Here They Come!
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Schools
Forum Name: Other School Issues
Forum Description: Discuss other issues such as school security, student activities, etc.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4352
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 2:41am
Topic: Here They Come!
Posted By: VietVet
Subject: Here They Come!
Date Posted: Feb 01 2012 at 8:42pm
|
Well, it didn't take long for the school people to start the preliminary process of priming the public pump to excite the taxpayers to support the next phase of the school building plan. (When will we see some progress promised from the elementaries built several years ago?) Nothing monumental so far, right? If true, why should we support Phase II if Phase I hasn't done anything for us? From the Journal....
Middletown schools to consider building updates The 25-member facilities panel meeting to get the process started. MIDDLETOWN — The Middletown City School District officially begins the process of considering facilities improvements tonight with its first committee meeting Included on the committee are building principals, community members, school board members, business owners, company representatives and Superintendent Greg Rasmussen. “It will be a nice start,” Rasmussen said. “(Tonight) will be more of a look back, where we’ve been, bringing up to speed where we are currently and beginning to peek out to the future a little bit. I’m excited to get started. It’s a good thing for all of us and it’s very important.” While Phase I of the 2003 master plan — which called for six new elementary schools and two renovated elementary schools — was completed about a year ago, the district will now revisit Phase II. Phase II centers around renovating the current high school and converting it into a middle school, and also building a new high school. The Phase II funding from the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission may not be received until several years from now. “Of those people (on the committee), they know the people that we have a hard time reaching,” said Milt Thompson, the district’s business manager. “Think about the excitement, the flare it may raise about the district and what that may mean for the children learning in Middletown.” YOU KNOW MILT, I COULD GET MORE EXCITED "FOR THE CHILDREN LEARNING IN MIDDLETOWN" IF YOU SCHOOL PEOPLE WOULD SHOW SOME PROGRESS ON THE TEST SCORES, MAKE GREATER STRIDES ON THE INDICATORS.....WITH A LITTLE MORE URGENCY THAN 10 OUT OF 26 OVER A DECADE AND START REMOVING THE REASONS THAT FAMILIES ARE OPEN-ENROLLING AND LEAVING THE DISTRICT IN SIZABLE NUMBERS DUE TO A FEELING THAT THE KIDS AREN'T GETTING A QUALITY EDUCATION HERE, RESULTING IN A STEADY DECLINE IN STUDENT POPULATION. YOU DON'T NEED FANCY NEW SCHOOLS.....YOU NEED TO CHANGE THINGS TO PRODUCE RESULTS THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD NOTICE IN A POSITIVE FASHION. THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS A POOR REPUTATION IN THE QUALITY EDUCATION CATEGORY AND NEW SCHOOLS WON'T CHANGE THAT. NEW SCHOOLS ONLY PRESENT A FALSE FACADE, MASKING WHAT IS REALLY THERE. AS TO YOUR COMMENT ON FLARE/EXCITEMENT? LAUGHABLE AT BEST MILT. THE PERFORMANCE NUMBERS TAKE ALL THE LUSTER OFF ANY "FLARE" OR "EXCITEMENT" YOU MAY BE SUGGESTING. BEING RANKED DOWN AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE 600+ SCHOOLS IN OHIO KINDA PUTS A DAMPER ON IT MILT. YOU FOLKS ARE MIS-FOCUSED.....AGAIN. |
Replies:
Posted By: Stanky
Date Posted: Feb 01 2012 at 9:55pm
| 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. |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 01 2012 at 11:11pm
|
Why bother. |
Posted By: chmoore1
Date Posted: Feb 01 2012 at 11:34pm
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 12:45am
|
I would like to personally invite acclaro, ground swat, vietvet, stanky, and any others not mentioned, to be my personal guest at the facilities' committee meeting tonight (Thursday) at 6:00. Although I don't know any of you personally---that I know of---I believe that it will be very helpful if each of you could attend, and be part of this process firsthand rather than being on the outside and speculating as to what is being done. Each of you can be a valuable part of the process. You can hear directly about the concerns, and propose solutions to the problems. Each meeting should last about 60-90 minutes; further, the meetings are usually scheduled a couple of months apart, making your time commitment quite minimal. If you would, please post a reply on this blog letting us know if you will join us, or---if not---your reasons for declining. Thank you for participating. Rick Shaffer ------------- Rick |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 6:01am
|
I’ll be there!!!
