Hello and thanks for the comments and questions. I agree, the costs will not be *exactly* the same if you relocate a portion of the students from a school. But the differences do not seem large enough (I calculate 4% or less decrease in total overhead costs) to invalidate this approach due to all the expenses that would stay the same (bu…
Hello and thanks for the comments and questions. I agree, the costs will not be *exactly* the same if you relocate a portion of the students from a school. But the differences do not seem large enough (I calculate 4% or less decrease in total overhead costs) to invalidate this approach due to all the expenses that would stay the same (building/grounds/utilities/maintenance, administration, specials teachers, before/after programs, the vast majority of educators and support staff).
With regard to the construction of the Foster school, I do not agree with the funding strategy used to build the school nor with the decision to accrue high risk debt for the District. I believe that passing a referendum for the school would have been a better approach- this is how new schools are supposed to be built and it would have ensured that all costs were covered. I also do not agree with the way in which Bessie Rhodes was included/treated in these decisions. The question Board members will always have to ask themselves is “what is best for the District at this time?” By the time new Board members are sworn in and making decisions, more bid packages will be complete on the construction project. To reverse it at this phase would be wasting millions with nothing to show for it. It would also be incredibly divisive for the community. At a time when we need to focus on repair and already have a series of difficult decisions in front of us, I am wary of moves that would inject further instability and enlarge harm. Further, the district does need newer schools. Overall I think opposing and trying to reverse the construction of the Foster school would cause more harm for the District than benefit at this point. I am happy to talk more about this too. Please feel free to contact me through my website!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's refreshing to see folks actually willing to engage on these issues rather than use intimidation and gaslighting to attempt to silence those they disagree with.
You make strong points. The 5th ward school is really the sticking point for me. If we did not need to follow through on that plan we could avoid closing (more) schools with the requisite transferring students. In addition, we'd hopefully escape from at least some of the damaging financial arrangements that taxpayers never agreed to.
I do wonder if, given the highly dubious (at best) legal strategies used to approve and fund this school, there might not be avenues to withdraw from the plan and regain at least some of the already spent funds. Continuing just to continue feels a little like falling into the sunk cost fallacy.
It might be divisive to abandon the new school (for now), but no more so than closing more schools, adjusting attendance boundary lines and expecting students to move to new buildings in the middle of elementary school. That would likely lead to a further exodus from District 65 schools, which would exacerbate the district's financial crisis.
Hello and thanks for the comments and questions. I agree, the costs will not be *exactly* the same if you relocate a portion of the students from a school. But the differences do not seem large enough (I calculate 4% or less decrease in total overhead costs) to invalidate this approach due to all the expenses that would stay the same (building/grounds/utilities/maintenance, administration, specials teachers, before/after programs, the vast majority of educators and support staff).
With regard to the construction of the Foster school, I do not agree with the funding strategy used to build the school nor with the decision to accrue high risk debt for the District. I believe that passing a referendum for the school would have been a better approach- this is how new schools are supposed to be built and it would have ensured that all costs were covered. I also do not agree with the way in which Bessie Rhodes was included/treated in these decisions. The question Board members will always have to ask themselves is “what is best for the District at this time?” By the time new Board members are sworn in and making decisions, more bid packages will be complete on the construction project. To reverse it at this phase would be wasting millions with nothing to show for it. It would also be incredibly divisive for the community. At a time when we need to focus on repair and already have a series of difficult decisions in front of us, I am wary of moves that would inject further instability and enlarge harm. Further, the district does need newer schools. Overall I think opposing and trying to reverse the construction of the Foster school would cause more harm for the District than benefit at this point. I am happy to talk more about this too. Please feel free to contact me through my website!
https://www.brandonutter.com/
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's refreshing to see folks actually willing to engage on these issues rather than use intimidation and gaslighting to attempt to silence those they disagree with.
You make strong points. The 5th ward school is really the sticking point for me. If we did not need to follow through on that plan we could avoid closing (more) schools with the requisite transferring students. In addition, we'd hopefully escape from at least some of the damaging financial arrangements that taxpayers never agreed to.
I do wonder if, given the highly dubious (at best) legal strategies used to approve and fund this school, there might not be avenues to withdraw from the plan and regain at least some of the already spent funds. Continuing just to continue feels a little like falling into the sunk cost fallacy.
It might be divisive to abandon the new school (for now), but no more so than closing more schools, adjusting attendance boundary lines and expecting students to move to new buildings in the middle of elementary school. That would likely lead to a further exodus from District 65 schools, which would exacerbate the district's financial crisis.