These are not mega schools. Chippens Hill has 1,200 students in it with only three grades, but I don't see anyone calling it a mega school. Even Greene Hills' principal endorsed the project. Stop crying and get educated on the project. The only one they did their homework on was Green-Hills. I agree that the council should have turned down the Scalia Brothers site. Don't forget that this is just so they can start the process of getting architects and a solidified plan together. It doesn't mean the council will approve it or the finance board, who we know holds tight purse strings.
"Mega" school refers to size of the student population, not number of grades, not land mass.
Any Middle School with 1,200 students would be considered a "mega" school. (600 -800 max) is more appropriate for middle schools.
1,100 to 1,200 is considered OK for a high school.
Optimum size of a k8 school to get the "k8 advantage" is approximately 50 students per grade level. This works out to 450 students per school.
Chippens Hill Middle school is "mega" school. The larger the school, the lower the academic performance of the student body. CHMS did not achieve AYP in 2006.
I know it has to do with class size. The class size doesn't change. Didn't you hear the BOE? Apparently you weren't listening. They're talking about putting the grades together in separate but connected buildings. It was described in full detail that the old schools can't be renovated, because there isn't enough land to renovate them. Don't forget there are strict zoning laws and codes that must be applied to any renovations. Apparently some of you don't care that your children are going to schools that are not even meeting present day codes and you don't want to spend the money, even though most of the money will be picked up by the state, to put your kids in decent schools. As the other blogger stated, Greene-Hills' principal supports a new school and he would know since he's there day in and day out.
I am not an educator and am still "on the fence" on this issue.I HAVE been in the construction industry for over 40 years and CAN tell you that constructing new schools will be INFINITELY less expensive than trying to renovate old buildings.Renovating invariably brings unexpected cost overuns,while with new construction you know what to expect ahead of time.
By now the only people who don't know all they need to know about the K-8 plan are keeping their heads in the sand. Sure there is competing data, and there always will be competing data. Frankly I trust the elected BOE over the self-appointed saviors of the community with their own hidden agendas (or not so hidden in the case of Rydingsward and Merrick). Our elementary schools are falling apart and we need to replace them. Time to fish or cut bait.
"By now the only people who don't know all they need to know about the K-8 plan are keeping their heads in the sand."
The only people keeping their head in the sand on this issue are the current members of the BOE and a majority of the candidates. Their silence has been deafening. It is an absolute travesty of the system to have people run for elective office without stating their positions or beliefs for the electorate to hear and evaluate. Especially in year when we are faced with a plan that not only will cost multi millions of dollars but will turn the school system upside down, bifurcating it into two distinct programs with no clearly identified timeline of consolidating the programs back to one in the future.
"Our elementary schools are falling apart and we need to replace them."
Just keep saying that over and over so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no question that there are older facilities that need either improvement or replacement but the issue is completely irrelevant to the quality of our student's education or their test scores. Bingham is one of the oldest and smallest facilities in the district and yet the school is always either the highest or one of the highest scoring schools on the CMT. CTO on the other hand suffers form socio-economic issues that are particular to the demographics of west-end. We could build a new CTO on the Divinity Street site (which may be needed) and the scores will not increase one point. If the demographics don't change then the scores won't change.
I for one do not trust the BOE at all. The plan they have promulgated is ill conceived, has no end goal articulated and lacks focus. I expect the next mayor and the council to take a very critical eye to this plan and send it back to the BOE. This plan is a disaster waiting to happen. We can only hope that the voters understand this and that they make the right decisions on November 6th.
Whether you agree with new schools or renovation, the BOE clearly gave reasons for why the schools cannot be renovated so that's a moot point. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't, because there is no room to expand any of the schools. Zoning and code regs require certain specifications for schools and none of these schools have the land to meet those regulations. We must build new schools. Why anyone would want their child in a school that's just about 100 years old is beyond me. They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk. The size of the new schools can be debated and that's where it's important to show up at the BOE meetings and building committee meetings to express your views on the size. The mayor even stated that people don't come to the school building committee meetings, but yet they have no problem grandstanding at the city council meetings acting as if they care deeply. If you really care, then start showing up to the meetings and make your voice heard and your opinion count.
"The only people keeping their head in the sand on this issue are the current members of the BOE and a majority of the candidates. Their silence has been deafening."
Like I said...get your head out of the sand (or wherever it is). They were at this meeting, they were at the forum earlier this year, they have a website; etc. etc. Be a man and just admit that you don't agree with them.