Thank you for the invitation. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 6:34am
Mr. Shaffer, I will not be able to attend tonight. I must provide caregiving to my wife who cannot fend for herself due to a stroke which took her left arm and leg. My son is the other caregiver and he has to work tonight. However, I would like to provide a response to you since you asked for attendees or why they couldn't attend..... I have always been a proponent of rewarding/recognizing when something positive has been done. This would apply to this situation. IF the Middletown schools would have performed the last three decades, IF the schools would have shown significant improvement in the testing categories in all grades, IF the Middletown schools were not ranked close to the bottom of the 600+ school districts in this state, and IF there had been some reportable improvement in performance as a result of the new elementaries that have been built (to the tune or $45 million dollars in bond money), I would have been inclined to see rewarding this district with a new high school and the other Phase II plans. As it stands now, I cannot support your Phase II plans because I am still waiting for some positive news from Phase I. Now, you really can't expect some of us to accept moving on and accomodating Phase II supporters who desire more money expenditures on a school district that is broken and not performing on an acceptable level can you? Quite frankly, I don't understand the Phase II supporters are giving the educators here, given the job they have done to date. They don't deserve new digs based on what they have done with the new schools you gave them several years ago. New schools do not equate to a better education. Why spend the money if it will not produce results? It would be futile for me to attend your meeting with the attitude and perspective I have of this district. If I were to present this same information at your meeting, I would be asked to leave because my views do not go along with the program and are not popular. No, the only people you need at your meeting are folks who still believe that the system will improve with new facilities (incredibly naive IMO) and folks who are supporters of this district no matter how long it takes to improve it to an acceptable level. If I haven't seen but baby steps in over a decade, it is too slow of growth for me to support. Read this post to all of them and see what kind of reaction you get. It won't be pretty. It will make them angry. Thank you for the invite anyway. |
rshaffer wrote:Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 8:42am
|
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. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 9:17am
| Bingo Mr. Presta. Where Milt and, in the past, Dr. Price, erred was in tying any kind of performance to the facilities. Wrong approach. Lay out for us the costs of maintenance vs. cost of building new. Also provide us info on your last 5-10 year maintenance costs and why the district did or did not maintain the buidings in the manner they did. I'd like to know if insufficient maintenance was provided in hopes of greasing the skids for "phase 2". In the end, I will support phase 2 if, and only if, it makes financial sense. |
Posted By: jsmith2011
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 9:29am
|
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? |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 9:54am
|
Thank you, VietVet and Mike for your responses. I am sorry that you have such harsh feelings, but I understand your stance, Vet. Sorry, Mike, for omitting you from the initial post. You put the problem in perspective. I view MCSD's situation like a dysfunctional family: one of the parents or children may have severe problems, but they must still maintain their home (i.e., roof, windows, HVAC, property, etc.). In 10 years, Vail/Middletown Middle School will be 100 years old. I graduated from there in 1966---great building, but aged. The "new" HS will be 50 years old by then. Decisions need to be made now in order to have a workable plan for their future. Many factors affect the concept of an effective school district. Progress reports will continue to be made; kids in the second grade now will go through the system. Just because there are some environmental problems (e.g., "Section 8") doesn't mean that we shouldn't move forward where we can. Someday, the economy will improve, and the movement between Cincinnati and Dayton will continue. To not have a "snapshot" or plan would not be prudent. Perhaps you can join us sometime in the future, Vet. And thank you, Mike, for your willingness to join us. I find it much more exciting to be on the committee as a part of the decision making, rather than sit on the side. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 10:23am
|
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 ------------- Rick |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 11:46am
|
Why bother. |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 2:40pm
|
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 ------------- Rick |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 3:15pm
| Why bother. |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 3:52pm
|
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 ------------- Rick |
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 4:21pm
|
Thank you for the invite I'm honored that you are including me in your post. Out of the crowd that has posted I look at myself as the bottom of the pole, maybe even the bottom of the hole! Being a grad. Of this system and living and trying to make living in this town this is a important subject. I out of all these posters am much more simple minded. Noting some of my latest post they are quite simple with know real "Meat on the bone". Know matter what happens inside these buildings they are aging and must be addressed. For a simple minded taxpayer that does follow basic business practices what is the school systems record of performance and what is the incentive for backing either plan?
Again I understand that nothing last forever but it does get foggy keeping the two worlds ( City business/ school business) apart. One does effect the other IMO but it seems that neither work together. I am tired of the layers it takes to run both. I will end this with two other comments. My wife is not from here and has lived here for 20 years. After just the first year she made it clear that our children would not be going to Middletown schools, for several reasons. One the lack of respect between the teachers and students/parents. The other coming from some teachers themselves and how they viewed the uneducated taxpayer. Now I have my opinions of some teachers also but that's for another time. Lastly I have enough on my plate that showing up tonight will not happen but if you would like to send me a message through this site I will in detail explain how I volunteer in this community. |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 5:17pm
|
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 ------------- Rick |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 5:20pm
|
Spider John: forgot to include you in the original invitation....sorry. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 6:21pm
|
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. 
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 6:44pm
|
As Jerry McQuire's client would say, "Show Me The Benefit and Return." |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 7:37pm
|
Rick, I would have liked to attend the meeting tonight, but found out about it too late in the day. My son attends Monroe High School rather than Middletown. I would be interested in attending future meetings if they are posted on this site with a little notice.
