This post reminds me - why don't they just move Bessie Rhodes to Kingsley, move the Kingsley kids to the new school, and then make Haven/Kingsley a TWI campus?
To be clear, I don’t believe we should write off the whole thing as a sunk costs. I do believe we should explore every avenue to reduce the bleeding (to include legal pursuits against those that created this boondoggle) and then determine the best course of action that maximizes the ROI. (Fiscally and academically)
I also truly dont understand the argument for needing a new 5the ward school so everyone can have a walkable school. I grew up in a rural area and bussing was a necessity granted, but never a problem. Walking 15-20 minutes in the rain and snow as we do now is no treat! I don’t understand all the arguments about how unfair it is to the kids to stand in the rain... as if walking in the rain was better? Can somebody explain that to me? Id gladly wave from the front door with my coffee as the kids kid on a bus from the corner on some days.
Also... just amateur google map sleuthing here, but I don’t see how Kingsley and Dewey aren’t already ‘walkable’. If you throw in Walker and BR and King Lab there doesn’t seem to be any 5th ward locations that aren’t already exceedingly walkable by D65 standards of distance. A proper safety plan for crossing any major streets would be a must of course, but that seems to exceedingly doable and affordable as opposed to 10’s of millions of money for a new physical school with all new staff and all new administrators and support a new physical school necessitates.
This all just seems like a made up hussle for political wins. Wins that are completely symbolic at best, and illegal ‘reparations’ at worse!
I’m not against a 5the ward school at all costs to be clear... but I am against the doing no matter the costs mindset. We must deal with the reality we have and take care of all students and families, not the reality we want to live in with unlimited resources.
Wouldn’t that result in anyone north of McCormick needing to be bussed to the new school? Would that negate some (most?) of the bussing savings?
And I don’t think it really addresses Jo’s point that we have sunk costs and blindly continuing on the path we’re on shouldn’t be our only consideration.
With the new and factual information we have we should be looking to understand all our options. Whether that be a referendum for additional funds to make sure the new school is a success or taking our losses and resetting.
Either way, there needs to be a comprehensive plan before we move ahead. Building a new school without knowing which schools will be closing and the financial impacts is just as ill-advised as blindly approving a new school based on made up figures.
We seem to be making the same mistake twice. We are looking to move forward for the sake of showing progress without know what our destination is.
No - because the Kingsley families could just stay at Kingsley and get TWI programming but they could elect to opt out and yeah, would have to travel to the new school.
Yeah, the board spent a lot of time talking about a "50 year plan" at the meeting on Monday but they've shared no such thing with the community. There is definitely an absence of long-term planning and I think we should demand the board show their thinking.
It's just not clear to me what other options we have right now. This is a pretty bananas sunk cost to just write off..
Especially since 50 years from now you'd be looking at the end of the useful life of the building. Between modern construction and the inevitable deferred maintenance new schools only last 50 - 60 years
....sunk costs
This post reminds me - why don't they just move Bessie Rhodes to Kingsley, move the Kingsley kids to the new school, and then make Haven/Kingsley a TWI campus?
To be clear, I don’t believe we should write off the whole thing as a sunk costs. I do believe we should explore every avenue to reduce the bleeding (to include legal pursuits against those that created this boondoggle) and then determine the best course of action that maximizes the ROI. (Fiscally and academically)
I also truly dont understand the argument for needing a new 5the ward school so everyone can have a walkable school. I grew up in a rural area and bussing was a necessity granted, but never a problem. Walking 15-20 minutes in the rain and snow as we do now is no treat! I don’t understand all the arguments about how unfair it is to the kids to stand in the rain... as if walking in the rain was better? Can somebody explain that to me? Id gladly wave from the front door with my coffee as the kids kid on a bus from the corner on some days.
Also... just amateur google map sleuthing here, but I don’t see how Kingsley and Dewey aren’t already ‘walkable’. If you throw in Walker and BR and King Lab there doesn’t seem to be any 5th ward locations that aren’t already exceedingly walkable by D65 standards of distance. A proper safety plan for crossing any major streets would be a must of course, but that seems to exceedingly doable and affordable as opposed to 10’s of millions of money for a new physical school with all new staff and all new administrators and support a new physical school necessitates.
This all just seems like a made up hussle for political wins. Wins that are completely symbolic at best, and illegal ‘reparations’ at worse!
I’m not against a 5the ward school at all costs to be clear... but I am against the doing no matter the costs mindset. We must deal with the reality we have and take care of all students and families, not the reality we want to live in with unlimited resources.
Wouldn’t that result in anyone north of McCormick needing to be bussed to the new school? Would that negate some (most?) of the bussing savings?
And I don’t think it really addresses Jo’s point that we have sunk costs and blindly continuing on the path we’re on shouldn’t be our only consideration.
With the new and factual information we have we should be looking to understand all our options. Whether that be a referendum for additional funds to make sure the new school is a success or taking our losses and resetting.
Either way, there needs to be a comprehensive plan before we move ahead. Building a new school without knowing which schools will be closing and the financial impacts is just as ill-advised as blindly approving a new school based on made up figures.
We seem to be making the same mistake twice. We are looking to move forward for the sake of showing progress without know what our destination is.
No - because the Kingsley families could just stay at Kingsley and get TWI programming but they could elect to opt out and yeah, would have to travel to the new school.
Yeah, the board spent a lot of time talking about a "50 year plan" at the meeting on Monday but they've shared no such thing with the community. There is definitely an absence of long-term planning and I think we should demand the board show their thinking.
It's just not clear to me what other options we have right now. This is a pretty bananas sunk cost to just write off..
These humans don’t even have joint goals --including literacy goals --with ETHS. Mention of a “50 year plan” was hilarious.
Especially since 50 years from now you'd be looking at the end of the useful life of the building. Between modern construction and the inevitable deferred maintenance new schools only last 50 - 60 years