|
Home Page |
 |
|
 |
Our Info
Contact Us Our Newsletter Hit Report |
|
|
|
|
|
Interactive Areas
Calendar Discussion Area Member Pages |
|
|
|
|
|
Our PDFs
HB 299 proposed School Impact Fees 2005 Facilites Review Committee Report Ricketts Smith Retail Rezoning Application Precinct Voting Map for Failed Bond Levy Diley Town Center Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
|
Our Hotlinks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Find Answers in Our FAQ |
|
|
 |
Metro Columbus Clubs & Organizations |
PATA History Pages
Issue 28 School Bond pros and cons
prepared from documents from Levy committee and PEA
I am attempting to put up both points of view regarding the Issue 28 vote. PATA takes no postion on any election issue and this information is provided as a public service to voters. The publication of this information on this site and the order in which it is presented should not lead you to believe that PATA supports or does not support any side of this issue. This is for information as a service to the community only and does not represent the views of PATA, PATA members or anyone else so associated with the PATA organization.
Building Review Team Recommendations August 2004
www.pickerington.k12.oh.us/info/pdf/Building%20Review%20Team.pdf
Pickerington's BEST Power Point Presentation:
www.pickerington.k12.oh.us/info/BEST/Pickerington%27s%20Best2.htm
Text below is from the BEST flyer prepared by the levy committee: BEST is the acronym for Building Effective Schools Today
About Bond Issue 28:
• New elementary school at the Sycamore Creek site
• Additions to Pickerington and Violet Elementary schools
Includes classrooms, bathrooms, support space and a multi-purpose room
• Additions to Diley and Harmon Middle schools
Includes classrooms, bathrooms and support space
• $165 per year for a $200,000 home - or $13.75 per month (2.7 mills)
• Serves the district through 2012 based on current projections
• The Ohio School Facilities Commission validates the Bond Issue as part of the PLSD's 10-year Master Plan
• Buys time for local government to realize controlled residential growth and greater commercial development
Cost Effective
• Houses same number of classrooms as building three 750-student schools
• Creates the MOST economical solution - $19 million less than building 3 new schools
• Fewer buildings to heat
• Reduces green space to maintain
• Eliminates maintenance and utility cost of portables
• Utilizes current cafeterias, libraries, equipment and technology
• Buildings and additions in Issue 28 are recommended by the Ohio School Facilities Commission
Additions:
• Most efficient solution is to build and operate additions rather than construct 3 new schools
• All district students will be housed under roof for the first time in 17 years
Violet and Pickerington Elementary schools ...
• Will not exceed their current student capacities
• Will obtain needed multi-purpose space
• Over 200 5th & 6th graders, now currently at Heritage will return to Harmon and Diley Middle Schools
• Heritage will revert back to the K-4 building for which it was remodeled
Meets our Housing Needs:
• Places our most valuable assets - our students and our teachers - in permanent classrooms.
• Eliminates 30 portable classrooms outside our elementary schools (housing over 700 students)
• Provides the building space we need for future growth in the K-4 grades through 2012
• Responds to community desire for conservative spending practices
• Adjusting attendance boundaries will allow room at existing schools for future growth
• November passage makes additional space available for the 2007-2008 school year
Operating Cost Benefits:
• Shared resources in one location - libraries, keyboarding labs, technology, science equipment, cafeterias, and intervention staff
• Overhead costs - such as utilities, maintenance and food service - are less in expanded buildings than in multiple new buildings
• More effective use of existing staff - principals, secretaries, food service, maintenance
• Enlarging existing sites accommodates housing needs without duplicating new building costs
• An operating levy will be needed to fund additional staffing
PEA Why Teachers are Concerned
Pickerington Education Association Web site Issue 28 informtion, comments and questions about this issue from teachers at each school are included.
If you do not use the hyperlink below, type cut and paste the following address in your browser
http://pickeringtonteachers.org/issue28.html
be sure not to use www in the address or it will hit a dead end. The link below works.
www.pickeringtonteachers.org/issue28.html
Please Review the Grade Reconfiguration Committee Report May 2003 at the link below:
www.pickerington.k12.oh.us/info/PowerPoint%20Presentation.htm
The following text is from the flyer handed out by the PEA and available at schools next to the BEST flyers from the levy commitee.