Pacman  |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 9:12pm
|
Pacman: next meeting is Wednesday, February 15th, Middletown High School Media Center (off the main lobby) at 6:00. There will be a tour of the building for those who wish, at 5:00. Welcome.....Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Feb 02 2012 at 9:50pm
| So how many attended tonight? |
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 6:34am
| 20 people. $80mill. Middletown needs to come up with half? If we don't the other half is lost, that's the selling point? |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 7:05am
Journal story says 20 showed, all over the age of 45. No young parents interested in the buildings their kids will be attending in the future? No young parents interested in whether their neighborhood school will be around in years to come? Thought some of these young parents were "gung-ho" on education. Hmm. Before any talk of building a new high school (or any new school for that matter), I would want to see the following from the committee: 1. A list of all the facility issues with each school. 2. A list of how these issues were resolved- ie- was the problem fixed using internal employees or was it sub-contracted out at a potentially higher cost? 3. If subcontracted out, how many bids were asked for and was the lowest QUALIFIED bidder selected to do the repair. Was the repair checked by a school official to judge whether it was done properly? If not, was the contractor called back to do it right? 4. A list of the cost of each repair, be it internally resolved or externally resolved. 5. The budget for each school to allow for repairs and how the budget for each school was configured. 6. A list of whether each school over spent or underspent their portion of the budget. 7. If overspent, where did the money come from to make up the difference. If underspent, was the money transferred to another school that had more repair issues. 8. A list of recurring problems with each building. A plan to solve those recurring problems if possible. 9. A list of noted shoddy repair from both internal repairs done and extenal. How were they resolved. 10. A list of sub-contractors used, but are now blacklisted due to poor work on repairs and the method in place to assure that these sub-contractors will never be used again. 11. A document for each school that describes in detail, the preventative maintenance program that is used to lessen the possibility of more severe problems. IE- what is the frequency that the heating/cooling systems are checked and serviced. Frequency of electrical system checks. Frequency of plumbing checks. How often is the roof evaluated at each school to eliminate large repairs and repair problems when they are still able to be tackled without a major overhaul of the roof. Have all of these been evaluated to assure that they are the correct frequency in overseeing the buildings? 12. How about the parking lots.....paving at each school ok? Are the driveways also maintained, patching the holes that occur rather than to wait until the parking lots and driveways look like the Middletown streets? How often is this looked at? 13. Can they build a school WITHOUT a flat roof? Seems that all have flat roofs which are more prone to leaking and have no runoff. Puddling on flat roofs causes faster deterioration, doesn't it? Shingles on roofs. How often are they checked for damage or cracking? Are they replaced as soon as they are found? All preventative maintenance. 14. Brick and mortar......how often is this checked on each building? Is the mortar caulked when missing to prevent water seepage or is it ignored? And finally.....Middletown High School was built in 1970. It is 42 years old. There are homes in Middletown much older than that. They are repaired and maintained for the most part. (with the exception of the folks who cannot afford to repair them and they end up looking like crap as they fall apart.) They will last if kept up. Don't understand why the talk of a potential new high school when the current one is only 42 years old. Vail (the old high school to me) was built in what, the 1920's? It has stood for many years with an occasional new roof, new windows and some paint slapped on the walls once in a while. Ask your committee members, Mr, Shaffer, if they have a time limit on their home. What is the criteria for tearing down and replacing their own home. How long do they wait to make repairs to a leaking roof on their own home? We all know the answers because most of us homeowners wouldn't let it get to the point where a repair would become a major factor. We also know that we homeowners have never thought about tearing down our own homes and rebuilding because that would involve our own money. It is easier to ask the public for more money to pay for what we would never do privately, isn't it? |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 10:13am
|
Why bother. |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 11:06am
|
Vet: I'm sorry that you couldn't attend last night's meeting. I think that some of your questions would have been answered. Additionally, you would have had the opportunity to ask these questions directly. 19 "voting" members were present. By "voting" I mean that each had a hand-held device that recorded their response to general questions asked by the moderator from Fanning Howey. Although most of your questions---especially about preventive maintenance---can be answered through the district's computerized work request system, is it really worth the effort to have another stack of papers to wade through to prove it? After all the documentation is scrutinized, will it actually be worth the extensive effort to go through each work request? Specific issues bubble to the top and are dealt with. This is standard procedure in facilities' management. Having been in the Business Office for 9 months, I can tell you that none of the new buildings have any on-going concerns in regard to recurring maintenance issues. The HS had the auditorium roof replaced this summer, and Manchester needs a new roof. Vail/MMS has its infrastructure problems like any 90 year old building would. I feel that your comparison of the life expectancy of educational is flawed. These buildings should be compared to commercial, industrial and other educational buildings. These (HS & MMS) have several thousand students using the facilities every day. Toilets get flushed and broken, doors get constant use (opening, closing, slammed shut), furniture is broken through use, things wear out. Residential properties are not subjected to the heavy use that educational facilities are. Further, as was stated many times at the meeting, no preconceptions have been made regarding which, if any, buildings will be repurposed or replaced. This is the purpose of the committee. It has not been suggested that our "new" 42 year old HS should be demolished. It has been suggested to modify it to a middle school. I feel that the true elephant-in-the-room is the "old HS" (Vail/MMS). Yes, it can be renovated, similar to Hughes HS in Cincinnati---at greater cost than replacing it. However, the rooms would not be the size of the OSFC's (Ohio School Facilities' Commission) standards. One point of clarification: the headlines indicated that the "High School" project is estimated at $80M. This is inaccurate. The HS/Middle School/Manchester resolution---the remaining Phase II projects---have $80M remaining. Half of this amount is due from the state. After last night's meeting, it appears that we are on a track of proper evaluation for the future of the district. Thank you for your post. I know that my response will bring more questions. Again: DISCLAIMER: these are my beliefs and do not necessarily reflect those of the district or committee. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 12:39pm