"Like I said...get your head out of the sand (or wherever it is). They were at this meeting, they were at the forum earlier this year, they have a website; etc. etc. Be a man and just admit that you don't agree with them."
Your perception for the obvious is acute! Of course I disagree with them. Take your blinders off and wake up before you finds yourself in a city with a school system that is a text book example of how not function. Do some research, do some math and for god's sake ask some questions about where this will all end up. You won't get any answers because no one who is currently on or running for the BOE has them, but try.
"We must build new schools. Why anyone would want their child in a school that's just about 100 years old is beyond me. They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk."
I do not disagree that we could use some new facilities. That said, the proposal from the BOE goes miles beyond the building issue and you cannot resolve one without the other. There is not one valid reason nor one shred of hard fact that would require this city to change from K5 to K8. In fact, if we stayed with K5 our options for new facilities expand 10 fold. The concepts put forth by the BOE that scores are better and parents participate more are Red Herrings. Don't fall for it. As to buildings out of code, where did you get that pile of garbage? The schools are continually inspected for fire and safety. They may not be pretty nor technologically up to date but they are not death traps. Let's spare ourselves the drama. The BOE inhabits the remnants of the old South Side and they are not in any hurry to move because of lack of code compliance.
Lastly, when did it become a requirement to attend every public meeting in order to have an opinion? What a crock. This "I participate thus I am more entitled to speak" is a politician's defense mechanism and excuse to not listen. How arrogant! If you are registered voter and you pay taxes you're entitled to your opinion whenever, wherever and however you choose to express it.
They are inspected, but let's face it. They are still not up to present day code and are grandfathered in as they are. It's obvious. Just look at them. This is not a sham and those schools are death traps. Schools that are not up to code do not affect education, but the schools are deteriorating and need to be replaced whether you like it or not. You can't keep putting a band-aid on a mortal wound. Would you have us go another ten years in the same schools when the price tag for new ones will have tripled or even quadrupled? I guess you would. Instead of ranting and raving without facts, why don't you cite some facts with regard to renovation of the schools? Anyone can state their opinion, but we need some real data if you're going to challenge the renovate vs. replace concept.
"As to buildings out of code, where did you get that pile of garbage? The schools are continually inspected for fire and safety."
You weren't paying close attention, DD. They didn't say these old schools aren't up to "code" (as in fire or building code), they said that if we tried to bring them up to current academic requirements (set by the State of CT), such as minimum square footage of library space, cafeteria space, etc., there wouldn't be any room left for classrooms. Probably a bit of an exaggeration, but a point well taken.
Anon October 10, 2007 7:57 PM - Please reread my post. I clearly stated that I support new facilities where needed and if we kill this K8 lab experiment we would have more sites available to evaluate. There was not any ranting and raving. As to the buildings being "Death Traps" please stop that drama. They are old, no doubt but they will be here far longer than you or me. Ever been to the old Patterson School which is now luxury apartments on Federal Hill? I highly doubt the residents think they live in a "death trap."
Anon October 10, 2007 9:08 PM - Who wasn't paying close attention? Here's the quote verbatim - "They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk." This poster was clearly focused in on safety codes. Unless of course it was you expanding what you meant to say in the first place. Buildings don't make the students. Bingham is one of those "old timers" and the kids there score at the top of the district on CMT every year.
"Here's the quote verbatim - "They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk." "
I'm not sure whom you are quoting, but no one from the Board of Ed said that the buildings are subcode and putting kids at risk. The paper may have reported it, but that was not what was said.
Last Poster please read the Anon on October 10, 2007 2:33 PM. That was the quote I was referring to and copied in my post. I didn't say a thing about the BOE or newspaper. I enjoy the debate back and forth but at least try and stay with us here.
Why wouldn't they score any differently in a new school? The class size is still the same. It's a new building with all the bells and whistles including non-drafty rooms where you don't have one room that's sweltering and another room that's freezing. YOu can't compare Patterson Place with the old schools. One was transformed into apartments, which is totally different than transforming an old school into a renovated, state-of-the-art school. The code requirements are different and you don't need extra space to expand the cafeteria, gym, fields, etc. Where do you get the idea that more sites would be available if this whole project was dropped? If it's dropped, it's dropped. Sites aren't going to appear out of thin air. I need a further explanation on that.
19 comments:
Welcome to Bristol, home of K-8 Megaschools that go against the wishes of the public.
But at least O'Brian is happy, that's all that matters.