Title of document: Why Your Children's Teachers Are Concerned About Issue 28
• Issue 28 Campaign Literature: "Reduces Green Space to Maintain"
Teachers’ Concern: Reduces Playground area and adds an additional 300+ students - - Number of Injuries Goes Up
•Issue 28 Campaign Literature: More effective use of existing staff - principals, secretaries, food service, maintenance
Teachers' Concern: Currently, the district has understaffed these positions due to financial constraints. Adding 300+ students will not be a more effective use of these valuable staff
• There is a bullying problem in Pickerington Schools. The board currently wants a bullying policy. How will adding 300+ students without increasing principals and intervention staff aid this situation? More students will only increase the problem.
• Secretaries deal with parents, phones, sick students, teachers’ needs, principals’ needs, attendance, ordering supplies, and the general office work required of all schools. Will they be more effective when they have more teachers, parents, and students to serve? Parents currently feel their questions are not being answered in a timely manner. Will the increased wait be beneficial? How will secretaries continue to maintain the clinics when nurses are not present with this increased workload? Isn't safety important?
• Issue 28 Campaign Literature: Shared resources in one location - libraries, keyboarding labs, technology, science equipment, cafeterias, and intervention staff
Teachers' Concern: Libraries, keyboarding labs, technology, science equipment, cafeterias, and intervention staff are already difficult to schedule and be freely used by students. An additional 300+ students will further complicate this matter.
• When old East Street Middle School Housed 1,000+ students, the library could only allow classes to check books out every other week and only for 15 minutes. Library Instruction was not able to occur with the frequency it does today. Current Middle Schools have one librarian who struggles with current middle school population and scheduling library instruction. What will happen with 600+ more students to schedule in the two enlarged Middle Schools?
• Keyboarding labs currently are full and difficult to schedule. Content teachers cannot schedule time for all four of their classes. How will this change with the addition of 300+ students? Classroom computers are used for Accelerated Reader and Larson's Math, both parts of the curriculum. Parents and students complain with current population that there is not enough opportunity for students to be on computers. This will not improve with 300+ more students.
• Science teachers cannot currently get all students involved in the hands-on lab work due to insufficient amounts of lab equipment, ie. Microscopes, balance scales, electric circuits. How will this be affected by adding 300+ more students?
• Students currently start eating lunch at 10:45. Adding 300+ students will move this up even earlier. At the old East Street Middle School, students were eating lunch at 9:45. By 3:00 students could-not concentrate in class due to lack of energy.
• Currently, there is not enough gym or playground space to play safely. Harmon has a record number of broken bones this year alone. How will that improve by adding in 300+ more students and less playground/lgym space?
• Intervention staff is stretched to their maximum potential. Currently, some students are not considered for tutoring because lack of scheduling time. Some students have to wait to see a counselor because of lack of available time. Teachers cannot get IAT' or IEP's scheduled as timely as they would like due to lack of scheduling time. When these intervention experts have 300+ more students to work with, how will this improve?
Other Concerns:
• Parking is difficult at best on all facilities being considered for expansion. With less space and more cars are we inviting trouble in the form of a traffic accident involving children?
• Once these additions are added, they are permanent. This means that for the next 100 years of education in Pickerington, we will have five facilities that house close to or over 1000 students. This cannot be undone.
• Issue 28 was not recommended by the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Board member, Jim Brink, called and asked them if they had recommended this issue. Their response was that they do not recommend issues. They just find projects. Their mission statement says that their goal is to fund projects that DECREASE the number of students in a building.
• During the yearlong construction process, how will our youngest students be affected? There will be heavy equipment, strangers, and much noise on each of the campuses. These students are already easily distracted. Won’t construction affect the learning process in a negative manner?
• With near 1,000 or more students, how ill clubs and activities such as Chess Club, Art Club Phys. Ed Club, Field Day, Stunts and Studies, Science Overnighter, etc. be affected? Currently there is a waiting list for some clubs. With less “green space” Stunts and Studies and Field Day activities are impossible. Do we eliminate this important part of the school experience?
