it would allow for either 9-12 or 10-12.
If you leave it at 9-12 this option provides:
The HS numbers are no different than the current arrangement or NASD proposal, while the MS becomes 7 & 8 grade, building capacity 1256, enrollment in 2001 and on: 755, 775, 784, and 830. Elementary stays the same as noted on the post.
The NOC option, then has no impact on HS (same as others) but keeps MS and ELEM level comfortably under, whereas the NASD proposal will see the IS within 100 of capacity by 2015 if projections hold.
What Ross has proposed is what existed in the past. At the age of 62, I can tell you that elementary school was made up of grades 1-6, junior high schoo was 7-9 and senior high school was 10-12. I graduated in 1962 and there was no population explosion nor did we have the wide variety of courses, are they all really needed, that are available today.
The problem for the Board, and this is true of lots of government entities, is their lack of foresight combined with the desire to build a Mercedes. They get all excited about all the goodies they can put into the school. They see themselves as doing good things for the children and presume that the rest of us will agree. Most times we do but when we start to talk BIG TICKET item the folks can become cranky.
Post a Comment