|
Rick, when time permits, can you explain how the school system accounts presently for variable and fixed maintenance expenses and what the capital budget per year, for such expenses? Also, would you have at your disposal, the enrollment figures from 2003 to the present, annually, and in aggregate K-12, and the projects for the next 9 years? Also, as I attempted to review the annual report with all the financials on the MCSD website, but could not find one, could you post that? If not, perhaps you could provide the dollar projections for maintenance extrapolated over 10 years, expecting both fixed and variable expenditures for the unknown, as you reference, as part of the planning/ financial modeling process. May I also ask what portion of the expense deals with demolition expense for the two proposed middle schools? Also, can you explain what the Ohio School Facilities Commission Standards are per a classroom, and contrast that with Vail today? Is there a statute which states that Vail is out of compliance, and that there are no exceptions to that classroom size, or there is liberty, based upon the fact Ohio has many aged schools in operation. Franklin Middle School is also out of compliance, but it remains operational. Are you emphatically stating Vail MUST be brought down, as a mandate to be in compliance with the ORC 3318? And if so, where is that stated within: http://osfc.ohio.gov/AboutOSFC/RulesandStatutes.aspx - http://osfc.ohio.gov/AboutOSFC/RulesandStatutes.aspx Or are you stating to receive state funding, Vail would not qualify, and that is the basis for potentially combining it with the other middle school, and moving to the present MHS? It would be beneficial as a request to the school board, to have the annual report posted on the MCSD website. |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 4:15pm
|
Acclaro: I will respond to several things that are easy to relate: we reviewed the enrollment figures briefly last night: bear with me, since, without a chart, it's can get confusing. I jotted down these figures from the meeting last night: in 2003 the PROJECTED enrollment for next school year (2012-13) was to be 7,687; this was revised in 2008 to be (2012-13) next year 5,996; the ACTUAL for 2010-11 school year was 6,784; in October, 2011 (current school year) 6,484 (ACTUAL). Classroom size, if I remember correctly, varies from 950 sq. ft to 1,050 sq. ft., depending on several factors, including grade level, use (science lab, etc.). Most of the classrooms that I have had experience with (Oak Hills, Princeton, Cincinnati Public---built from 1930's through 90's (not many were built after the 1980's, unless they were built for growth) were pretty standard at 25' x 30' (removing about 1' x 30' for the outside wall univent and cabinets/book shelves---i.e., not useable for actual classroom use. Vail/MMS is pretty consistent at the 750 sq. ft. of classroom space (25' x 30') or a little less. This OSFC minimum sq. ft. requirement is for new construction. It does not mean that a totally remodeled building like Vail must adhere to that. As I stated in a previous blog, Hughes HS near UC was "totally" remodeled, as is Rothenberg in Over-the-Rhine being renovated now. Middletown Middle School COULD be a candidate for restoration---anything is possible, as the saying goes. However, there must be a comparison made between a renovation and a demo/rebuild. The state has a 2/3 guideline: "New construction must conform to the Ohio School Design Manual (OSDM)standards to qualify for OSFC funding participation; facilities must have a minimum enrollment of 350; 2/3 rule: if cost of RENOVATION exceeds 2/3 of the cost of NEW CONSTRUCTION then the OSFC RECOMMENDS a new facility." It does not require demolition. However strong commitment to renovation is suggested, and some renovation costs must be paid 100% by the district. Example: There was strong opposition in Glendale to use the elementary for district offices or replaced with a new facility. It was even suggested that it be given to the Village. Vocal residents wanted it to continue as a neighborhood school EVEN THOUGH FEW GLENDALE STUDENTS WENT THERE---most of the Glendale residents sent their kids to private school. As a result, Princeton spent about $4M to put in a new HVAC system, bring it up to firecode, install a bus drop-off in front, new technology, and minor cosmetics. I don't know for sure, but I believe the $4M was paid by the district, with no OSFC involvement. More later. Whew! Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 5:08pm
|
Acclaro: Part 2. I wish that you could have been at the meeting---many of your questions were discussed, especially why the state hasn't reimbursed the district for any of Phase 1 buildings. I can't explain it eloquently here, but the bottom line is, since Middletown only passed Phase 1 funding, spending $71M of Middletown's share of $112M, the state won't contribute anything until they reach that $112M figure. The total for both phases was projected to cost around $152M, with MCSD's portion at 74% = $112M. Once the projects total that amount, the state will contribute. It's a quirk in the state law, nothing that the MSCD has done. Had we passed both phases in 2003 (?) and spent the total of $152M, the state would have reimbursed the district its share of 26%, i.e., $40M. Currently, unless it is changed, the state won't send us anything. Also, out of 613 districts, Middletown will ALWAYS REMAIN at #450 on the list. Although the list is generated each year, we will never move from 450---quirk in the law. It is believed that schools at number 350 +/- are being served now. OSFC has recently been funding around 11-15 districts a year. There are 100 or more in front of us unless something changes. More later. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 6:03pm
|
Intreresting
we all want attractive and effective schools in our area
surrounded by an honest, polite, communicative and responsible young generation.
reasonable expectationwe do understand the high cost of education and the facilities/manpower involved
in relation to the district's "ability to support the system
we have built nice, large geographically diverse structures, which have ample space for growth, while our base is shrinking somewhat, and by a larger % departure from the upper economic sectors
we have demolished many old school house landmarks, leaving green space and air along many old and well-travelled routes.
Vail(current title) is probably past it's usefulness as it stands.
Not the best location UNLESS
A newer could go somewhere approximate, like maybe the land donated from the old Armco/AK office sites)
Close to Rosa Parks, Vail, Wade E, Cincy St., the "Arts district" and the transit system. Easy access from many areas, and an important balance in the complex equation. Probably not a very well-recieved option though
The current HS is not at all beyond use. It has time left, and if the former Manchester JHS site can be re-habbed, could it hold the freshman school?
The Roosevelt property could also be an interesting location option.
Not a very good time to be asking anyone for more $$ for pretty much any reason.
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 8:15pm
|
Why bother. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 9:32pm
|
Rick, The last time I recall the subject of to new schools being built in Middletown concerned the HS and JHS. The bottom line for the HS was that it would cost the same to remodel the current HS as it would be to build a new JHS. Is this still correct? If I remember right the citizens voted to remodel the HS which makes little sense to me.
