Because “ they will have a state of the art facility in a centralized location……as the district addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings” Please tell me how those two ideas connect. Can anyone draw a line connecting them ?
Because “ they will have a state of the art facility in a centralized location……as the district addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings” Please tell me how those two ideas connect. Can anyone draw a line connecting them ?
I thought the same. How state-of-the-art is it going to be when we won't have the budget to fill the school so we will need to move old desks and furniture and equipment from all the closed schools instead.
It's easy -- the enrollment will decline so much that the entire elementary population will soon fit in that centrally located new building and they will be able to offload everything else.
I read it to mean a new building in a centralized location gives them the flexibility to close schools with significant capex requirements rather than fix them up. Consolidate students at the new school.
To me it is obvious that building a new school in the face of declining enrollment requires you to close at least one old school for it to make any sense. But it is politically easier to tout the ribbon-cuttings instead of the subsequent closures. Maybe they are right that greenfield is easier but it shows a lack of candor and transparency.
Because “ they will have a state of the art facility in a centralized location……as the district addresses declining enrollment and the substantial capital investments needed to update our buildings” Please tell me how those two ideas connect. Can anyone draw a line connecting them ?
The already cut most of the "state-of-the-art" things from this building like the robotics lab and such.
I thought the same. How state-of-the-art is it going to be when we won't have the budget to fill the school so we will need to move old desks and furniture and equipment from all the closed schools instead.
The State of the Art will be Value Engineered!
We got it scrambled, I think actually Sergio's future biography is entitled "The Art of the State Takeover"
It's easy -- the enrollment will decline so much that the entire elementary population will soon fit in that centrally located new building and they will be able to offload everything else.
Oh now I get it. Thanks
Yeah- then they can bus all the students into the school! Of course, we can afford that once all the school buildings are sold.
I read it to mean a new building in a centralized location gives them the flexibility to close schools with significant capex requirements rather than fix them up. Consolidate students at the new school.
To me it is obvious that building a new school in the face of declining enrollment requires you to close at least one old school for it to make any sense. But it is politically easier to tout the ribbon-cuttings instead of the subsequent closures. Maybe they are right that greenfield is easier but it shows a lack of candor and transparency.