I am so excited about the election results I can't sleep.
I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.
I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:
a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room
It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...
A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Your list is a good start.
It is very difficult for us to put forth a wants vs. needs plan when we don't really know what is included in Bray and Associates' pricing.
Was there also something about separate gyms and cafeterias? If so, I would say that would be a "want" vs. a "need" - as long as there would be adequate time in the week so that each day the cafeteria could be set up, all the students would have ample time to eat, and then for clean-up, without causing a scheduling problem for gym classes.
I have no problem spending money to fix schools. I don't want money spent to increase teacher or staff wages and benefits.
Anonymous, the referendum would not do that it is only for buildings.
Anon. 7:44am... To a point I agree that it is difficult to discuss a plan without figures. But, I think if you decide on what the true needs are, if they are needs you should be willing to pay what it takes.
I think there needs to be a consensus of what really needs to be done and do that, not start with a dollar figure and stop where ever you are once it is spent.
Anonymous 8:53am I agree completely with your assessment of the gyms/cafeteria. When I heard they were considering building a separate cafeteria at Jefferson I did not agree with that, I never saw a real problem with having a combined gym/cafeteria (there were times when the custodian had to move quickly to get the tables out so gym could start, but he always got it done and never complained) so while it would be nice, I certainly didn't see that as a need, and I can't see it as a need in other schools Jefferson's size. My understanding is Team 6 agreed with us and that "part" came out of the plan.
Another thing that I heard discussed was providing more natural light in schools, while I see this as important, I don't think it rises to the level of a need, at least not to the extent of remodeling to provide sky lights etc. While I do not see it as at all frivolous, I don't think it rises to the level of a need. By all means, when building or remodeling for needs, then take that into consideration but don't remodel solely to put natural light in.
The one I'm conflicted on is the secured entrances. While I am all for security and making things as safe as possible the fact is that in all the school tragedies (except the one in the Amish community) the perpetrator was someone who would have been allowed in the school regardless of how "secure" the entrance was (i.e. the person was a student). I do think at the very least the office should be in close proximity to the main entrance. I guess this is one where knowing the cost could help one decide if it is something that should or shouldn't be done.
Just a few more of my thoughts, I'd love to hear more of yours. Or how about "categories" you would like to know the total cost of: Say roofs, plumbing, electrical, classroom construction, etc.
You are right about secure entrances.
I would remind everyone that the district did not deem it a need to move the Oakwood office near the entrance, and instead the PTO paid for the move. I'm not sure that this will be deemed a need for any other school based on past record.
So anon. 9:22pm do you think the secured entrances should be in any plan or not? As I said, I'm torn but would like to hear reasons it should or should not be part of any plan...
I really wonder how many people can tell me what the tax impact on their home would be for this referendum? Yes, $26M is a lot of money, but spread out over tens of thousands of taxpayers, I just don't see the impact as insurmountable. I don't even have close to a $150,000 home yet I could find it in my budget to pay the additonal taxes that would be levied on a home nearly twice the value of mine.
You cannot have it both ways, you cannot keep every school yet refuse to pay to fix them. You can't vote against every referendum and then complain the buildings have been "left to deteriorate". You can't say "live within your means" yet be outraged that the district would close schools. It is NOT within our means to maintain 23 school buildings.
Do those of you who are already saying you won't vote for the referendum even know the impact on your taxes? What exactly would you support in a plan? Or are you one of those who will support nothing?
Teresa,
Regarding the security of schools I am looking at it much like you. It is something the district could spend a lot of money on and it would provide no real security. I think it would be wise to move offices somewhere near the front entrances. Of course I want my child to be secure while he is at school. Reality is that he is in a very safe part of the world, in a very safe community. That's part of why we chose to live here. (There are many parents I know who will vehemently disagree with me on this point.)
The tax impact for me will be about $500 per year for 20 years for a $45M referendum. I haven't re-calculated for the new plan but I figure that if the $29M passes with rolling referendums to cover maintenance, and a phase two down the road, the $45 is conservative. I admit that coming up with an extra $500 is feasible. I am all for a referendum, and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm not willing to vote for a plan that doesn't address overcrowding on the westside, the deficits at the high school level for science labs, or special needs to a reasonable degree.
I am not at all concerned with which high school my child will attend; but I am opposed to splitting him at the 5th or 8th grade levels. As such, I would hope that any plan would set solid feeder paths, and the facilities be set to handle those feeder schools.
Anonymous 8:54 You said the referendum (of $45M) would cost you $500 per year for 20 years (so you have a $500,000 home?) The figures I had was about $96/yr per $100,000 of home value...
The plan as amended is certainly not my first choice and I hope there will be some changes before it becomes a referendum question. I do not think the way to devise a plan is to set a dollar figure and pick a few things that fit into it. I would rather pick the things that MUST be done and then determine what that figure is, if it "appears" to be too high, then figure out what to take out of the plan. I think you need to start with rank ordered priorities.