Pacman |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 9:52pm
|
SpiderJohn/Acclaro: thank you for your responses. Again, these are my thoughts, and I have no official capacity with the district except as a member of the committee. If I misstep, it is not intentional, just an error on my part. SJ: great suggestion about the AK land. That has not been proposed in any meeting that I have been in. This is what the committee is about---suggestions. In my opinion, the only driving forces have been the lack of available space in Middletown. I believe the "ideal" for a HS is 80 acres, but that would include a football stadium, ample ball fields, etc. Be aware, though, the Phase 2 proposal does not include a replacement of Barnitz Field or even an auditorium in a new HS. These are not funded by OSFC, but would have to be funded by an LFI--a "locally funded initiative". A "phys-ed. type" gymnasium would be included, but nothing the size of Wade E. Miller. A new gym like Miller would be paid for by the district. Again, I can't restate enough that nothing has be presupposed on location or need. The committee is trying to determine what the community wants. As to some of your questions, Acclaro, I've seen many of the answers (sq. ft., cost to renovate, demolition costs, etc.) in handouts from previous meetings. The information is available, just not readily available for me--I tend to keep everything (or so my family tells me) and every once in a while these things will come to the top when I stir up the pile. I'm not trying to evade the question, I just don't have ready access to it. I will say that Milt has been very good about producing these when asked. Last night someone asked for some historical documentation and he said that he would produce. I'll ask him the next time I see him sometime next week. To answer one of your questions, Acclaro, regarding the 2/3rds--OSFC only RECOMMENDS that a structure be replaced, they don't mandate it. So it is possible to renovate "Vail"; the final resolution would be in the hands of the board, and, of course, the voters. I, personally, think that it would be an interesting challenge to be involved with, but that's just me. Believe it or not, having monitored these blogs for several years, I think that this has been the most civil and rational look at this concern for all of us. I wish to thank you for your positive ideas. We all know that the entire city/community/school problems concern us all. Hopefully, we can move forward with the educational factor for our good, whether that means a new Phase 2 or updating Vail, MHS and Manchester. Thank you, gentlemen. I look forward to our next blog. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 9:56pm
|
Pacman: The last round of facilities' meetings that we had---about 6 months or so---reviewed all of the three options with dollar amounts. I believe that you are correct, that the cost to renovate the existing HS was about the same as building a new one. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: rshaffer
Date Posted: Feb 03 2012 at 10:02pm
|
Pacman: just another thought. I tend to remember (I asked the question) that the cost of a new HS---it was proposed at the Verity site at the time---did not include a new auditorium. Again, an auditorium---any size---in a new facility would have to be paid for as an LFI--paid for separately by the district. I argued at the time that it didn't make sense to build a new HS (such as the Verity School location) and then have to bus or have the HS students get to Breiel and University (the current HS) for music concert practice, play practices, etc. Rick ------------- Rick |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 04 2012 at 2:23am
|
Well, since I was also in attendance at Thursday evening’s
meeting, I guess it is time for me to weigh in with my thoughts and
impressions. First, I must say that I wish this meeting would’ve been
taped, so that I could review the proceedings and be 100% accurate. It was not (at least not to my knowledge), so
let me preface my remarks by saying that I will try to be as accurate as
possible, but I am relying on memory, notes, and especially impressions. At the start of the meeting, everyone in attendance
introduced themselves. Then representatives
from Fanning and Howey, Inc. (F/H) gave a brief presentation before asking a
series of multiple choice questions of the group. The group responded via 19 individual,
anonymous radio frequency transmitters (resembling very small remote control
units). When all 19 responses were
registered, the percentage choosing each of the possible answers was shown on
the screen along with the question. I found some apparent discrepancies between the verbal
responses and the anonymous answers. For
example, during introductions, it was my distinct impression that nearly
everyone in the room, save four or five people, worked for the school district,
volunteered with the school district, had retired from the school district, or
was employed by a contractor of the school district. Yet, the anonymous replies to the question “Are
you an employee of the school district?” indicated that less than half
were. This may have been technically
true, but it seems to me that, as a poll question, that answer was somewhat
misleading and, standing alone, could indicate much less of a bias toward a “school
district position” than there might actually have been. Along these same lines, only one person in
the room had a child in the school system at present. Yet, in response to one of the questions, only
a couple of us had not been “in a district classroom” in the last few
months. Now, since there has not been a
meeting of this committee for at least six months, since only one person in the
room currently had a child in school, and fewer than half were “employees of
the district”, why had everyone (save a couple of us) been in a district
classroom very recently??? I wish I had
the exact figures. The “2003 Master Plan” was mentioned several times during
the evening. Master Plan “options” were
mentioned, as was “Master Plan Phase Two”.
I felt as if I was the only one in the room unfamiliar with this “master
plan” and asked if it was available on-line.
Mr. Thompson promised to email a copy to me. (He has done so. I received it Friday, but have not yet looked
at it. To my knowledge, I am the only
one that asked for it.) Towards the end of the meeting, F/H showed a series of
slides consisting of an aerial view of Middletown with the existing school
buildings shown, as well as several possible options for “Phase Two”. One of the options was to leave all schools
where they are right now, while performing any necessary repairs/modernizations
required to the high school and middle school buildings. F/H indicated that there may be new options
arising as a result of these meetings. Many times during the evening I got the impression or
feeling that the “decision” had already been made, and that the real purpose of
this committee was going to be to “sell” that decision to taxpayers. (I truly hope that I am wrong about this.) That feeling or impression was reinforced
towards the end of the meeting, when we were divided into three smaller groups
to compile lists of “What do YOU need to know.”
In our group, some of the members (retired teachers, I believe) were
reluctant to list my single question/request.
In fact, they seemed a little “put out” that I dared to bother them with
such a request. What was it??? I asked to see “the inspection reports for
the high school buildings, the Vail buildings, and the Verity buildings”. They said that “the State will make the
inspections after we make our decision”.
