Well there were 3 areas that I found interesting:
- The Superindent's report which discussed the reorganization and planned savings.
- The graduation requirement policy presentation which discussed recommended changes.
- The Mid-yr Enrollment presentation that does an excellent job of clearly describing where the kids within the RAS communities are going to school and how it has changed over time. It is worth watching the video and listening to Dennis Beekman present, and the Board Members discuss the topic. (go to 7. Operations Topic B) He did an excellent job as always.
- Potentially, the number of kids within the district boundaries are declining because families with kids are moving out to a "preferred" school district/community.
- Potentially, families with kids are hesitant to buy a home within the RAS boundaries. Given the availability of "preferred" school districts/communities.
- If this is part of the problem, what happens to home values and communities when young families are not moving in?
What do you think "preferred" school district/community means to the folks that are leaving or avoiding our community?
What do you think RAS and ourselves can do to turn this around?
Nov 1 Board Minutes
Nov 1 Board Web Cast
Mid year Enrollment Report & Projections
Enrollment Supplement
For more on Charters and Magnets, checkout the comments at this link.
281 Exposed Golden Opportunity
I think much of this is just "urban sprawl." The young marrieds seek the cheap land and new construction at the edges, not the "great schools" closer in. Elk River, not Plymouth, east (281) or west (Wayzata).
ReplyDeleteBut in education, it really isn't location, location, location. It's parent involvement, involvement, involvement.
Actually, declining enrollments are a simple matter of the passing of the "Baby Boomer bubble" of children. Everyone knew it was coming and should have made financial and facility plans with that in mind. To the extent they didn't, they're now having financial and facility "problems." Somehow, their failure to plan has become the taxpayers' problem.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
Actually, the Baby Boom has past, other that a little boom-let somewhere. The Baby Boom is what had 281 and many other districts way overbuild 40-50 years ago.
ReplyDeleteWhat's going on now is smaller families, preferring newer, nicer, larger homes to additional "expensive" kids. Even so, school districts should be estimating better than they are, or at least subtracting a safety margin since there guesses always seem high.
According to this document, we are still crowding into the Twin Cities area... Even the long time developed cities. Met Council Forecast
ReplyDeleteSo back to the original question, short of bombing the Middle East so gas prices sky rocket.(ie make commuting uncomfortably expensive) How do us first tier suburbs pull in those young families that spend so much money in their communities and help them thrive?
Nothing against retirees, however most of them I know tend to be a bit tight with the dollar.... They are probably recovering and paying back all the debts from when they had kids...
I think R-Five may be on to something, how can we afford to do low density housing in the RAS communitees? I don't think the modern "well to do" 3 kid family is looking to move into a 3 bedroom, 2 bath rambler on an 1/8 acre lot.. Or a townhome/apartment for that matter.
Yet this is what we are building, maybe we are forcing them to move to Elk River, Delano, etc.
And for Speed's benefit... Then we give them subsidized trains to help them sprawl more at less cost to them... Who will be left in the city proper?
You forget that the baby boomers all grew up and had kids in the 60s and 70s, and into the 80s, and that "second baby boom" was what filled the schools in the 90s, a wave that has now crested and is passing. Suburban school districts have an additional burden. As new suburbs are built, housing gets built, people move into these new homes because they are expanding their families and want "good schools." They have those families, the kids grow up and out as the space available for housing dries up, and the suburb settles into middle age, with some new but lower level of school-age children living there. Obviously these things cannot be predicted exactly over the longer term, but they can certainly be anticipated better than they have been.
ReplyDeleteJ. Ewing
When I was on my city's Planning Commission, we dealt with the Met Council's "Livable Cities" reports, regulations - and population estimates.
ReplyDeleteThey also were consistently high. Maybe that's where 281 is getting data or they are both using the same flawed sources.
R5, your brush is a little broad here. Not all the "young marrieds" are moving to Elk River, not all of us want big McMansions. The Gen Xers are a comparatively small generation and that's whose kids are in elementary/jr high/hs right now, so yes, there are fewer in general. But there are thousands of those families right here in our district. And we can keep them and attract more, if we're willing to make our district as good as, or better than, others. And you don't do that by cutting to the bone--a well-managed, efficient district with a range of options will attract families.
ReplyDeletePlenty of people don't want the long commute, so if we can provide quality of life ameneties--good retail/commerce, farmers markets--we can attract them. Housing stock is an issue in some of the district's cities, but there's a decent range--from starter homes in Rdale and Crystal to move up houses in Plymouth and Golden Valley. But most importantly we need to have schools that deliver what parents want for their kids, not ones that try to pinch pennies above all else.
A good school district can thrive, even in first ring suburbs. SLP, Roseville, Bloomington--none are perfect, but they perform well with with diverse student bodies. It's deeply unfortunate, but I think there's grown a culture of negativity that's becoming a cancer in our district. I've watched other districts' school board races, and they have a healthy range of opinions, but almost none have the "no no no" candidates that seem to be so vocal here.
The criticism seems to go so far beyond constructive and to idealogical. It's not about how we can have great schools, it's about how we can have cheap schools. And I think that's the wrong discussion.
I agree, Anon, my brush was indeed too broad. But I really don't think what frustrates us about the current public school system is its high cost. It's the lack of results we're getting, and knowing that still more money doesn't seem to help. And feeling that the district doesn't understand this.
ReplyDelete