Call the voters
I think we all need to accept the fact that no matter what is proposed the district must get 50% plus one voter to agree on any size or proposal presented to the voters.
I personally agree that adding on to an existing school building is probable better and a more economical solution than trying to go out and find land and build new stand alone schools.
What was proposed a couple of years ago with adding to Violet and to Pickerington Elem and building one new school would have been best for all concerned. However I think there was a rush to get that proposal on the ballot. I think the work session in July of 2004 where the board voted and they should not have added more concern for many of the voters.
It is my understanding that when Pick and Violet were built the required square footage person Elem student was 67 sq ft per child now that is in the range of 120 sq ft per child. Clearly the size of our children have not nearly double since 1978 when Pick was built. In fact equipment like copy machines have gotten smaller and I just can't be convinced we need to follow OSFC guidelines to build schools nearly twice the size of those already standing in the district unless we are all prepared to abandon any school build prior to 1978 or when ever they changed their square footage requirements for state funding.
I also think there is some level of hard headedness on the board. As I recall this issue was pushed through to the voters and I believe I remember Jim Brink openly opposed to the levy. Any legislative body must reach some consensus to be effective and that goes for a school board. I believe if the board had taken a little more time and they had maybe compromised with the Teachers and Jim Brink to not have that open opposition to the levy they may have done better. As we now see with Mr. Rigelman opposed the North High complex levy but I don't think he openly opposed the levy campaign during the campaign.
Maybe we should look at the teachers opposition and why they opposed the add on buildings and see if there is some middle ground that the board and the teachers could reach. Clearly the proposal presented that satisfies the teachers is not going over well with the majority of the voters. The other sad fact is that the board continues to tie it wagon to the OFSC and this has the teachers support which in my mind is too costly for the PLSD taxpayers.
Remember we MAY get some capital money from the state to build these bigger schools but we also must heat and maintain this extra floor space for years to come and probably eat up every cent we received from the state in funding.
As Amy points out the schools are already reaching the levels that the teachers opposed. So what good did they do themselves and their students?
I think the board continues to make statements that don't help their case. I read this morning that Jim Brink says year round school is off the table. Is that Jim speaking only or is that the teachers speaking through Jim?Jim prefers spilt sessions. The board also seems to be in rush to get the issue back on the ballot in May.
Now we hear the board members wanting to encourage people to come into the board meetings to ask questions and make comments of what they will support.
There are 35 precincts in the school district. Get a voter list with phone numbers of the voters that vote every election or I think they refer to them as likely voters and call 10 voters from each precinct. Have five questions of why they oppose or supported levy and simply ask those voters what they will support. Maybe do it in two or three phases. Get some one unbiased to write the questions. Also don't be judgmental.
I think we all need to accept the fact that no matter what is proposed the district must get 50% plus one voter to agree on any size or proposal presented to the voters.
I personally agree that adding on to an existing school building is probable better and a more economical solution than trying to go out and find land and build new stand alone schools.
What was proposed a couple of years ago with adding to Violet and to Pickerington Elem and building one new school would have been best for all concerned. However I think there was a rush to get that proposal on the ballot. I think the work session in July of 2004 where the board voted and they should not have added more concern for many of the voters.
It is my understanding that when Pick and Violet were built the required square footage person Elem student was 67 sq ft per child now that is in the range of 120 sq ft per child. Clearly the size of our children have not nearly double since 1978 when Pick was built. In fact equipment like copy machines have gotten smaller and I just can't be convinced we need to follow OSFC guidelines to build schools nearly twice the size of those already standing in the district unless we are all prepared to abandon any school build prior to 1978 or when ever they changed their square footage requirements for state funding.
I also think there is some level of hard headedness on the board. As I recall this issue was pushed through to the voters and I believe I remember Jim Brink openly opposed to the levy. Any legislative body must reach some consensus to be effective and that goes for a school board. I believe if the board had taken a little more time and they had maybe compromised with the Teachers and Jim Brink to not have that open opposition to the levy they may have done better. As we now see with Mr. Rigelman opposed the North High complex levy but I don't think he openly opposed the levy campaign during the campaign.
Maybe we should look at the teachers opposition and why they opposed the add on buildings and see if there is some middle ground that the board and the teachers could reach. Clearly the proposal presented that satisfies the teachers is not going over well with the majority of the voters. The other sad fact is that the board continues to tie it wagon to the OFSC and this has the teachers support which in my mind is too costly for the PLSD taxpayers.
Remember we MAY get some capital money from the state to build these bigger schools but we also must heat and maintain this extra floor space for years to come and probably eat up every cent we received from the state in funding.
As Amy points out the schools are already reaching the levels that the teachers opposed. So what good did they do themselves and their students?
I think the board continues to make statements that don't help their case. I read this morning that Jim Brink says year round school is off the table. Is that Jim speaking only or is that the teachers speaking through Jim?Jim prefers spilt sessions. The board also seems to be in rush to get the issue back on the ballot in May.
Now we hear the board members wanting to encourage people to come into the board meetings to ask questions and make comments of what they will support.
There are 35 precincts in the school district. Get a voter list with phone numbers of the voters that vote every election or I think they refer to them as likely voters and call 10 voters from each precinct. Have five questions of why they oppose or supported levy and simply ask those voters what they will support. Maybe do it in two or three phases. Get some one unbiased to write the questions. Also don't be judgmental.