I asked them how we can possibly make a rational decision if the
facilities have not been inspected so that we can know what has to be done to
themto bring them up to snuff. They looked at me like I was
crazy. I returned a similar
expression. I finally shrugged and said
if they won’t put it on our list, I would ask someone else to put it on their
list. They relented, but listed it on a
separate sheet, even though there was plenty of room on the first sheet. Oh…one other thing:
earlier in the meeting, when F/H was mentioning the abandoning or
possible demolition of Vail Middle School as an option, I asked F/H if they
were familiar with Middletown’s City Ordinance 1210. They said that they were not, and asked what
it pertained to. I said that it
pertained to historic structures and puts severe limitations on what may, or
may not, be done to such structures, including demolition or remodeling. Could our local history buffs overzealousness
for all things historic stand in the way of adequate school buildings??? I doubt it.
If they will “certify” junk auto hoods as “appropriate” for siding on a
building in our “Historic Downtown Middletown”, what’s not to be found “certifiable”??? Still, if we follow the letter of the law, as
our City Law Director is sworn to do… ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 04 2012 at 8:08am
|
Why bother. |
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Feb 04 2012 at 9:41am
| Interesting article about Monroe schools, how things can change. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 04 2012 at 10:07am
|
"Many times during the evening I got the impression or feeling that the “decision” had already been made, and that the real purpose of this committee was going to be to “sell” that decision to taxpayers. (I truly hope that I am wrong about this.) That feeling or impression was reinforced towards the end of the meeting, when we were divided into three smaller groups to compile lists of “What do YOU need to know.” In our group, some of the members (retired teachers, I believe) were reluctant to list my single question/request. In fact, they seemed a little “put out” that I dared to bother them with such a request. What was it??? I asked to see “the inspection reports for the high school buildings, the Vail buildings, and the Verity buildings”. They said that “the State will make the inspections after we make our decision”. I asked them how we can possibly make a rational decision if the facilities have not been inspected so that we can know what has to be done to themto bring them up to snuff. They looked at me like I was crazy. I returned a similar expression. I finally shrugged and said if they won’t put it on our list, I would ask someone else to put it on their list. They relented, but listed it on a separate sheet, even though there was plenty of room on the first sheet".
Mike Presta BINGO!!!!! MR. SHAFFER!...... IF ACCURATE.....MIKE PRESTA'S EXPERIENCE WITH HIS PARTICULAR GROUP, MADE UP OF TEACHERS/EDUCATORS SAYS IT ALL. ARROGANCE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS-PAST AND PRESENT, TO THE TEACHERS. THEY WILL TELL US TAXPAYERS THE WAY IT IS, WHILE REJECTING WHAT WE WANT. THIS IS WHAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN THE PAST WHEN I HAVE DECIDED TO ATTEND ANY EDUCATIONAL MEETING FUNCTION IN THIS DISTRICT. YOU HAVE TWO GROUPS.....THE GENERAL TAXPAYING PUBLIC, WHO ARE ASKED TO ATTEND AND PROVIDE "FEEDBACK" (BUT USUALLY IGNORED) AND THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD PEOPLE, MADE UP OF TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS, THE SUPERINTENDENT AND OTHERS, WHO ARE ABSOLUTELY UNRESPONSIVE TO SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WE ARE AN INTRUSION INTO THEIR LITTLE PROTECTED WORLD. IF A MEMBER OUTSIDE THE PROTECTED, SECRET SOCIETY OF THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD MAKES A SUGGESTION THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THEIR PRECONCEIVED GAME PLAN THAT THEY WANT, IT IS REJECTED TO THE POINT OF CONFRONTATION. THAT SIR, IS WHAT HAS ALWAYS FRUSTRATED ME AND HAS MADE ME SO HOSTILE TOWARD THE EDUCATIONAL CONTINGENT THAT OCCUPIES THIS TOWN. THIS IS THE PRINCIPAL REASON I REFUSE TO SUPPORT ANY PHASE INTIATIVES NOR LEVIES. THE ARROGANCE OF THE EDUCATION PEOPLE ANGERS ME. THEY WANT MY MONEY AT LEVY TIME, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR MY IDEAS/INPUT INTO A SYSTEM THAT I AM PAYING INTO. CAN YOU NOW SEE WHY I AM SUCH AN ADVOCATE OF RESISTANCE TO THIS DISTRICT? ARROGANCE, MR. SHAFFER, ARROGANCE. IF IT IS OF ANY CONSOLATION, CITY COUNCIL WORKS IN THE SAME MANNER, WITH THE SAME THEME.......ASK FOR PUBLIC INPUT, IGNORE IT AND GO WITH THE PRE-CONCEIVED PLAN ALREADY DECIDED LONG BEFORE THE PUBLIC INPUT. LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THEIR INNER CIRCLE OF LIKE THINKERS AND PRE-ORDAINED DECISIONS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REFLECTS THE SAME TRAITS. GIVEN THIS PERCEPTION OF EXCLUSION, I TEND TO STAY AWAY AS IT BECOMES A WASTE OF TIME FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IMO. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES IN THIS TOWN. HISTORICALLY, COUNCIL AND THE SCHOOL PEOPLE WILL SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT IS AND THEY ARE SORRY WE FEEL THIS WAY. (OR IN MULLIGAN'S RESPONSE, "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE") THAT HAS BEEN A TYPICAL RESPONSE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AND COUNCIL AT TIMES. THAT RESPONSE HAS NO CREDIBILITY ANYMORE FOR ME. IT IS A DISGUSTING RESPONSE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THE SHOW. I WISH YOU AND THE OTHERS GOOD LUCK IN PASSING YOUR PHASE II DREAMS. I, FOR ONE, AM GETTING TIRED OF THE PIE IN THE SKY SPENDING WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS BECOMING POORER OVER TIME. THE CITY LEADERS ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY TO RUINATION OF THIS TOWN AS THEY CREATE THE GHETTO OF SW OHIO HERE, BUT THE LAVISH SPENDING CONTINUES WITH THE COUNCIL AND SCHOOL COMMUNITY PET PROJECTS AT THE TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE. BOTH ARE KILLING US FINANCIALLY, AS YOU ATTEMPT TO DRAIN OUR WALLETS. JMO |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Feb 04 2012 at 12:41pm
|
sounds so typical, Mike
also pumps up the attendance #s to look better
but credit to rshaffer for putting it on here
what about further consolidation at the elementrary level?
