Here They Come!

I know a few folks who open enrolled elsewhere this year. They all said the reason was not the performance of MCSD or the quality of instruction or instructors. It was getting away from the "low class" kids and all that comes with them. I'm not sure Milt or Rasmussen or Jerry Lucas could do anything about any of this. Thanks to council and admin decisions over last 25 years, this town has become a lobster trap -- you can get in but you don't get out.

I’ll be there!!!  Thank you for the invitation. 

Vet,

Sorry, but I am in disagreement.

In my humble view, whether or not the district has performed is not the question and has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

We have a duty to provide adequate school facilities for the children of our city.  We have no duty to provide anything more (facility-wise), but we have an obligation to provide nothing less, whether we agree or not with what is going on inside those facilities.  (Those goings-on and the resultant performance should be addressed when electing, or recalling, school board members, or at school board meetings, or in the press and similar forums.)

The adequacy of the school facilities should be the question.  Should any of the facilities be found inadequate (but still necessary due to current and projected student population), then whether or not it is more economical to repair, modernize, or replace that facility (or facilities) should be the question.

I have a comment/question about the last few articles I've read in the journal about the facilities improvement plan. They keep stating that the original plan called for 2 elementary schools to be renovated and that was completed last year. The first article actually referred to Highview Elementary. Why would they be including Highview into the plan from 2003? Highview was not part of that plan. The renovated schools were Amanda and Central.

The Highview renovations were separate so whatever money they used for that should not be included. Those figures have never been published although they took a school that was a few years old and ripped it apart adding lockers, changing everything including the furniture because it was not fit for middle school students. But we are supposed to overlook that and give more money? Why couldn't they have come up with the plan that didn't cost a fortune? Put the 6th grades back in the schools where they came from?

Why not come up with a similar plan for the other schools? Do some renovating. Here's another idea, get rid of half the administration in the building on Girard.

Building new facilities isn't going to bring anyone to Middletown. The town is going nowhere and the schools are poor performing.

If anything, building the new elementaries and comparing performance since should show that new facilities aren't the answer.

Look around school board and committee, does this town look like anyone can afford to pay more taxes?

jssmith: this past summer I was an intern working in the Business Office, under Milt Thompson. I was responsible for the moves involving Vail/Verity, and preparing Highview for the 6th graders. I can, and will, answer any questions that you have. First, Highview wasn't "torn apart." Lockers were purchased and placed in several hallways---I suppose lockers should have been bought for these new buildings to begin with, rather than "cubbies," which are less expensive and more appropriate for younger students. However, with larger backpacks and coats, the cubbies were inadequate for 6th graders. No new furniture was purchased for the classrooms. Desks, when available, were raised to accomodate the larger 6th graders; classroom furniture was moved from Verity or storage. The same is true with the Vail/Verity combination. No new furniture was purchased; necessary items were brought from Verity. There was some movement between buildings as a result of teacher reassignments. I will be more than pleased to answer any other questions about these moves, if I have correct information to pass along. Rick

Acclaro: I will attempt to respond to these individually. Disclaimer: these are my opinions, and not parroted from any school board member or school employee. I have been a facilities' (Buildings & Grounds) administrator for 23 years in Cincinnati schools, including Princeton and CPS. I have been on every facilities' committee in Middletown since the 1990's.
"It is obvious the school district wants a new school, as the fact Phase 2 was put on the table 8 years ago." Response: a new HS and middle school was included because they are MCSD buildings. To exclude them would be premature. These buildings must be evaluated periodically to revise the master plan. To ignore them---or exclude them---would be detrimental. There has not been recent conversations in the meetings that state where a new HS or middle school would be located, just for the sake of being on the "East side." Verity and the existing HS site have been cited because MCSD owns the properties. Perhaps "Vail" as it has recently been known, might be remodeled (doubtful) and returned as a HS, or maybe torn down and a new school built on the site. I assure you, nothing is being proposed for Barnitz or Miller gym, unless it is independent of the building plan. Unless the two athletic facilities are funded separately, they are not included in the master plan.

"The issue for will be in reality, Vail was centered downtown, when most of the residents were downtown. You will further argue (subtlely of course), that Vail area is unsafe, and that many students are lost to other schools over such issues." Response: the safety of the "Vail" area has not been cited in recent discussions. NOTHING HAS BEEN PREDECIDED as to location! Granted, the Baltimore Street gang and recent shootings at the social hall on Curtis and First have occurred.

"To counter that, one would logically state with all the grand activity around the downtown area associated with Cincinnati State, that the area will be bolstered by the arrival of a community college. In fact, the location is actually advantageous where Vail is presently, as there are mentor problems to be taken advantage, additional computer resources, and the added emphasis of MUM and Cincinnati State with State being centered within downtown." No response needed.

"Of course, the counter argument as was planned when Phase 2, was before the housing collapse and before the continued dismal performance of the school district. Of course, socio-economic issues effect school performance. But, it is obvious the dynamics in the market have drastically changed since 2003. Furthermore, the east end has not been the grand success as communicated. And I add, the latest CBO numbers reflect an analysis unemployment nationally will actually go above 9% in 2013, and net job creation won't become apparent until at least 2020." Response: I fail to see how the current economic conditions in the nation and locally affect the logic of keeping school buildings up-to-date. I'm not hiding my head in the sand, but these conditions will change in the next decade and beyond. Again, we are looking 7-10 years ahead. Our current woes should not cloud our vision.


