|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
rapunzel11 schreef:
The IB program should have been placed at SW in the first place. While SW was still an academy. As a school within a school. Resulting in academy children trying to achieve higher status to enter the IB program -growing the program.
Instead Milton screwed up SW and put IB kids next to Central. It made NO sense at all to put that few no# of kids in that dinosaur building. not to mention having them beat up/ridiculed on the shared campus.
{I could not agree less. SW is the ugliest sort of aging building. Built with 50's and 60's design principles it has no architectural integrity, and is every bit as outdated technologically as Central and Whittier. It is not comvenient to the Cultural Center, the College and Universities, and it's "Academy" status is weak at best---no deep thinking classes, merely a hideout from the ruffians at other high schools. In fact, SW's 9th graders in Whittier's building last year caused an incredible amount of problems.
The IB program NEEDS to be independent of all the other schools.}
Flint schools should sue Milton for devastating the budget in a multitude of ways.
The cost to renovate Central or Whitter is equal to building a new school.
{And you know this how? Flint has never done a study with renovation architects. Bring in a regular architect and he's hustling a multi-million dollar job. Furthermore, there are grants available to pay for a renovation architectural consultation. Did you even go to National Historic Trust?
It seems you have a mind as closed to possibilities as this board. }
It costs much to renovate an elementary to fit larger students. Drinking fountains raised higher. Toilets taller. Lockers installed etc. It was done before when Johnson Elementary was made into AAA.
FBOE does not have the funds to put the IB program into Cummings. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Deena, If (large if) you have a large ongoing parent support to keep the IB program into an independant building you may be able to convince the Board to put the program into Johnson.
{The IB program NEEDS the facilities of the College/Cultural Center---and they need a central location if they will ever attract students from outside the district. Central's great theater magnet did it in the 80's and 90's and this program is phenominally better. }
Still the board will have to cut elsewhere to match the estimated cost savings of closing that building. They must have a balanced budget at the end of June.
{Here's an innovative idea. Close that expensive administration building and move THEM into Whittier's thired floor. After all, isn't this "all about the children"?}
When you get past your anger you will begin the bargaining. Come up with an alternate plan that is cost efficient and present it to the board.
I truly wish you and yours the best.
Peace,
RAP
quote:
[color=#][/color]
[color=#][/color]
|
|
|
Sun May 11, 2008 1:54 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
Keep the info coming Deena. I'm a little outgunned on my committee but nothing compared to my state house race.  I think the unsaid plan is to tear down Central and Whittier and build a new school with a bond proposal.
This has links supporting links. Some require a high speed connection.
http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/build_or_renovate.cfm
This link seems to mirror what Deena is saying.
http://www.heritageohio.org/advocacy/school_feasibility_study[1].pdf
Last time around the recommendation was to close Central and that Central was not salvageable which I think is the same recommendation the new committee is being steered towards. |
|
|
|
Sun May 11, 2008 2:36 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
Adam, both Whittier and Central are completely salvageable. This board has used such loaded terms as "outgrown usefulness", "deplorable condition", and "falling down" so frequently that citizens have come to believe that is the case.
It is, BY NO MEANS, true. Furthermore, these schools hold a great sentiment in this community, are ideally located, and have wonderful architectural features worth preserving. Have you ever looked at the copper eaves on Central or the tower on the roof of Whittier? They are gorgeous and could never be duplicated. There has been a concerted effort to denigrate and create a ground swell to raze these buildings. Why? Someone here seems to have an axe to grind---or money to be made. The board needs to be upfront with its constituency. The fact that they are not says plenty.
Do you want to know more about Whittier? My daughter took this class as an elective the first semester:
http://ics.soe.umich.edu/main/section/5
She loved it.
And she loved this one equally as well:
http://www.peacejam.org/
Even teir electives are different---and this is how one builds good citizens. |
|
|
|
Sun May 11, 2008 5:18 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
Psst Adam: My brother graduated from Harvard University. Ever seen THOSE buildings? 100 years older than Whittier and Central and still fully functional. It's called "tradition"...and it's important to people.
[/url] |
|
|
|
Sun May 11, 2008 5:35 pm |
|
|
Tegan
F L I N T O I D
|
I agree. Central and Whittier are absolutely salvageable. But they will also probably throw this word out there: "green."
The perception is that old buildings are huge sieves that are a complete waste of energy. Not to mention that energy efficiency has suddenly become the scapegoat and "unargueable" reason to tear down an old building.
