I support Neighborhood Schools!
.
Do I think we should keep every building we currently have open? No!
.
Do I think we need massive amounts of new construction in a time of economic turmoil and facing a potential declining enrollment and recession? Absolutely not!
.
Do I support building on to buildings in areas already affected by and expected to continue to be affected by declining enrollment? NO!
.
Do I support renovations where seats are needed? Yes!
.
Do I support additions in areas of growth? Absolutely!
.
Do I support the referendum? I support two questions.
.
There should be a separate question of the money needed for the deferred maintenance. That I would vote for as a Board member and private citizen.
.
The second question can be Scenario 7, Part A, paragraph 2 of subsection IV dash 3 or whatever the current plan is called. I do not and would not support the plan as it is currently written as a Board member or as a private citizen. I would work damn hard to make sure that plan is seriously amended prior to seeing a ballot.
.
What would I support? Until I see compelling research detailing long-term academic benefits of supporting K-3, expanding SAGE, and constructing more space than we are closing in a time of declining enrollment, I will support the following plan or some compromise near to the following:
.
Comments by me on Oshkonversation in response to similar questions:
.
"We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger. This helps the crowding problem on the west and southwest areas of the district.
.
Then expand the EAA charter to the middle school level and feed to North where there is an Aroenautics Academy for continuity of the program. Expand North to accomodate the Oakwood students and then we would solve the size and economic disparity between high schools.
.
As for closing a middle school, we should take a look at the population versus conditions of the buildings and decide if and which middle school has finished it's mission for the district. With recent population and census research showing a "Baby Boomlet" starting in 2006, we may need those seats in the future instead of counting on a declining enrollment; which, by the way, didn't decline nearly as much as predicted ten years ago."
.
"I sympathize with my fellow candidates. No one wants to commit to anything for fear of losing a section of the community or angering a school group. However, after three years of watching the BOE, I know that some decisions are hard and not everyone can agree with everything.
.
That being said, I'll stick my neck out and tell you based on everything I know about our entire district what I would consider. I say consider because I would be only one vote and it would take four to accomplish anything.
.
Taking into consideration that you could be correct about the seats in the middle school and taking into consideration that PMP, the original consulting firm told us we had at least one too many middle schools, and taking into consideration that compared to other districts of our size and demographics, if we were to keep K-5/K-8 (as we have some of each) I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing. Geographically and property size-wise it seems to make sense to keep Tipler as we have zero centrally located middle schools and South Park would be ideal, with it's pool, for housing the Recreation Department and possibly other programs like East High, who would benefit from the facilities at South Park while maintaining their autonomy as a separate high school. Of course, PMP also said Tipler was in worse shape, so it is difficult to say without reevaluating the information we have gotten since PMP's report. If I had to choose, I think we could keep both buildings and achieve efficiency by closing either South Park or Tipler and moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings saving us on leasing the Eagles Club for East and repairing and maintaining the Rec Dept building. Also, moving the Rec Dept to a better location like South Park, would open up more swimming programs for the entire community which could raise a little more revenue to help cover the cost of whichever building is kept. Selling the Rec Dept building to the city may be possible for additional parking downtown.
.
I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. With the Special Ed Committee Plan, many of Lincoln's students would be able to attend schools closer to their homes. Not many students attending Lincoln live near Lincoln. That area is becoming more and more absorbed into UWO. Looking at the real estate market, we have to consider which buildings would be most likely to sell. Lincoln is one.
.
I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum. Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students.
.
I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. There are additional issues with roads being planned near Green Meadow and its proximity to 41, 26, and Clairville Rd and being on N that make and will make Green Meadow easier to access. It is also more centrally located in the southern part of our district.
Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. School districts around the country are finding that demo-ing parts of buildings increases land space for land-locked schools and reduces the size of buildings in a more cost effective way.
.
Partial demolition of buildings to reduce their size is also an option for other buildings in the district. If not demo, repurpose parts of buildings to give us flexibility should we actually experience less of an enrollment reduction or even an increase in future years. Nothing says that district offices need to be in a separate building.
.
I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority.
.
Like I said before, these ideas are based on what I know about our district and numerous discussions with parent and community groups over the past year plus. With other information, I may change some of my ideas, but right now, this is my opinion of ways we could proceed."
.
In addition, I support maintaining the current five SAGE contracts, not expanding them, as long as state funding keeps the program solvent. I whole-heartedly support the Special Education portion of the plan and would assist in any way I could to ensure that plan can be done regardless of grade configuration or number of schools we have. I believe that if we have a comprehensive inclusion program for our most challenged students, we will benefit all of our students in every way.
.
Could my mind be changed? Except for Special Education, YES! I'm willing to listen to additional views and information.
0 comments:
Post a Comment