What impact will this have on overworked teachers, staff, and administrators in regards to testing and the state report card?
What if the Operating Issue needed to fund these additions fails? In addition, there are tow renewal levies starting in 2006. Will the community be willing to pass a bond issue, operating levy and two renewals?
Additional Discussion of Issue 28 on the web
Board member Jim Brink maintains a web site as a service to inform to the community who elected him. He provides extensive discussion on why he does not support issue 28. To reach Dr. Brink's web site follow this link:
www.jimbrink.org
Click on the right hand side titles "Reasons to Oppose Issue 28"
and "Financial Reasons to Oppose Issue 28" for more information on this issue.
Below is a cut and paste from Dr. Brink's site raising additional questions about this issue. The title of the web page is
Bond Issue 2004 (#28) - Finances
Summary
• Levy supporters claim their approach is "most affordable" and "most efficient". But, a detailed look at the finances suggests their approach has no short term financial benefits, and is likely to cost much more over the long term (5 years to 20 years).
•Levy supporters used one set of student capacity to justify construction claims and "cost effectiveness" assertions, but a different set of capacity numbers to describe resulting school sizes to the public.
•The proposed building program, based on student capacities told to the public, may see just one year without the use of portables.
Comparing Levy Supporter Assertions with Facts
The following items were taken directly from literature provided. The numbered items (in black) are the assertions in levy supporters' literature. The lettered items (in red) are my analyses of those claims.
1. Supporters' assertion: Issue #28 will provide the same number of classrooms as building three new 750 student elementary schools, but for $19M less (i.e., $55M versus $36.2M)
a. Three new schools designed to hold 750 students would hold 2,250 students. The issue #28 was placed on the ballot with the claim that the new elementary would hold 1,000 students, Pickerington Elementary and Violet Elementary would have 12 new classrooms each, and Harmon and Diley Middle Schools would have 14 new classrooms each. Assuming 25 students per classroom, that comes to a capacity of 2,300 students. So, it would appear the claim is true.
B.However, the literature and statements all emphasize that some of the new space will be common space, and the expanded buildings will not be increased to the maximum levels in the paragraph above. When using the low range of their numbers, the increased capacity is only 1,225 students. Using their high range, the increase is 1,575. At most, this plan provides space for 1,500 more students, which is just two 750 student schools.
C. Two 750 student schools should cost less than $30M, based on historical numbers. Even according to literature provided that the board used to pass 5 Resolutions of Necessity on August 9, the two schools should approximate $34M. (Click here for that table). So, when comparing EQUAL student populations, building new buildings is LESS THAN the plan in issue #28.
D.Conclusion: the supporters are using much higher student capacity numbers when comparing building costs to new buildings, but using much lower student capacity numbers when describing how these buildings will be used. I call that misleading!
Don't believe me? Click here( ON jIM'S SITE ONLY) for the detailed numbers in table format.
2. Supporters' assertion: All district students will be "under roof" (as opposed to portables), eliminating 30 portable classrooms housing over 700 students.
a. Supporters' literature states that Tussing Elementary "Future Capacity is 750-850". The current enrolment is 831.
b. Supporters' literature states that Fairfield Elementary "Future Capacity is 625-650". The current enrolment is 644.
c. Construction for Tussing Elementary and Fairfield Elementary are NOT part of the Issue #28 plan.
d. Apparently, the 4 portable classrooms at Fairfield Elementary and the 6 portable classrooms at Tussing Elementary will continue to be used.
3. Supporters' assertion: Heritage 5th and 6th graders will "return" to Harmon and Diley middle schools. "Heritage will revert back to the K-4 building for which it was remodeled."
a. The school was remodeled with a capacity that was not to exceed 450-500 students. That is what that board committed to doing (of course, no board has control over a future board's actions).
b. The current enrollment is 681 students, 463 of whom are in K-4.
c. In addition, 4 classrooms are being used for preschool (note: the district must provide this preschool by law, it is not optional).
d. Conclusion: the "return" will not result in additional capacity at Heritage.
