jimdahl Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I found this article on Grand Forks school enrollment interesting. West Fargo passes GF school numbers The article jumbles all the relevant facts throughout, so rather than quote I'll extract: 1970 population/school enrollment G.F.: 40,000/12,732 West Fargo: 5,000/2,464 Today G.F.: 52,000/6,808 West Fargo: 26,000/6,902 It throws us a small demographic bone... Published reports indicate West Fargo has a larger percentage of its population younger than 18, about 30 percent, than Grand Forks, which has about 25 percent younger than 18. Clearly the base was young family heavy. Does the loss of personnel there entirely explain going from 32% of the population in school to 13%? That's crazy (though perhaps not as crazy as West Fargo being at 50% in 1970). Is the long flatness in G.F. population about to be replaced by a massive slide? Has the stable population masked that all the young families are leaving while older people are moving in from the smaller towns? No kids in Grand Forks anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I don't want to distract the conversation away from demographics too much, but I'm curious if there are going to be family farms left in ND? Or is it all going to be Cargill, Monsanto, etc.? Saw an interesting documentory where Monsanto threatened to sue the state of ND if it refused to allow GMO wheat (of course this movie was back in 04..not sure what's gone on since then). And another point the movie made was that some states, including SD and NE, have made it illegal for any farms other than family farms to exist (might need to be taken with a grain of salt there). Is that true and if so why hasn't ND jumped on that wagon? The point of all this is where Jim points out that perhaps older people are moving into the city. That would make sense to me if the family farms are going extinct. If people aren't out farming, then they have little choice but to move into the city for work/housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I found this article on Grand Forks school enrollment interesting. West Fargo passes GF school numbers The article jumbles all the relevant facts throughout, so rather than quote I'll extract: 1970 population/school enrollment G.F.: 40,000/12,732 West Fargo: 5,000/2,464 Today G.F.: 52,000/6,808 West Fargo: 26,000/6,902 It throws us a small demographic bone... Clearly the base was young family heavy. Does the loss of personnel there entirely explain going from 32% of the population in school to 13%? That's crazy (though perhaps not as crazy as West Fargo being at 50% in 1970). Is the long flatness in G.F. population about to be replaced by a massive slide? Has the stable population masked that all the young families are leaving while older people are moving in from the smaller towns? No kids in Grand Forks anymore? Given the relative economic opportunities of the two areas, these findings don't surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I don't want to distract the conversation away from demographics too much, but I'm curious if there are going to be family farms left in ND? Or is it all going to be Cargill, Monsanto, etc.? Saw an interesting documentory where Monsanto threatened to sue the state of ND if it refused to allow GMO wheat (of course this movie was back in 04..not sure what's gone on since then). And another point the movie made was that some states, including SD and NE, have made it illegal for any farms other than family farms to exist (might need to be taken with a grain of salt there). Is that true and if so why hasn't ND jumped on that wagon? The point of all this is where Jim points out that perhaps older people are moving into the city. That would make sense to me if the family farms are going extinct. If people aren't out farming, then they have little choice but to move into the city for work/housing. North Dakota has anti-corporate farming laws as well. Google "North Dakota Century Code" and it won't be hard to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I found this article on Grand Forks school enrollment interesting. West Fargo passes GF school numbers The article jumbles all the relevant facts throughout, so rather than quote I'll extract: 1970 population/school enrollment G.F.: 40,000/12,732 West Fargo: 5,000/2,464 Today G.F.: 52,000/6,808 West Fargo: 26,000/6,902 It throws us a small demographic bone... Clearly the base was young family heavy. Does the loss of personnel there entirely explain going from 32% of the population in school to 13%? That's crazy (though perhaps not as crazy as West Fargo being at 50% in 1970). Is the long flatness in G.F. population about to be replaced by a massive slide? Has the stable population masked that all the young families are leaving while older people are moving in from the smaller towns? No kids in Grand Forks anymore? The deomgraphics of North Dakota in general aren't very good - in one decade the number of baby boomer retirees will be huge. But a couple of notes: the West Fargo school district includes parts of western and southwestern Fargo, as well as Harwood and Horace. Those are now the areas with younger families. In 1970, West Fargo was basically a rural school district with a lot of farm kids. The population of the West Fargo school district is now likely around 40 K. The loss of base population has hurt GF enrollment: the base schools used to have ~2000 kids and now is just 300. The impact on GF high schools was never as high, as many AF personnel had left the service or retired before their kids entered HS. Fargo itself has about the same proportion of school kids as Grand Forks (Fargo pop = 95k+, school enrollment= 11.8K) With Fargo's school age population in decline (most growth in the city of Fargo will be in West Fargo's school district), why it is building a new high school is somewhat a mystery. Fargo and West Fargo would be better served to have joint school districts to mimize building: Fargo North could house Harwood kids instead of being half empty and a new HS in SW Fargo should serve both districts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I found this article on Grand Forks school enrollment interesting. West Fargo passes GF school numbers The article jumbles all the relevant facts throughout, so rather than quote I'll extract: 1970 population/school enrollment G.F.: 40,000/12,732 West Fargo: 5,000/2,464 Today G.F.: 52,000/6,808 West Fargo: 26,000/6,902 It throws us a small demographic bone... Clearly the base was young family heavy. Does the loss of personnel there entirely explain going from 32% of the population in school to 13%? That's crazy (though perhaps not as crazy as West Fargo being at 50% in 1970). Is the long flatness in