When that arguement arises, mention that these buildings have almost a hundred years of embodied energy stored within them, and that any demolition would make a huge impact on the earth, not only in the landfills, but for the new materials required to construct a new school.
Plus, recycling an old building and retrofitting it with energy-efficient systems is WAY more cost effective than demolishing and building a new building. The National Trust of Historic Places should have more info on that...
Of course, the majority of Flint.... its politicians and citizens alike... still think about things with an urban renewal mentality. (sigh). |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 6:17 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I don't get you guys. Flint isn't the City of 225,000 people anymore. Maybe if Central had 600 students in it's senior class say like it did in the 60's. Flint wouldn't need to downsize.
We have a school system with 33 percent graduation rate. That's a loss of 67 percent of tax dollars for those students. Without those students and without those funds,
I'm still waiting on the Board to pink slip more of that administration. I'd like to know the numbers for the Administration from 1966 and how many we have in 2007. I have a feeling we are greatly top heavy.
The one thing that killed me. It seems that not too long ago people were complaining about the purchase of Books by the former School administrator. Now we are paying someone 300,000 to find books. Didn't we just purchase some. How often do we buy new books?
I understand Government and social studies books. But, it seems to me we should be purchasing much older Grammer, and literture books. These newer ones seem to be lacking. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 7:21 am |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Dr. Chow tried this gave great options- teachers turned it down flat. Well, worth trying again.
This statement may not be completely accurate. I don't believe the terms were ever officially agreed to. (maybe that depends on who you ask though)
"Which 2?"
Geographically it seems like closing Northern and Central would make the most sense, but Northern is a relatively new facility. If it was me making the choice it would be Central and NW to close. Not because I don't appreciate history, I do, but because we do not have enough students to fill the buildings we have. Central is in the center of the city if we move to 2 high schools it just doesn't make sense to have one in the middle. Also, someone mentioned that either Cultural Center Corp. or MCC may be interested in the property.
Milton's reforms were mostly positive. He had two major problems as I see it.
1. He is not a person of character.
2. He doesn't know how to sell it. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 11:00 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
squash schreef:
"Which 2?"
Geographically it seems like closing Northern and Central would make the most sense, but Northern is a relatively new facility. If it was me making the choice it would be Central and NW to close. Not because I don't appreciate history, I do, but because we do not have enough students to fill the buildings we have. Central is in the center of the city if we move to 2 high schools it just doesn't make sense to have one in the middle. Also, someone mentioned that either Cultural Center Corp. or MCC may be interested in the property.
I've heard NW is newer and in better condition. They also fixed up their track. I'm a little more optomistic long term in regards to student population. Without full information I'd almost lean towards going with Central, SW and NW as the Highschools with Northern and possibly Whittier as our Middle Schools. I'm not sure where SWA's middle school would be though. Then I'd go with two or three elementary schools for each of the three zones. With kids moving around so much I could see this helping to reduce the amount of transfers.
To further go against the grain according to the schools evaluation Williams is our best elementary school. I'd close that and keep Washington and move the whole Williams to Washington which is ranked poorly but appears to be more asthetic and in a better area. With the cost savings we could gradually improve Washington.
If the cultural Center really had to have a building we could sell them the Administration building or Sarvis or both. I don't think schools like Grand Blanc or Davison have a Sarvis Center or Admin building comparable to Flints even accounting for our size. Davison's Admin building was a smal trailer/mobile home type deal.
I think we should be sure to keep Dort and Doyle Ryder elementaries opened as they are already air conditioned. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 11:37 am |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
quote:
squash schreef:
"Which 2?"
Geographically it seems like closing Northern and Central would make the most sense, but Northern is a relatively new facility. If it was me making the choice it would be Central and NW to close. Not because I don't appreciate history, I do, but because we do not have enough students to fill the buildings we have. Central is in the center of the city if we move to 2 high schools it just doesn't make sense to have one in the middle. Also, someone mentioned that either Cultural Center Corp. or MCC may be interested in the property.
I've heard NW is newer and in better condition. They also fixed up their track. I'm a little more optomistic long term in regards to student population. Without full information I'd almost lean towards going with Central, SW and NW as the Highschools with Northern and possibly Whittier as our Middle Schools. I'm not sure where SWA's middle school would be though. Then I'd go with two or three elementary schools for each of the three zones. With kids moving around so much I could see this helping to reduce the amount of transfers.
