Teresa Thiel focused her comments on positive outcomes from the trade-offs, both educational and financial. Our follow-up question to her is this:
For Teresa Thiel—What level of confidence do you have in Scenario 7 that it will achieve its goals in terms of education and money? Do you think it can be improved? If so, how so?
I still have some concerns regarding the 4-8 configuration but that did not seem to be as big a concern with speakers as I expected it would be. I would still like more details on the educational benefits to 4th, 5th and perhaps 6th graders. I think the educational benefits of SAGE for the additional students will definitely be significant.
As for the dollars saved, I have asked Administration for additional information. First, due to the concern people have regarding the distance that students will have to walk, I asked "what is the furthest distance students walk (those that are not bussed by the district) under our current elementary and middle school boundaries? I would not want to increase that distance for students. The second question I asked was "if we keep the six schools slated to be closed in Scenario 7 what would the maintenance and capital improvement costs be for those six schools over the next 20 years (the length of the referendum bond). That figure is a savings to the district, over and above the approximately $1.5 million in operational savings.
I do know for a fact that if we close no schools, we will have $0 savings in operational costs and will have to spend a significant amount in maintenance and capital improvement costs over the next 20 years. According to the experts some of these building probably don't have 20 years left in them.
If the community wants us to be efficient with our dollars I don't know how you justify continuing to operate inefficient school, both in staffing and in maintaining buildings that experts we hired said they would not invest dollars in. I understand people don't want their schools closed and it seems we are heading down the same road the board has gone down in the past, people are upset, so don't close any schools. That is fiscally irresponsible. If non-experts are going to second guess the experts as to which buildings are not worth investing in I don't think we should waste our money hiring experts.
As for the movement of 150 students from West to North, I'm not really in favor of busing students who can walk to school, it seems to make more sense to me to move students already on a bus. I also think there should be a tipping point at which we decide we must move students, say when North is projected to go below 90% of operational capacity then students will be moved. I don't want to move students only to over-crowd a school even temporarily. I think this decision needs to be made based on what is best for the district as a whole and I have concerns when decisions are made based on the "squeaky wheel" philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So often I have heard the excuse for not considering public input is that "oh, they are just the 'squeaky wheel.'" Or my personal favorite from the BOE meeting, "I don't think 135 people is a public outcry, I consider that more of a NIMBY." Then there is the ever popular, "I don't put much stock in signatures on paper." Then there is the, "Well Oakwood complains about everything and always gets what they want."
What number or form is enough for the public's comments to matter? When exactly does someone with a concern in this community get taken seriously and not blown off or demeaned with the above excuses? Who in our community is valuable/respectable enough for a little consideration?
I don't believe you can ascertain what people in the audience who did
NOT speak at the meeting thought about the scenarios (in fact the person sitting behind me liked the plan as it was except she thought those living North of 21 should be the ones moved, not those who could walk to school) and certainly
there was no consesus from the people who did speak. Some liked the plan for the most part but were worried about busing, some didn't want the Casey Meadow part but were silent on the rest of the plan, some did not want their school closed, others were there to speak about the hockey program and said nothing about the facilities plan. I believe about 30 people actually spoke at the meeting, you cannot know what
everyone in the room wanted.
So are you saying you will make decsions based on X number (and what would that number be) of people coming and saying "don't do this or that"? Or is it just any number of people you happen to agree with?
The message I heard last night from the majority of speakers was
"don't move children and break up friendships" if that is the guiding
force for your facilities decisons, how will you ever change a boundary, much less have the "fluid" boundary you are proposing? So, are you cherry picking what you will listen to and what you won't? How will you ever close any school? Or, are you saying, we can't move Oakwood
students, or close Roosevelt because those parents have come forward and said "don't" but it is OK to close Lincoln (you have previously said you agree with that -- I think you used the words "done-deal" even though that has yet to be voted on by the board) because those parents have NOT spoken at meetings asking that their school be kept open? If that is not listening to NIMBY and squeaky wheel I don't know what is. You are saying if you don't come and complain it's a "done deal" but if you come and say "don't" I'll listen and back off. That is NOT leadership in my book.
So are you saying you now support scenario 7 to include closing six schools?
So should the one person behind you who did not speak, supports the scenario, and probably would not be personally affected by the vote other than the referendum trump the three behind me who do not speak and are opposed to the scenario and will be directly affected by a vote both with the referendum and their children being shuffled around?
Are you saying that the BOE should operate under the assumption that those who do not speak automatically support everything?
As for your question on X numbers, that is what I asked you. When does a group of concerned parents merit more than a NIMBY blow-off by BOE members? When do the concerns of our community members become a concern of the BOE they are supposed to be represented by?
As for Lincoln, the moves necessary to close the school are already set by the year one vote. That neighborhood is being swallowed by the University and many of those students are bussed in for special education not offered at their home schools. The plan for Lincoln is in line with the goals set out in the beginning of this process where other schools set for closure are not.
And, no, I do not base my opinions or unanswered questions to you on a group of parents and community members at one BOE meeting. I do, however, base it on the hundreds of parents I have talked to in the last several months, most in the last several weeks. I based my questions and comments on the hundreds of doors I have knocked on and dozens of phone calls I have answered from true concerned citizens. I have heard a total of two people in favor of scenario 7 out of all of the community feedback I have personally sought. That means more to me than one silent person who happened to tell you her opinion. If there are more people like her, I would encourage them to attend meetings and speak up. If this is the scenario that the majority of this community wants, we need to hear from the supporters too.
While you heard one message from a group of concerned parents, I heard one very sad message from three BOE members, two whom apparently did not realize how close to their microphones they were, the community does not matter when they want what they want. We have heard that message before and it has got to stop because the message I am getting from the public is why go to the meetings and speak when the BOE doesn't care and won't listen. I cannot disagree. They won't even listen when another talks, why would they listen to the community.
Post a Comment