Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I thought I would star a new discussion. I have been trading responses with Central Mom about this and wanted to hear comments from others. I agree that there can be a place for portables and I attended a school that used portables. I turned out fine. It does however become a problem when the main building can no longer support the total number of children. Some schools can support this however our elementary schools face the following problems: Over crowded play grounds, not enough restrooms, half of the gym being used during lunch time and therefore a three hour lunch period, no common space for art etc, and not enough parking for parents/staff.
Portables are not meant to be used forever and some of the ones we have our over 18 years old. The biggest problemis that the cost to using and moving the portables come out of our operating fund and decreases funding for other needed programs. I could go on, but I hope this will cause some people to think. Our money is best spent on Permanent structures that will never need to be replaced.

Proposal

I cannot and will not agree that the portables need to be removed from Pickerington local schools. There use simply needs to be managed in a more responsible manner. The days of our school board making decisions to move the portables back and forth have to stop. Locate the portables were they are needed and leave them be. Each move costs us $$$. How many portables have been moved out of Central only to return in a matter of WEEKS??!!

Now I propose that the school board look into one larger scale elementary school building and continue to use the portables to handle the over flow (as we have done in this district for years). The new school should be 15-20% larger than any other elementary school in the district in order to take adequate pressure off the use of all the portables. Once this school is operational, then let's re-evaluate in two years and see where we are and where we need to grow/build at that time. The information that a return to the ballot with a levy in two years must be communicated to the voters. Give it a chance to sink in.

This will send a message back to the voters that the school board is listening to the voters. We have said no for so long but Lisa Reade and crew keep rolling out the same levy over and over. It is time for a compromise. Create a parent - board commission to meet with the teachers union since they have already spouted off against the idea of a larger scale school. Let's face facts, we are in a situation with our schools that calls for creative and open minds, we have no room for employees telling us what they will and will not do. If the teachers don't like a larger scale school, they can leave. There plenty of new teachers coming out of college each and every year that are looking for a job.

It is time for a compromise.


By Central Mom

Mom, can it be?


Mom,

Hard to believe that it took this long to find something we disagree on. Personally I think all the portables should be moved to North, where there?’s the most room, and torch them for the homecoming bonfire. Save back a couple for non-educational offices like the administrators, teacher?’s lounges, etc. There would be virtually no cost for this as I know a couple of Bubbas here in Picktown that have big ol?’ Dodge Rams that could snatch them portables up to North without losing traction. But this should only occur after a 1,000 student (minimum) elementary school is built. If we currently have 750 kids in portables we could get them all out with this school. Now the board will disagree saying that not all the kids go to elementary that are in portables and that they would still be overcrowded. That may be true to a small extent but it is a valid first step. By the time that levy is approved and the school is ready for use, we will have at least 2 new board members. I have no doubt in my mind that the continued levy failures are a vote of no confidence in the board and that the two incumbents stand about as good a chance of getting reelected as I would.

With two new members there is a possibility that the new board configuration may begin to listen. Your last paragraph mentioned sending a message to the voters that the board is listening. They don?’t and they won?’t because they figure given all the privileged information they must have that we don?’t, they are way smarter than us. So save all the messages.

Anyway, I have ranted numerous times about my thoughts on less, but larger schools. I also don?’t think that the current grade to school configuration needs to be in cement. I think the ideas that Councilman Wisniewski proposed a year or so ago need a second hard look. Maybe this is where the parent-board group you mention could be effective. However, with any combination group you contrive that has a board member on it will be almost as effective as the original school boundary committee. Big Zilch. Think more about a citizen advisory panel that meets independently. Then, only when necessary or periodically, a board member may be permitted to attend. But the board, administration or teacher?’s union need not attend unless invited. Once the panel makes a recommendation, a special meeting could be scheduled where one of the other entities and the public can attend and ask questions but never have a vote. Those other entities have proven time and time again that their interference cannot be tolerated.


By Central Dad

How big an elementary?

Central Mom:

I agree that portables have their time and place, but I don't agree they should be a permanent solution. And, we can't just leave portables where they are as the need for them varies from year to year (portables weren't req'd at the middle schools last year; they will be this year). This year we had 750+ elementary kids in portables. Next year, there will be more because the district continues to grow. And, middle school kids will now be housed in portables.

Clearly, the case can be made for a new elementary school(s). If we don't build enough classrooms to last for several years, the community will cry ''poor planning.'' So, what's the magic size for the elementary you propose? If it's bigger than 750, it'll be larger than the current middle schools and perhaps Jr. Highs (design capacity, not actual enrollment). Would you make it larger than our high schools? The idea of 950 student elementary was the first failed ballot. Teachers, and parents, came out in full force to reject this concept. They didn't want a new ''large'' school, nor did they want to make 2 existing elementaries & middle schools larger by virtue of additions.

If some sort of projections aren't used to estimate enrollment figures out 5-10 years, we'll build a school that only ''lasts'' for 2 years. Given the time it takes to pass a bond issue around here, and the lead time to build new schools, needs for 5 years out need to be determined now and the ball needs to start rolling.

Just wondering what you think the ideal size is and why. Everyone seems to have their own magic number.