I disagree with you on students being split from friends at any level. I don't believe it harms children in any way. If people really thought it was harmful, they would NEVER move because that certainly requires going to school with people you haven't gone to school with before. My children, especially the oldest, has not maintained many, if any friendships from one level to the next, she has found new friends each time she moved levels (elementary/middle and middle/high school).
I guess we have to agree to disagree. For us, we made a very specific decision to raise our children in this home so they wouldn't have to suffer the same way my spouse did, switching schools for middle and high. My older child has maintained the same friend from kindergarten, all the way through. My best friend is someone I met in 2nd grade and went to school with through graduation. I suppose it's all about what we know and understand to be best for each of us.
Anonymous 8:16 I appreciate the fact that even though you clearly disagree with my stand on splitting up friendships, you were able to state that with out any snide or nasty comments. Too bad all discussions can't be as civil.
While I do understand you wish to keep your child(ren) with all classmates at all times, I would like to point out that if that were the "rule" in changing boundaries, we really would never be able to change any boundary to even out enrollments because to move the boundary 3 or 4 block would in fact lead to some children going to a different school than their friends, neighbors etc. I don't really see how school districts can operate if they must follow such stringent guidelines. That said, it is not much of a point now, because the plan as it stands now would close Oaklawn but the entire attendance area would go to the new school, as would all students living in the Sunset attendance area and Lincoln would close but those students would move to Read as a group.
Ironically I don't have a problem redrawing boundaries. If we have to make one change, ce la vie. My concern comes when they want to redraw boundaries to include just a few streets and then redirect the attention to those same streets the next time an overcrowding arises. I also have a serious concern with any choices that move the kids who live directly across the street from a school. It says to me that the board isn't actually looking at students, rather convenience. I never find that appealing.
Well Anon. 8:57 if you are also Anon. 8:16 then I would say we agree more than we disagree... I don't disagree with anything written by 8:57 (picking a "name" would make this a lot easier ;-)
I would not support moving students who live across the street from a school to a different school (unless of course the school was closing) and I don't think the same boundaries should be moved (continually) to alleviate overcrowding (though I don't see how that would work anyway unless you move students from one overcrowded school to another, which would make no sense to me).
On the other hand, if 50 students from a 5th grade class went to one school and 75 students went to a different school, I just don't think that will do anyone any harm.
Of course I really think the big issue right now is, what does the community think the immediate needs of the district are right now? Personally, replacing Oaklawn needs to happen, it has been "waiting" since the failed 2001 referendum. I also think it is high time we provide special education students the opportunity to attend school in their neighborhood, not clear across town.
I also think we should address as much of the plumbing, HVAC and electrical work that needs to be done in the schools we will keep open for the next 20+ years... I'm pretty sure the $1.3M proposed will not come close to covering those costs...
Jacob Shapiro and the High school labs should be next (unless the labs are in Phase 1). Closing Tipler as a middle school and either using it as an elementary school or perhaps a number of Charter Schools could be located there (since it is said to be the geographical center of the district).
If you haven't read the Northwestern's Online stories in Sun. April 6, 2008 edition, I highly recommend it. Here is the link: http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/OSH0101/80405061
One paragraph I found particulary interesting relates to these comments on Ms. Monte's blog:
Posted by "Confused" on March 23, 2008:
Mrs Monte,
This morning I see that Teresa Thiel is contradicting what you posted earlier regarding the Oaklawn inclusion on the Jeffereson (sic) referendum.
This response was posted by Michelle Monte March 23, 2008:
I spoke to parents and staff at Oaklawn and Roosevelt. It seems that in the past, in order to get support for referendums that had no apparent benefit to them, certain school areas were promised things. Of those, Oaklawn was promised a new addition to replace the temporary that was supposed to be temporary. If I remember correctly, Roosevelt was promised a few things like windows.
Of course I have no evidence to support this, nor will anyone find any to refute it.
Well maybe she will not consider this evidence but I do:
From April 6, 2008 Northwestern:
In Oshkosh, voters in 2001 rejected a $12.9 million referendum to replace the now-closed Sunset Elementary School and to expand Lakeside, Oaklawn, Oakwood and Washington elementary schools.
And this:
11/7/1995
Cost: $25.9 million
Result: Passed
Reason: Build Carl Traeger Elementary and Middle School, upgrade South Park Middle School, renovate Read Elementary School, expand Smith Elementary School.
11/3/1998
Cost: $5.3 million
Result: Passed
Reason: Build a new Jefferson elementary school
11/3/1998
Cost: $8.5 million
Result: Passed
Reason: Upgrade Merrill Middle School, improve technology, building maintenance
I just don't see Oaklawn referenced in either the Jefferson or Traeger referenda (yet, as I stated on March 24,) Oaklawn was part of the "Sunset" referendum. I'm sure that won't be "evidence" for Ms. Monte because that would require her to admit she was wrong and that just doesn't happen.
I was going to just let this go, until she posted the misleading and rather snotty comments on her blog today re: the Phases of the Referendum that makes it appear she can see into the future, since nothing beyond the plan proposed by McDermott has been decided by the board, yes, the rest of the original 2 phases are still on the table, but what is in and what is out and how many phases it will be has NOT been decided, far from it.
Post a Comment