These are not mega schools. Chippens Hill has 1,200 students in it with only three grades, but I don't see anyone calling it a mega school. Even Greene Hills' principal endorsed the project. Stop crying and get educated on the project. The only one they did their homework on was Green-Hills. I agree that the council should have turned down the Scalia Brothers site. Don't forget that this is just so they can start the process of getting architects and a solidified plan together. It doesn't mean the council will approve it or the finance board, who we know holds tight purse strings.
"Mega" school refers to size of the student population, not number of grades, not land mass.
Any Middle School with 1,200 students would be considered a "mega" school.
(600 -800 max) is more appropriate for middle schools.
1,100 to 1,200 is considered OK for a high school.
Optimum size of a k8 school to get the "k8 advantage" is approximately 50 students per grade level.
This works out to 450 students per school.
Chippens Hill Middle school is "mega" school.
The larger the school, the lower the academic performance of the student body. CHMS did not achieve AYP in 2006.
I know it has to do with class size. The class size doesn't change. Didn't you hear the BOE? Apparently you weren't listening. They're talking about putting the grades together in separate but connected buildings. It was described in full detail that the old schools can't be renovated, because there isn't enough land to renovate them. Don't forget there are strict zoning laws and codes that must be applied to any renovations. Apparently some of you don't care that your children are going to schools that are not even meeting present day codes and you don't want to spend the money, even though most of the money will be picked up by the state, to put your kids in decent schools. As the other blogger stated, Greene-Hills' principal supports a new school and he would know since he's there day in and day out.
Of course the Greene Hills principal would support a bigger, better school with all the latest toys.
And Chippens Hill is too big, the class sizes are too large and the teams are very disorganized due to the number of students they have.
I am not an educator and am still "on the fence" on this issue.I HAVE been in the construction industry for over 40 years and CAN tell you that constructing new schools will be INFINITELY less expensive than trying to renovate old buildings.Renovating invariably brings unexpected cost overuns,while with new construction you know what to expect ahead of time.
By now the only people who don't know all they need to know about the K-8 plan are keeping their heads in the sand. Sure there is competing data, and there always will be competing data. Frankly I trust the elected BOE over the self-appointed saviors of the community with their own hidden agendas (or not so hidden in the case of Rydingsward and Merrick). Our elementary schools are falling apart and we need to replace them. Time to fish or cut bait.
"By now the only people who don't know all they need to know about the K-8 plan are keeping their heads in the sand."
The only people keeping their head in the sand on this issue are the current members of the BOE and a majority of the candidates. Their silence has been deafening. It is an absolute travesty of the system to have people run for elective office without stating their positions or beliefs for the electorate to hear and evaluate. Especially in year when we are faced with a plan that not only will cost multi millions of dollars but will turn the school system upside down, bifurcating it into two distinct programs with no clearly identified timeline of consolidating the programs back to one in the future.
"Our elementary schools are falling apart and we need to replace them."
Just keep saying that over and over so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no question that there are older facilities that need either improvement or replacement but the issue is completely irrelevant to the quality of our student's education or their test scores. Bingham is one of the oldest and smallest facilities in the district and yet the school is always either the highest or one of the highest scoring schools on the CMT. CTO on the other hand suffers form socio-economic issues that are particular to the demographics of west-end. We could build a new CTO on the Divinity Street site (which may be needed) and the scores will not increase one point. If the demographics don't change then the scores won't change.
I for one do not trust the BOE at all. The plan they have promulgated is ill conceived, has no end goal articulated and lacks focus. I expect the next mayor and the council to take a very critical eye to this plan and send it back to the BOE. This plan is a disaster waiting to happen. We can only hope that the voters understand this and that they make the right decisions on November 6th.
Whether you agree with new schools or renovation, the BOE clearly gave reasons for why the schools cannot be renovated so that's a moot point. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't, because there is no room to expand any of the schools. Zoning and code regs require certain specifications for schools and none of these schools have the land to meet those regulations. We must build new schools. Why anyone would want their child in a school that's just about 100 years old is beyond me. They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk. The size of the new schools can be debated and that's where it's important to show up at the BOE meetings and building committee meetings to express your views on the size. The mayor even stated that people don't come to the school building committee meetings, but yet they have no problem grandstanding at the city council meetings acting as if they care deeply. If you really care, then start showing up to the meetings and make your voice heard and your opinion count.
"The only people keeping their head in the sand on this issue are the current members of the BOE and a majority of the candidates. Their silence has been deafening."
Like I said...get your head out of the sand (or wherever it is). They were at this meeting, they were at the forum earlier this year, they have a website; etc. etc. Be a man and just admit that you don't agree with them.