4. Supporters' assertion: Issue #28 handles growth through 2012
a. If we follow the supporters' logic, 700 students will be moved from portables to "under roof". As mentioned above, 200 students will be moved from Heritage to the expanded Harmon or Diley without increasing the capacity of Heritage.
b.As described in point 2b above, the real increase in capacity for this new construction in issue #28 is 1,500 students at most.
c. Using the same projections that the supporters used, the real capacity will be consumed in the 2007-2008 school year, that is, when the new construction opens. (Supporters' projections are: 235 additional K-6 students in 2005; 339 in 2006; 188 in 2007).
d. Conclusion: The portables will continue to be used.
To get to 2012, each of our 7 elementary and middle school buildings must hold at least 100 more students than the maximum quoted in their literature. (Using the supporters' population projections, there will be approximately 1,600 more K-6 students by 2012. But as noted, the real capacity increase without portables is just 600 more students than we have in 2004.)
5.Supporters' assertion: Administrative and support staff savings
2 fewer principals
a, The implications: (a) adding staff and students doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now
b. In reality, administrators will be added to handle the increased workload, but their title will be dean or assistant principal.
c.With the added problems caused by crowding and handling larger buildings, this cost will go up.
2 fewer cafeteria staffs
a.The cafeteria staff are paid via lunch fees. It is well known that the district actually collects more money from lunch fees than it pays for food and salaries.
There are no taxpayer savings from this item.
Fewer secretarial staff
a. The implications: (a) adding staff and students doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now.
b. In reality, there won't be space for additional secretarial staff and the workload will be picked up by teachers and administrators, at a much higher rate of pay.
c. Net effect: increased staff and parent aggravation, along with added costs overall.
Fewer custodial staff
a. The implications: (a) adding staff, students and space doesn't increase their workload, or (b) they don't have enough to do now.
b. We aren't manufacturing students on a production line. The number of teachers, administrators, assistants and staff is proportional to the number of students, no matter where you house them.
b. The increased levels of crowding mentioned (click here) is more likely to cause a greater increase in these staff than new, properly sized buildings.
6. Supporters' assertion: Fewer buildings to heat
a. This is probably true to an extent, but the amount of space is also being increased. So, this is not likely to be significant (although neither I nor anyone else has done actual estimates to my knowledge).
7. Supporters' assertion: Inventory savings: libraries, science equipment, physical education equipment, cafeterias
a. These items tend to be proportional to the number of students. So, savings in this category means these items will be denied to the students.
b.See my comments about the effects of crowding. We'll save on libraries because the students will have less access and fewer materials there to access. The effects will be similar for science equipment and physical education equipment.
Supporters' assertion: Reduces green space to maintain
a. True, resulting in decreased playground space for an increased population of students.
Supporters failed to mention: Transportation costs
a. These costs will go up because larger buildings require increased busing due to distance.
b. Increasing these buildings by just 150 students will result in busing this increase - forever. That will increase transportation costs by at least $125,000 per year-- forever, and continually adjusted higher due to fuel costs.
Supporters failed to mention: Long term construction costs
a. If we permanently move to 800-1,000 student elementary and middle school buildings, all future buildings must be of similar size. This will force an even greater use of portables to handle growth between times when buildings are constructed.
b. In effect, this plan will relieve the use of portables for a year or two. But, they will necessarily become a permanent part of the district's housing plan.
c.As population shifts (naturally), the larger buildings will be further away from the students. Either the buildings will become partially unused, or we will increase the transportation costs.
Why the Discrepancies and Misleading Statements?
Time. This plan was rushed through the process. Two board members spend two months, part time, creating this plan.
Building administrators (principals) were not involved in the planning. When asked, they mentioned reasons for their opposition (see my remarks in the crowding area which I summarized from conversations with them).
Teachers were not involved in the planning. In fact, it was summer when most teachers were off AND they were in contract negotiations with the board.
Other board members were not involved in the planning. In particular, I was not involved. This plan took the first step toward the ballot on the SAME day it was introduced to the whole board.
The community was not involved. In fact, in two prior public committees, other plans were recommended.
Issue 28 information sources and contacts
PLSD Power Point Presentation of Issue 28
Dr. Jim Brink web site
Pickerington Education Association Issue 28 information page
Neighborhood Link Terms of Use
© 1997 - 2006 Neighborhood Link, Inc.