To further go against the grain according to the schools evaluation Williams is our best elementary school. I'd close that and keep Washington and move the whole Williams to Washington which is ranked poorly but appears to be more asthetic and in a better area. With the cost savings we could gradually improve Washington.
If the cultural Center really had to have a building we could sell them the Administration building or Sarvis or both. I don't think schools like Grand Blanc or Davison have a Sarvis Center or Admin building comparable to Flints even accounting for our size. Davison's Admin building was a smal trailer/mobile home type deal.
I think we should be sure to keep Dort and Doyle Ryder elementaries opened as they are already air conditioned.
It makes PERFECT sense to locate schools in the center of the city! In fact, that's why Central and Northern were built where they were (the old Northern) originally.
I'm fascinated that people continue referring to SW and NW---and even Northern---as "new" schools. SW opened in 1959 (50 years ago); NW in 1964 or 65 (45 years ago); and even Northern is now over 30 years of age. Where does anyone read "new" in those years. They are all short on technology, need repairs, and have tremendous neglect to overcome. BTW, NW's track was rebuilt with donations, not tax dollars. In the same manner, Central alumni came through to fund, many, many programs the district found out of reach. (And perhaps if we had more accountable leaders a lot more alumni would come out of the woodwork to help.
Once again, Adam, Whittier is NOT a middle school and it will remain a 7-12 IB school wherever it is located. Did you mean the Whittier building?
Are you aware that the Sarvis Center also houses a school? A very good school in fact.
Incidentally, someone commented that Central once graduated 600 students each year. I graduated with 700. The buiding was incredibly overcrowded and classes held 35-40 students. I don't think anyone wishes to go back to that era. The way to build Central's population is to offer the programs people want. Take a look at the DETROIT schools someday. Even they offer specialized and high demand programs for achieving students. A desire to learn is step 1. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 7:38 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
I didn't refer to them as new buildings I referred to them as relatively new. Compared to Central, Northern is new.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Central was originally Flint High School, at the time the one and only high school in the city. At that time it would have made sense to locate it in the middle of the city. If the population trends continue we should be able to operate with two high schools in the next 5-10 years. I think geographically and politically it makes best sense to have one on the north side and one on the south side.
I was in NW at the beginning of this school year. I can't speak for it's structural soundness, but it was in horrible disrepair. The bathrooms were disgusting. Many with no partitions and toilet seats. Houston Stadium can still be utilized even if NW is closed.
BTW I went to the old Northern (Flint Academy, another great program that was axed) it was an old building but it always seemed clean and well kept. I don't remember this kind of outcry when they decided to tear it down. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 8:40 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Deena schreef:
I'm fascinated that people continue referring to SW and NW---and even Northern---as "new" schools. SW opened in 1959 (50 years ago); NW in 1964 or 65 (45 years ago); and even Northern is now over 30 years of age. Where does anyone read "new" in those years. They are all short on technology, need repairs, and have tremendous neglect to overcome. BTW, NW's track was rebuilt with donations, not tax dollars. In the same manner, Central alumni came through to fund, many, many programs the district found out of reach. (And perhaps if we had more accountable leaders a lot more alumni would come out of the woodwork to help.
Once again, Adam, Whittier is NOT a middle school and it will remain a 7-12 IB school wherever it is located. Did you mean the Whittier building?
Are you aware that the Sarvis Center also houses a school? A very good school in fact.
Incidentally, someone commented that Central once graduated 600 students each year. I graduated with 700. The buiding was incredibly overcrowded and classes held 35-40 students. I don't think anyone wishes to go back to that era. The way to build Central's population is to offer the programs people want. Take a look at the DETROIT schools someday. Even they offer specialized and high demand programs for achieving students. A desire to learn is step 1.
Compared to Central the other buildings are new. I should watch my semantics a little better though.
I understand about Whittier but that building might make a good middle school or we could just stick with the status quo instead of possibly having to move Whittier.
I was aware Sarvis is tied to or has some school function tied to it. I don't remember exactly what I was told or the full details.
It's hard to even imagine Central with 2,400 students. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
squash schreef:
If the population trends continue we should be able to operate with two high schools in the next 5-10 years. I think geographically and politically it makes best sense to have one on the north side and one on the south side.
I was in NW at the beginning of this school year. I can't speak for it's structural soundness, but it was in horrible disrepair. The bathrooms were disgusting. Many with no partitions and toilet seats. Houston Stadium can still be utilized even if NW is closed.