what % are the current facilities full?
could we possibly shut down Anmanda, since the new choke plant will lower the air quality?
6 years there for small forming bodies/minds is probably not the best thing.
health of these youngsters should be first/foremost
re-route them to Mayfield, Rosa Parks, Monroe?
Monroe is struggling, and right on that border-maybe send them a diverse segment of those from that area
if we pull freshman classes to one building, this also frees up more space in the current high school location
fill the buildings in use now--
so--where do 6th-8th grade end up going in these plans?
not trying to be a downer, however I don't see a new school levy passing any time soon
still need the right plan in place for better times ahead
no reason to dump Barnitz for football
centralize around Rosa Parks, the health center, Barnitz park(for athletic training) and whatever transpires in that area which has a long history of educational facilities(Old South, McKinley, Taft, Edison, Young St.School, Central)
make the town balanced and whole
if ya want to bring that area back to life put something(s) there that are meaningful and necessary for everyone(instead of "arts" facilities).
why not tie this school facility re-positioning to a broad diverse community balancing?
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 05 2012 at 1:43pm
| Why bother. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Feb 05 2012 at 9:43pm
|
Question; While the classifications may not have changed this year didn't the indicators go up?? I also believe the school's student population has increase by about 10% over the last 2-3 years. It seems that everyone here is most concerned with the spending of $40M. Doesn't anyone think that having new schools would help bring Middletown into the 21st century and make Middletown more appealing to new residents? It would also assist with the declining value with residental property in Middletown. As far as Middletown and Monroe merging, I do not see that happening. My son goes to Monroe and it is a world of difference compared to Middletown. No 63 incidents of trouble at Monroe, No cell phones in the school, etc, etc. These are but a few reasons Middletown should bite the bullet and build new schools. Pacman |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Feb 05 2012 at 11:04pm
| 10 out of 28 on indicators from recollection. High school is well within 21st century. District loses about $1.6 Mm in open enrollment lost students. Schools have no influence on residents moving in. Consider: Tax rate too high, amenities roads and infrastructure terrible, too few, reputation among top three worse cities in Ohio. No economic development. No, a new school building won't bring in residents. Miller Ridge has failed residential development and its right across the street from the newest school in the city. New schools somehow reduce student violence? |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 3:08am
|
Pacman: According to what Fanning & Howe told us last Thursday
evening: ·
2003 enrollment projection predicted 7,637 students
in 2012-2013. ·
2008 enrollment projection predicted 5,996 students
in 2012-2013. ·
Actual 2010-2011 enrollment was 6,784. ·
Actual October 2011 enrollment was 6,484. I am confused by one of your other points: Will “incidents of trouble” or “cell phones”
somehow be less disruptive to the educational process in new buildings? I can’t be certain, but again, I just don’t see this as being
about either a reward or punishment for what goes on inside the buildings. It should be about whether or not the
existing buildings can serve the intended purposes.
If not, would it be more economical to bring them up to snuff, or
replace them??? I may be a simple man, but is it really any more complicated than
that??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 6:33am
|
"Doesn't anyone think that having new schools would help bring Middletown into the 21st century and make Middletown more appealing to new residents? It would also assist with the declining value with residental property in Middletown".