"Like I said...get your head out of the sand (or wherever it is). They were at this meeting, they were at the forum earlier this year, they have a website; etc. etc. Be a man and just admit that you don't agree with them."
Your perception for the obvious is acute! Of course I disagree with them. Take your blinders off and wake up before you finds yourself in a city with a school system that is a text book example of how not function. Do some research, do some math and for god's sake ask some questions about where this will all end up. You won't get any answers because no one who is currently on or running for the BOE has them, but try.
"We must build new schools. Why anyone would want their child in a school that's just about 100 years old is beyond me. They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk."
I do not disagree that we could use some new facilities. That said, the proposal from the BOE goes miles beyond the building issue and you cannot resolve one without the other. There is not one valid reason nor one shred of hard fact that would require this city to change from K5 to K8. In fact, if we stayed with K5 our options for new facilities expand 10 fold. The concepts put forth by the BOE that scores are better and parents participate more are Red Herrings. Don't fall for it.
As to buildings out of code, where did you get that pile of garbage? The schools are continually inspected for fire and safety. They may not be pretty nor technologically up to date but they are not death traps. Let's spare ourselves the drama. The BOE inhabits the remnants of the old South Side and they are not in any hurry to move because of lack of code compliance.
Lastly, when did it become a requirement to attend every public meeting in order to have an opinion? What a crock. This "I participate thus I am more entitled to speak" is a politician's defense mechanism and excuse to not listen. How arrogant! If you are registered voter and you pay taxes you're entitled to your opinion whenever, wherever and however you choose to express it.
They are inspected, but let's face it. They are still not up to present day code and are grandfathered in as they are. It's obvious. Just look at them. This is not a sham and those schools are death traps. Schools that are not up to code do not affect education, but the schools are deteriorating and need to be replaced whether you like it or not. You can't keep putting a band-aid on a mortal wound. Would you have us go another ten years in the same schools when the price tag for new ones will have tripled or even quadrupled? I guess you would. Instead of ranting and raving without facts, why don't you cite some facts with regard to renovation of the schools? Anyone can state their opinion, but we need some real data if you're going to challenge the renovate vs. replace concept.
"As to buildings out of code, where did you get that pile of garbage? The schools are continually inspected for fire and safety."
You weren't paying close attention, DD. They didn't say these old schools aren't up to "code" (as in fire or building code), they said that if we tried to bring them up to current academic requirements (set by the State of CT), such as minimum square footage of library space, cafeteria space, etc., there wouldn't be any room left for classrooms. Probably a bit of an exaggeration, but a point well taken.
What's the beef with O'Brien and the Free lunch program..is he against feeding kids????
Anon October 10, 2007 7:57 PM - Please reread my post. I clearly stated that I support new facilities where needed and if we kill this K8 lab experiment we would have more sites available to evaluate. There was not any ranting and raving. As to the buildings being "Death Traps" please stop that drama. They are old, no doubt but they will be here far longer than you or me. Ever been to the old Patterson School which is now luxury apartments on Federal Hill? I highly doubt the residents think they live in a "death trap."
Anon October 10, 2007 9:08 PM - Who wasn't paying close attention? Here's the quote verbatim - "They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk." This poster was clearly focused in on safety codes. Unless of course it was you expanding what you meant to say in the first place. Buildings don't make the students. Bingham is one of those "old timers" and the kids there score at the top of the district on CMT every year.
"Here's the quote verbatim - "They are not up to code, which puts our kids at risk." "
I'm not sure whom you are quoting, but no one from the Board of Ed said that the buildings are subcode and putting kids at risk. The paper may have reported it, but that was not what was said.
Last Poster please read the Anon on October 10, 2007 2:33 PM. That was the quote I was referring to and copied in my post. I didn't say a thing about the BOE or newspaper. I enjoy the debate back and forth but at least try and stay with us here.
Why wouldn't they score any differently in a new school? The class size is still the same. It's a new building with all the bells and whistles including non-drafty rooms where you don't have one room that's sweltering and another room that's freezing. YOu can't compare Patterson Place with the old schools. One was transformed into apartments, which is totally different than transforming an old school into a renovated, state-of-the-art school. The code requirements are different and you don't need extra space to expand the cafeteria, gym, fields, etc. Where do you get the idea that more sites would be available if this whole project was dropped? If it's dropped, it's dropped. Sites aren't going to appear out of thin air. I need a further explanation on that.
Post a Comment