G.F. population about to be replaced by a massive slide? Has the stable population masked that all the young families are leaving while older people are moving in from the smaller towns? No kids in Grand Forks anymore? I don't really expect to see a population slide in Grand Forks anytime soon. There has been a huge amount of single-family home construction since the flood (far more than what was lost), and a lot of those homes have been purchased by younger people. I just think families have fewer kids now than they used to. I fully expect to see the Grand Forks population continue its slow rise, but school enrollment may take a long time to get back to where it was during its peak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Fargo and West Fargo would be better served to have joint school districts to mimize building: Fargo North could house Harwood kids instead of being half empty and a new HS in SW Fargo should serve both districts. There was an opinion piece by Doug Burgum in the Forum today espousing that exact view. Really makes a lot of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The deomgraphics of North Dakota in general aren't very good - in one decade the number of baby boomer retirees will be huge. But a couple of notes: the West Fargo school district includes parts of western and southwestern Fargo, as well as Harwood and Horace. Those are now the areas with younger families. In 1970, West Fargo was basically a rural school district with a lot of farm kids. The population of the West Fargo school district is now likely around 40 K. The loss of base population has hurt GF enrollment: the base schools used to have ~2000 kids and now is just 300. The impact on GF high schools was never as high, as many AF personnel had left the service or retired before their kids entered HS. Fargo itself has about the same proportion of school kids as Grand Forks (Fargo pop = 95k+, school enrollment= 11.8K) With Fargo's school age population in decline (most growth in the city of Fargo will be in West Fargo's school district), why it is building a new high school is somewhat a mystery. Fargo and West Fargo would be better served to have joint school districts to mimize building: Fargo North could house Harwood kids instead of being half empty and a new HS in SW Fargo should serve both districts. Isn't there a pretty big descrepancy between Fargo North and Fargo South, like 300 kids pre class vs. 600 kids per class? I thought the new high school was supposed to even that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Fargo has declining enrollment and a relatively stagnant tax base. (Look at all of the districts around Fargo: West Fargo, Kindred, Central Cass, Northern Cass. They're growing as young families tend to more out of Fargo.) West Fargo is growing and has that 1973 school district boundary law sending school district taxes west of I-29 to them as Fargo, back in 1973, seemed to think that it'd always be rural west of I-29 and didn't want to deal with a school district that crossed the interstate. Whups. Fargo sees West Fargo has money and would love to merge. But now to the crux of the conversation: What's in it for West Fargo Schools. Until there's a good answer for that ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 But now to the crux of the conversation: What's in it for West Fargo Schools. Until there's a good answer for that ... A decent hockey team. And isn't that what really matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The problem for WF is they are too economically dependent upon Fargo as the employer for the new young families living there. Being a bedroom community isn't a solid long term growth strategy unless they can ensure the employer base in Fargo-and why do that? To keep their trend going they have to coax more of the employers, the kind that pay enough to afford a $250k and up house, from Fargo and into WF. I'm not sure the WF political base is up to that task. I asked Mayor Mattern last year who the largest private employer in the city was, and he didn't know. He only knew the school district was the largest employer overall. Developing the retail sector on 13th ave in WF is great, but those jobs aren't employing homeowners in WF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 There's no good reason Fargo and West Fargo shouldn't be one entity. It would eliminate all duplicate overhead. It should be just like Sioux Falls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moser53 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I don't really expect to see a population slide in Grand Forks anytime soon. There has been a huge amount of single-family home construction since the flood (far more than what was lost), and a lot of those homes have been purchased by younger people. I just think families have fewer kids now than they used to. I fully expect to see the Grand Forks population continue its slow rise, but school enrollment may take a long time to get back to where it was during its peak. On the radio this morning Hal Gershman said GF's population was 55,000. Rick Duquette at city hall last week told me GF was at 56,000. Makes me wonder what GF's popluation would have been with out the flood or the base downsizing. GF has taken alot of big hits. I wonder if it hurts or helps being so close to Fargo? I think it hurts the Columbia Mall alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 A decent hockey team. And isn't that what really matters? Dude, reality check time: The Fargo South High (17th Ave South) hockey roster only has a couple kids from north of 32nd Ave South and I don't believe *any* kids from north of I-94 (effectively 24th Ave South). After (named for a UND grad) Fargo Davies High opens will South have the demographics to field an ice hockey team? South will become the "inner city" school, North will look like North always has, and Davies will be the new "rich kids" school (south Fargo) and take over role FSHS had in hockey, minus a couple kids. You could merge WF and FSHS hockey after Davies opens and still Wahpeton or Devils Lake or Williston would play them to Game 7 in a seven-game series. Summary: No, WF wouldn't even get a decent hockey team out of the deal. Oh, and who's really loving the notion of Davies coming on-line and depleting South? Bismarck HS. I'm sure they're building a bigger state title trophy case already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Walrus Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I'm guessing the 1970 GF Enrollment figures are shewed a little by the GFAFB population at the time....? Wonder how many kids we had enrolled from there.