"Now, lets evaluate Ohio. The state is losing population and jobs. WPAFB will lose $1 Bb in the military budget cuts and 7,000 employees within 6 years, also out of the CBO. So, you argue or the Committee, that the east end is the high growth area, when in reality, it has not been a success, population in Middletown is going down, not up, the median income is declining dratstically, and thanks to city council and city leadership, there is really no economic development activity since 2004, other than AK pulling in SunCoke, Quaker Chem adding a few jobs, and the Atrium about 1,000 jobs below what their estimates to be 5 years ago. The net effect? Negative, not positive, with the east end." Response: see previous response. Further, I don't understand the persistence on the "East End." Just because the HS and Verity were built when Breiel started the East End is hardly a reason to be opposed to it. Remember, the HS was built just 4 years after MUM---40 years ago, and the Marshall Road additions were built in the late 1950's and early '60's---well before MUM and the HS.

"Yet, the Committee will use three issues to frame the argument to build a new high schooL:

1) The matching funds from the state.
2) The economic and student need to be located to the east end---I add, about 70% of the students living at the Renaissance attend Fenwick, 30% Lebanon, so what's the east end pull for MCSD?
3) Safety and crime downtown, and the belief Vail was built in the 1920 era, and now Middletown is expanded, it needs to be more properly centered to the highway."
Response: #1 is the main driver. If state funds are available, why not include them in the program? Should we build them anyway and raise our local taxes even higher? Response #2: ? Response #3: answered previously.

"In conclusion, the east end development and interstate is a losing argument for building a Phase 2 school. The safety argument is a losing argument for Vail downtown, when Cincinnati State will be filling that area with 5,000 students. If it is safe for them, why then, will it not be safe for Vail students?" Response: answered previously.

"Sports success is not a reason for building a new high school." Response: as stated previously, the placement of sports' facilities will be questioned to a minor degree, as part of the overall plan. To not ask these questions would be negligence on the committee's part.

"Facts today: CI remains in place, and will continue; student population on decline; Ohio decline, and east end explosion is a decade or greater away, if Ohio ever bounces back. Why should it? Michigan isn't. It is also a fact the CBO forecasts show catastrophic economic results for the next 10 years." Response: answered previously; however, you do state that "...east end explosion is a decade or greater away." The purpose of the committee is looking 7-10 years ahead. Perfect timing.... Student population is declining---where do you suggest we house the HS and middle school students that remain?

Nonetheless, at least MCSD is engaging the community to sell the deal, in contrast to the city that just runs tax levies down the residents throats, and for that, the system should be praised.

"It also is disappointing as much has been said about the "new" Middletown "economics", aka, the 54% poverty rate, not one teacher, administrator, nor school board member has been outspoken and condemned the practices within city hall that have caused the change in the student population. How is it more important for the residents to pay for a new school building, when it roads and sewer infrastrure has been in such disrepair." Response: perhaps they, too, have the same frustrations that you do with the city. However, you continue to think that the school district and the city are the same ("How is it more important for the residents to pay for a new school building, when it roads and sewer infrastrure has been in such disrepair."). Financing and building new school buildings has nothing to do with the city's infrastructure.
Even though you and I see the school's situation differently, I would still like to invite you to the meeting at 6:00. If nothing else, you will be able to hear for yourself the proposed options. You may even have some relevent questions. Even if you don't stay with the committee through the entire process, you will at least hear what the discussions focus on. Rick

Acclaro: Thank you for your response. This is exactly why the committee is being assembled! The last presentation that was given (several months ago---attended by only 7 or 8) suggested that the Miller Ridge site could be the one selected for the HS! Perhaps the HS remains where it is, and a new middle school is built. Perhaps the middle school (7 & 8) is combined with the HS (9-12). These are all ideas that are being explored....nothing right now is a given. Please attend tonight's meeting. Your thoughts are needed and welcome....Rick

Ground swat: thanks for the great reply. I will send you a message after I return from the meeting. It's great to hear that you are involved in the community---I just happen to be the "volunteer" coordinator for volunteers for MCSD's tutoring program.....Thanks, again! Rick

Mr. Shaffer, I too am a 1966 graduate of Midd. High (Vail). I remember what a great education I received from educators like Louise McBain, Barbara Schick, Robert Kleinfelder, Helen Roudabush and others. I also remember the discipline handed out by Dean of Boys, Stan Lewis. Corporal punishment was an effective tool to control the school environment. Now, none of those days remain. It is all milk and cookies, don't yell at the kids, kinder and gentler. This, in turn, has resulted in chaos within the walls of the schools. Students are not intimidated by the weak system in place today. They laugh at it. That is the way it is, but it is not acceptable to me. The lack of control, coupled with the low income induction in the form of Section 8, in today's school environment is in direct relationship to the performance encountered in your schools here in Middletown. You and I went through at the same time. We both know how it was and how it is today. You gotta be as frustrated as I am.

I will repeat my non-support in any fashion, from operational levies to upgrades in school facilities. I cringe when I am forced to pay more taxes earmarked for this school district. I hate to see my money going into a horse that runs in the back of the pack, and has for years. Performance is the number one criteria for any support I wish to lend and that ain't happening.

Mike P.....it's ok to disagree. Most do with what I have to say. I do not expect to win any popularity contests as I play the "grim reaper" in most discussions. Ya gotta have a counter-balance to any discussion on any topic. Perhaps I'm that counter-balance that keeps the scales level. Doesn't matter anymore. Guess I'm the resident SOB in town to some. That's ok too. Hell, if they're hating me, they're leaving someone else alone.

Rick,

So how many attended tonight?