PACMAN WITH ALL DUE RESPECT PAC, HAVE THE NEW ELEMENTARIES BROUGHT IN ANY NEW RESIDENTS? HAVE THE NEW ELEMENTARIES IMPROVED PERFORMANCE? HAVE THE NEW ELEMENTARIES COME CLOSE TO DUPLICATING WHAT PRICE AND THE SCHOOL CONTINGENT PROMISED? ANSWER TO ALL, IMO, NO. "These are but a few reasons Middletown should bite the bullet and build new schools" PACMAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE PAC. IF THE CRITERIA FOR BUILDING NEW SCHOOLS IS TO ATTRACT MORE CITIZENS TO THIS TOWN AND TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, NO SCHOOL SHOULD BE BUILT AT ANY LEVEL IN THIS CITY AS THE TARGETS HAVE NOT BEEN MET FOR PHASE I. MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE.....CERTAINLY, BUT BUILD NEW....NO. OH, AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CHANGING THE FACILITIES. THAT DOES NOTHING TO FIX WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE. THEY MUST CHANGE THE CULTURE IN EACH SCHOOL BUILDING ALSO-IE- MORE "TAKE CHARGE" CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE OF THE STUDENTS, ADJUST THE CURRICULUM/TEACHING METHODS, AND MOVE TOWARD EXTRICATING THE TENURED UNION TEACHERS WHO HAVE QUIT ON THE JOB AND NO LONGER OFFER ANYTHING TO THE EFFORT. WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THE LAST 10+ YEARS AIN'T CUTTIN" IT. WE ALL SEE THAT IN THE TEST SCORES, THE SNAILS PACE INDICATOR IMPROVEMENT AND THE GENERAL SKILLS OF SOME OF THE "GRADUATES" WHEN ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. (CAN'T SPELL, CAN'T READ FOR COMPREHENSION, CAN'T WRITE A PARAGRAPH, CAN'T DO SIMPLE MATH) CHANGES ARE NEEDED, BUT AT A PACE WITH MORE URGENCY THAN HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. JMO |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 9:11am
|
Gentlemen |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 9:51am
|
But won’t land values be going way UP…now that we will be
having a SECOND Community Improvement Corporation
competing for the properties??? (How many Community Improvement Corporations do they think we need??? More importantly, how many do they think we can afford???) ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 10:10am
|
Mr. Schaeffer, I read the comment about a new auditorium/theater would have to be approved separate from the new school. If that is correct; may I propose a "radical" solution. MMF currently have the contract to purchase the Sorg Opera House. Why not have MMF, the school board and the city renovate the Opera House, open a School for the Creative and Performing Arts, and concentrate building a top quality gymnasium in a new facility. This would solve more than a few problems. The cost of renovating the Opera House to be used by the School District would open up the prospect of grant money to cover the cost of renovating. If I've read all the posts correctly (doubtful), that renovation cost would go towards the money the school district would count to reach the $40m "kickback" on capital improvements. It would leave the School Board the option of needing to design only an athletic facility and not an auditorium. It saves an historic, downtown building and provides for a unique education experience for Middletown students. It makes the city and the school district look like they are actually working together. I'm sure there are some holes in this that I haven't thought of, considering that I just thought of it. It would seem a solution to a number of problems and provides for an opportunity to solve those problems with one decision. Sounds too simple. |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 10:14am
|
Mr. Shaffer, Sorry for butchering your name in the above post. |
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 11:24am
Posted By: Smartman
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 11:48am
| Tony B, At this time I could not support phase 2 due to no auditorium. MHS has one of the best auditoriums in the GMC. It seats more, and the stage is nuch larger as is the set construction area. It serves no purpose to build a new HS and the bus students to another facility to rehearse. |
Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Feb 06 2012 at 1:56pm
|
Smartman, I agree that the stage at the current MHS is one of the best in the area. My suggestion was for the option to build a new HS bldg. If they stay at their current location, then what I proposed would be unnecessary. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 6:37am
|
Now, wait a minute!!!!
Today's Journal..... District seeks input on 5 construction options for high school, middle school Architects present five plans to district’s facilities panel, public MIDDLETOWN — The turnout may have been small but the information gathered could prove to be a big help as Middletown City Schools updates its master plan for secondary schools. During two community forums Thursday, about 20 people provided input to the district’s facilities committee and architects with Celina-based Fanning Howey. Five options for Phase 2 Master Plan to renovate or construct new middle and high schools were presented; those in attendance voted on their most-favored choices. • Option 1: Cost $69 million to build a new high school and remodel the current high school for grades sixth through eighth. • Option 2: Cost $62 million to build a new middle school for grades sixth through eighth and renovate and expand the high school to add 60,000-square-feet. • Option 3: Cost $49 million to build a middle school for grades seventh and eighth, and renovate and expand the high school. • Option 4: Cost $54 million to build a new high school and a new middle school for grades seventh and eighth. • Option 5: Cost $55 million to build a school for grades seventh through ninth and renovate the high school. EVERY ONE OF THESE OPTIONS ARE TO BUILD NEW SCHOOLS. ISN'T THERE AN OPTION TO RETAIN WHAT WE HAVE AND USE THE MONEY TO UPGRADE WHAT WE HAVE? THIS IS A "LOADED DICE" SCENARIO. NO MATTER WHAT DIRECTION THEY GO, SOME NEW SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE BUILT AT SOME LEVEL SOMEWHERE. THEY CAN'T CONVINCE ANYONE YET THAT THE NEW ELEMENTARIES HELPED THIS DISTRICT, MUCH LESS SUGGEST WE BUILD MORE. I KNEW THEY WERE HEADED THE NEW SCHOOL ROUTE BEFORE ANY OF THIS STARTED. 74% PAID BY THE PEOPLE AND ONLY 26% PAID FOR BY THE STATE? NOT A VERY GOOD BREAKOUT, IS IT? BAD TIME TO BE ASKING ANYONE FOR MONEY FOLK. GOOD LUCK IN GETTING THIS PASSED IF IT GOES BEFORE THE VOTERS. |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 8:19am
|
The School Board and its leadership have lost complete and all credibility. Of 5 options, not one was to simply upgrade buildings. It was either build one, upgrade another, or build two new ones. The firm wants to build, they make more money. How outrageous. And to use this as the argument:“ "Buildings are important factors to attracting families to the community, increasing performance of students, reducing absenteeism,” said Stephen Wilczynski, executive director of Fanning Howey. If that is the case, as the elementary schools therefore failed, there is NO justification for this. I have been in contact and a Committee is being formed, to solicit the paid consultation of the man in West Chester that leads the charge against their school levies. He was on WLW 700 yesterday, and really takes a no prisoner attitude towards such waste, and is very well versed in defeating school levies. Bring it on BOE, this one is going to fail. |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 9:20am
| Would this be the same kook is just left the NoLakota group for his offensive, cowboy rantings? |
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Mar 16 2012 at 10:02am
|
NoLakota organization support? Yes. The man whom wrote the blog about dumb wives voting for levies without any business acumen and husbands sticking $100.00 bills in purse? No. |