Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Portables are not portable

Portable classrooms are not portable. Last I heard, it cost $20,000 to move one. I prefer to call them modulars, though what they actually are is double-wide trailers. They even have tires.

In any case, they're a bad bargain. Every move loosens the nails and bolts holding them together. They're expensive to heat and cool. They don't last that long. And, most importantly, they swamp the common facilities of the schools where they're stationed.

A year ago I would have agreed that what we need now is one large elementary school -- enrollment capacity of 1,000+. But I can't say that any more. That option was soundly voted down when it was put to the voters awhile back. Our enrollment problem has long since outstripped this solution.

And can you imagine the divisions such a school would spawn in this community. The folks whose kids went to the jumbo school would complain that they'd gotten the short end. We just don't need any more of that stuff right now.

I guess my preference would be two new elementary schools, accompanied by the conversion of Heritage back to a middle school. This might not eliminate all use of modulars (I don't think that will happen for years), but it ought to make a pretty good dent in our overcrowding.

Heritage always has seemed to me best suited for somewhat older kids, given its auditorium and near full-size gymnasium. I wish we had more playground space, but the space we have could be more safely used by 5th and 6th graders.



By Yosemite Pam

Reply to Yosemite Pam


Pam,

I agree with you on the economic pitfalls of moving the trailers. Just out of curiosity I would sure love to see a line item cost proposal to move these simply because I have done it before and I can?’t imagine I could justify charging anyone $20K or even a number approaching that.

That being said, I agree the voters rejected the large school option. But remember that the teacher?’s union had a lot of influence in that. Heck, they staked their turf on Brink getting him to toss aside logic. Just because the voters rejected it once isn?’t assurance they will reject it again. You could also say that the voters flatly rejected two schools yet the board brought it back again?…..and again and again and again. So using one voter rejection as a basis for not doing it again is not a solid argument. I also think that the average voters have a rather bad taste in their mouths for the substantial gains made in teacher salaries and benefits since that election versus what the rest of us get or got. I think the voters are less likely to take the word of what they perceive to be pampered and spoiled children that make up a large portion of our teaching staff.

Since the board is kicking around the idea of thirty something MILLION versus sixty something MILLION why shouldn?’t the idea of revisiting the (and I?’ll need to try to coin a phrase for this) 1K elementary? Put together some projections looking for possibly a 1K elementary this November and be open and honest with the voters that they will probably need to come back the following November for another 1K elementary.

What I think can be accomplished with this is potentially closing some of the existing elementary schools and eliminate overcrowding in elementary schools and allow for some growth AND if these schools are built with the flexibility for the necessity for expansion later may serve to take care of our elementary needs for perhaps 10 years. Then we can focus on the other grade levels.

Anyway, I think that the school board operates in too small of a circle of advice. They hire these architects and developers and rely 110% on their advice. More out of the box thinking and perhaps out of the area advice is required and the voters keep trying to tell them that with their votes. At least I do. They have less than 30 days to get an option to the board of elections for the November ballot, I believe. What I see evidence of is yet another rushed issue to the ballot. They do not allow themselves enough time to look at other viable options with the requirement of the elections board and the time they spend licking their wounds after another loss.

By Central Dad

Why even discuss?

Why are we wasting our time discussing this? The survey showed 60% of the voters will approve either the $30M or $60M option so the board can't be wrong with either choice. Right? :-)

We just needed a survey to tell us that!