|
|
We obviously need more classroom space in our school district at the K-6 level. Our administrators and school board are having to redraw enrollment lines, bring doublewides back into service, station kids in space not intended for classrooms and such-like to deal with the problem. We have enough kids in doublewides now to fill another school, and then some. And we all know that doublewides are no answer. They are costly, have short economic lives, are expensive to heat, present security and fire hazard risks, and overburden all the common areas of the schools at which they are deployed.
So we need to decide what kind of building levy we would support. We need to tell the school board what we want, rather than leaving them to guess. I am starting this message-chain in hopes of getting closer to an answer to this question.
Please respond by listing the conditions under which you would support a building levy to add permanent classroom space at the K-6 level. You might also want to add your reasons for those conditions, but that is not essential. If there are no conditions under which you would support such a building levy, you should say so.
We can't solve this problem here, but we can at least make a good start at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Response (part one)
Bruce,
Thanks for thinking of this. Here are some of my thoughts. Fist I think all opportunities to add on to existing schools must be explored. Tussing, for example sits on a large tract. Was there any forethought at purchasing such a large tract that the requirement to add on might occur someday? Granted, I don?’t like the location much but if the school is added onto and the engineering studies that include traffic studies justify road improvements, can Columbus not act and thus jeopardize children?’s and motorists?’ safety?
There is a large parcel on Diley Road just south of Pickerington Elem. that is vacant. Can the schools pursue purchase of this tract to allow expansion south? A lot of the properties surrounding Heritage may be available for purchase if the owners were approached. Working with the city may result in improved traffic flow throughout that area if properties were combined and thus allowing reconfiguration of streets to help.
Violet sits on a large tract. Can the schools utilize more of this space efficiently? I guess what I am saying is that I believe the schools should look at what they have and make the most of it. Will it be perfect? I don?’t know but will building 2 new elementary schools that will only serve to remove the modular buildings be the answer? If you simply remove the modulars, don?’t you just end up with a building that is still at total capacity? So effectively, the day after the new schools are opened, and with the addition of one single student the existing buildings could then be called over capacity.
Let?’s be frank ?– both high school campuses have land and buildings that could be utilized for expansion. I know about the practice fields and the arguments made for them, but if the schools can demonstrate doing more with what they already have, perhaps voters would be less reluctant to approve new construction later. An argument that I feel was one of the best presented to date involved, among other things, making north campus the high school campus. The schools argued against saying that Lakeview could only be used for junior high and nothing else. That is arguably short-sighted. Designing and constructing such an expensive facility that can never serve any other purpose is condemnable. And that?’s what I think the voters are doing, in part, is condemning the district for short-sightedness.
Construction up to the Tussing era apparently showed that the district at least considered that fact that we would grow and allowed ample room for expansion. Construction since has shown the opposite and now levies are failing. These schools need to assess what has changed over the years and what has stayed the same. Boards of Education have changed and administration has changed but what parts of these haven?’t? In addition to demonstrating their desire to make use of every square foot available on their properties, maybe the board and administration need to take a look at the personnel who remain constant through successes and failures.
continued....
By Central Dad
|
|
|
Response (part 2)
An argument made by the schools for new construction over expansion was the traffic situations caused by adding more to the existing locations. Cities and townships can apply for funding either in the form of matching funds or grants and more if they have the engineering data to substantiate that request. Just think of it. Cooperation between the city, township and schools in the form of traffic engineering studies that may result in Tussing Rd. getting widened, Hill Road south, Lockville Rd. Refugee, Ault and on and on getting improved, and all the other areas near our schools getting traffic improvements that will benefit not only the traffic generated by the schools but also overall improvement for the community. Traffic is a problem to all of the community, not just residents and not just schools and not just police and fire departments, but all.
Another thing, and this is not intended to start a bickering session - I could care less if the staff and administration say they don?’t want 950 or 1,000 student elementary schools. If they don?’t like it, I hear Columbus, Dayton, Cleveland and Cincinnati hire new teachers daily in their inner-city schools. If a school is configured correctly with enough interior facility accommodations made, you may never notice that you have 1,000 or 750. I think that the teacher?’s union has simply achieved too much power in this community. Look at the raises and benefits. Very few taxpayers and voters voting on these levies have the same salary increases and benefits packages offered to them. That creates resentment. If the teachers and staff, many, many of which I think are the best in their profession and I respect them immensely, can?’t hack it if the district finally makes some tough decisions, then leave and go somewhere else. Simple as that. That?’s what my boss would tell me at my job. I am your boss and that is what I am telling you.
Lastly, I would caution the board and administration not to be so dismissive when suggestions are made from the community. Especially when these suggestions come from current or former public servants. Maybe, just maybe they have insight into circumstances that should make you listen. It has been suggested that you reconfigure your application of certain grades to certain schools and you shot it down. It has been suggested that you investigate what I believe was called a Kindergarten Village and you ignored it saying you couldn?’t afford it. It was suggested that you create a traffic pattern on your property at Ridgeview that would make access and kids on buses and kids being dropped off and picked up safer and you pretended not to hear. In order to get us to listen to your redundant old sales pitch on needing a levy, try listening to us once in a while. It?’s amazing how much 2-way conversation can accomplish more than one-way.
By Central Dad
|
|
|
Thoughts
Bruce - Here are my thoughts regarding what the PSLD needs to do in order to pass the upcoming levy.
1st - Create and publish a plan. This should encompass a 1 year, 3 year, 5 year and 10 year agenda for what the school envisions for Pickerington and also how much it is going to cost. I believe that if the citizens are told up front what they can expect, and given the opportunity to digest the information sooner, the more receptive to change they will become.
2nd - Tell us how trhe school board is spending responsibly. For the most part the perception is that there is no accountibility. The simple fact that all the districts buses are parked at Central and travel across town four times each day is a poor decision. As I have said in earlier postings, the price at the pump would seem to dictate that relocating half the buses to North is a wise fiscal decision. Also remember that any new buildings can done so without the facility bearing a resemblance to the Taj Mahal, we all know what that got our previous school board.
3rd - Cooperation with the city. The school board should expect... not want, not ask.. expect cooperation with our elected officials in the city and the township. The three entities should be working to together to solve a common problem.
4th - Slowed growth. Has the school board taken into consideration the fact that growth in this area has slowed considerably? What will we be doing with these schools once they become under utilized? Perhaps for this reason we could explore the possiblity of one elementary rather than two?
5th - Be honest. Bruce, please do not tell us that the portables are unsafe and that we should not be using them. If they are really unsafe as you said, why are their children in them? My kids used the portables and they are fine. Misleading comments and half truths must end. A current school board member was caught inflating school growth numbers by a city councilman and she still has not been held accountable for her actions.
As I said in an earlier posting, Bruce. You want to pass a levy, explain to the voters why they should vote for rather than against the levy. None of the school board members are doing that right now.
Mom
By Central Mom
|