BTW I went to the old Northern (Flint Academy, another great program that was axed) it was an old building but it always seemed clean and well kept. I don't remember this kind of outcry when they decided to tear it down.
According to the estimates the student losses are supposed to start leveling off and increase although right now it appears to me we are heading to the "last one turn out the lights" situation.
I think we were suposed to be getting bathrooms taken care of. I forgot about the stadium. That is another reason why I think NW should be the high school for the north end and perhaps maybe more unless we want to end up like Beecher. When I was in HS our football team wasn't that great but we definately never had to worry about losing to Beecher.
What else was disgusting besides the bathrooms?
I was at Northern and was a little annoyed by the cafeteria. I imagine that wouldn't cost too much to spruce up. I was pretty impressed by Flint Central. The library there is amazing and the building has a good feel to it. |
|
|
|
Mon May 12, 2008 10:49 pm |
|
|
rapunzel11
F L I N T O I D
|
A centrally located High School complex makes good sense.
For the FUTURE.
We need to close CENTRAL and WHITTIER and rebuild. The cost to renovate remove asbestos far exceeds a new well built building.
NW is by far in the best condition but is not in a good location.
Yes, the bathrooms are deplorable as are the bathrooms in every school.
Parents don't usually go in them so they are left to a not seen area and not fixed.
The layout of NW with different wings could possibly be a AAA or school of choice facility. Focus on school within a school type of building- programs for alternative ed. Programs for Auto, carpentry etc.
This building would actually have been easiest to close prior to renovating the track. It is a detriment to getting outside orgs to donate money and then close the facility. We need more orgs to donate to facilities.
Northern has a good Science dept. Newer building that was not built to last.
Kids put pencils through the plaster walls. The bathrooms in that building are just as bad. We have too many buildings to maintain proper healthy conditions.
SW is in the second best condition. Has great access from expressways- good location. Fair layout for different programs. bathrooms are deplorable
Central had kids putting pencils in asbestos wrapping around pipes. Historical value is nothing compared to the health of children. Beautiful old Library.
I do not want a new building with plaster walls, I want a real building with clean air. Centrally located for all. Perhaps a building next to the highschool for 9th grade focus.
We need to close Central and Whittier. House/educate in SW and NW and Northern until a new Central can be built. Perhaps close to the old location but maybe not there. perhaps put all 7-9 in Northern.
Think outside the box until we can reach a long tern plan. I like smaller schools more knowledge of personal aspects of children. I liked k-8 at McKinley it showed promise.
We have to quit closing Elementary's in neighborhoods that feed into the secondary schools. Charters are feediing on less cost to educate k-6.
I am sick of hearing about old buildings that are in good condition elsewhere. They were adequately maintained and not left to decay for decades. Had Central or Whittier been kept up in any small way we would not be need to get our children out of the environment that is NOT air healthy. Minds that are learning need clean air.
We keep closing smaller, newer buildings with light and clean air. Housing children in older, larger buildings with asbestos and plexiglas every where. Fire hazards grandfathered in for decades. WHEN WILL THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH BE A PRIORITY???
Two seperate concepts Facilities/ Programs. Please understand the difference!
Peace,
RAP |
_________________
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy, speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963 |
|
|
Tue May 13, 2008 3:10 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
| Have asbestos tests been performed? |
|
|
|
Wed May 14, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
My house was built in 1927. Asbetos can be successfully sealed. It is only dangerous if it is dropping---same with lead paint btw. Should we tear down all buildings built prior to the lead paint standards of the 70's?
It is a pure falsehood that all renovated old buildings were adequately maintained prior to renovation. You seem to pervasively determined to NOT read the studies. Why? What's your axe you're grinding here.
In fact SW is in no better shape than Central. Have you forgotten the (relatively) new fieldhouse at Central? Those facilities top those at any other HS---Northern, the "newest" school has a non-functioning pool! (Or it did the last I knew, last winter.)
You may be tired Rap, of hearing about renovation but I am tired of naysayers who still believe in the GM adage and the new model year mantra we were all brainwashed with growing up. GM is gone. It's time to make our own way. If you bothered to read the renovation standards one of the top criteris IS public sentiment. No building in Flint is closer to the peoples' hearts than Central HS. It's very much about THAT. |
|
|
|
Thu May 15, 2008 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