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 the WF school vote failed only getting 51% and needing 60%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 the WF school vote failed only getting 51% and needing 60%. I recently moved to WF (begrudgingly) and followed this closely. I went to one of the meetings put on by the school board and I am still in disbelief by the incompetence of the school board. Dr. Wallace, who is typically vilified, gave a great speech and did a great job at answering all questions. She convinced me something needed to be done, however, it became very apparent she did not agree with the school board's plan. The president of the school board was a condescending moron. In response to a question about why all of the new schools have so much glass (inferring they may not be energy efficient) the president of the school board gave this drawn out narrative about how the old schools did not have much natural light which caused all kinds of problems including fights and depressed students. He stated that now the new schools do not have any fights and all of the kids get to school and immediately become happy because of all of the natural light. This just paraphrased the drawn out idiotic narrative this guy gave. All I could think of was this movie scene -LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxperseven Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I recently moved to WF (begrudgingly) and followed this closely. I went to one of the meetings put on by the school board and I am still in disbelief by the incompetence of the school board. Dr. Wallace, who is typically vilified, gave a great speech and did a great job at answering all questions. She convinced me something needed to be done, however, it became very apparent she did not agree with the school board's plan. The president of the school board was a condescending moron. In response to a question about why all of the new schools have so much glass (inferring they may not be energy efficient) the president of the school board gave this drawn out narrative about how the old schools did not have much natural light which caused all kinds of problems including fights and depressed students. He stated that now the new schools do not have any fights and all of the kids get to school and immediately become happy because of all of the natural light. This just paraphrased the drawn out idiotic narrative this guy gave. All I could think of was this movie scene -LINK I've been watching this a little bit. Is the main reason WF doesn't want to merge with Fargo schools because it allows Fargo to swoop in and get the tax dollars from some 1970's agreement? Seems to be a good idea to try and merge from what I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansel Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 He stated that now the new schools do not have any fights and all of the kids get to school and immediately become happy because of all of the natural light. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I recently moved to WF (begrudgingly) and followed this closely. I went to one of the meetings put on by the school board and I am still in disbelief by the incompetence of the school board. Dr. Wallace, who is typically vilified, gave a great speech and did a great job at answering all questions. She convinced me something needed to be done, however, it became very apparent she did not agree with the school board's plan. The president of the school board was a condescending moron. In response to a question about why all of the new schools have so much glass (inferring they may not be energy efficient) the president of the school board gave this drawn out narrative about how the old schools did not have much natural light which caused all kinds of problems including fights and depressed students. He stated that now the new schools do not have any fights and all of the kids get to school and immediately become happy because of all of the natural light. This just paraphrased the drawn out idiotic narrative this guy gave. All I could think of was this movie scene -LINK You live in WF-are you a private sector employee there as well? My plan is to ask a hundred WF residents that question and see what the results are. Very scientific I know, but it's as ambitious as I'll go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 The president of the school board was a condescending moron. In response to a question about why all of the new schools have so much glass (inferring they may not be energy efficient) the president of the school board gave this drawn out narrative about how the old schools did not have much natural light which caused all kinds of problems including fights and depressed students. He stated that now the new schools do not have any fights and all of the kids get to school and immediately become happy because of all of the natural light. I haven't followed it at all, but there is some research behind natural light being helpful to students, but that would be in a classroom. Also fluorescent lights hinder eye development in children. Looking for a deterrent to fights? Bigger hallways! The last district I was in built a much bigger school and fights were dramatically reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I haven't followed it at all, but there is some research behind natural light being helpful to students, but that would be in a classroom. Also fluorescent lights hinder eye development in children. Looking for a deterrent to fights? Bigger hallways! The last district I was in built a much bigger school and fights were dramatically reduced. I know that while remodeling some Grand Forks schools they have put in more windows and put windows in rooms that did not have windows before. The reason they stated for doing this was to allow more natural light because it is healthier than fluorescent lighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I haven't followed it at all, but there is some research behind natural light being helpful to students, but that would be in a classroom. Also fluorescent lights hinder eye development in children. Looking for a deterrent to fights? Bigger hallways! The last district I was in built a much bigger school and fights were dramatically reduced. My problem was with the school board president stating that the natural light eliminated fights and all of the kids are happy when they get to school because of the natural light. I agree that the use of natural light is healthier and potentially more energy efficient. However, this guys response went way past this and was completely absurd. In fact pretty much everything he said was condescending and/or absurd. Despite this I voted yes, because I agreed with the superintendent that something needs to be done soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.