your comments responded to, part 1

So many comments, so many questions. Where to start? Best to start at the beginning and work your way up through the long list of comments. Some positive, some negative, some informative.

These first entries were comments made concerning the article titled "Northeastern has 'energizing' debate about bond issue failures" as written by Megan Gildow, Educational Reporter for the Springfield News-Sun on February 26, 2010.

Well, as promised, here goes:

"As the economy is the vote will still be NO. I would have voted Yes to a smaller levy but when they decide to add the income tax in for EXTRAS the vote is NO!!! I will not vote for any of the current board members in the future, they have wasted enough money trying to get this passed."
Don
6:42 AM, 2/26/2010

Don: A smaller levy was not possible since the Ohio School Facilities Commission's review of our buildings stated all 5 buildings needed to be abandoned and new facilities constructed. The cost of remodeling and bringing our existing buildings to code was more than 2/3 the cost of constructing new buildings. The extras were those requested by the public after several advertised community meetings and other surveys we had taken.

In our school district, as in many school districts in Ohio, it generally takes 3-5 attempts to get a levy passed. Unfortunately, levies cost money, however, the current system of funding schools doesn't allow any other means of generating dollars for operating or permanent improvement funding. The only other alternative is to reduce teachers and staff, and you know what happens when we try to reduce teachers and staff and programs and acitvities



"I'm still voting NO on everything until NE tightens its belt. There are a lot of ways they can save money while still providing a quality education. I can't believe the vote they tried to sneak in in February wasn't a loud enough mandate."

Geez.
NE Resident
9:04 AM, 2/26/2010 REPORT ABUSE

NE Resident: You are totally correct. There are many ways that we can tighten our belts, and surprisingly, we do. Unfortunately, many in the public do not question what we are doing to "tighten our belts". We look at every possible item we can cut without negatively effecting education of children. The district would be open to any suggestions you may have, or better yet, sit down with our administration and ask specifically what they are doing to cut costs.

Your second comment about "sneaking the levy in February" is incorrect. We stated we would be back on the ballot when the levy failed in November. During the time from November to February, I was on the television, in the paper, we were at school functions, information was in the "Communicator" (our district newsletter), there was information on our website (I know you have a computer because you commented to the paper's website), and we sent information home with children. We did not put out any signs due to the cost.


"That was discussed a lot last night. Nothing was decided on at the meeting. It was more to generate ideas, because the vote in Feb was a pretty loud no to the current levy, so all options are on the table."
John
8:51 AM, 2/26/2010 REPORT ABUSE

John: yes there are options we will be looking at. It is very important that the people come and give us some options to consider. As I mentioned in my opening article on this blog, the board will decide the best option that will benefit kids.



"And I am still going to vote YES.

The new buildings are needed. I don't agree with one centralized high school. Students do better in an environment where there is more personalized attention, not less. Would you want your child to be just a number?"
Northridge parent
8:28 AM, 2/26/2010 REPORT ABUSE

Northridge parent: I do not support a "one high school" in the district because it is not in the best interest of kids education. There are many factors with having one high school. Among those are increased disciplinary problems, transportation in an area of 117 square miles, where is there land available that will be needed to put a facility of this size, who will fund the construction of athletic fields (not a board of education priority), what will we do with existing facilities and grounds, no reduction in administrators and teachers since their numbers are related to the number of kids in a building, very little savings in construction costs because the cost is related to square footage and square footage is figured on number of students in a building. There are other reasons I do not support one high school, but they would be too numerous to list for this response. We still agree.

There are some benefits, however, they do not out do the reasons for having 2 separate high schools.



"Just to clarify, the meeting on the 18th at Northeastern High School at 6 pm is open to the public. It just isn't for the Board and Building Advisory Committee. Any ideas and questions are welcome. The levy (if they decide to have one) will be different then what was on the last 2 ballots. The income tax part of the levy can't be the same this time, and at the meeting last night they were well aware how unpopular that part was, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that off the table.
John
8:10 AM, 2/26/2010 REPORT ABUSE"

John: the meeting on the 18th will be a public meeting. It will be controlled to the point that the board will be looking at constructive ideas, not derogatory comments or negative feedback. For those who wish to come, I encourage you to be part of the solution - not part of the problem. The time available to get this done is short and must be centered on arriving at solutions not feeding more problems.



"Hogwash. Does anyone believe this?" Yes! There is no economic benefit to combining the schools. The only thing I think the school board needs to change is keeping a school in S.Vienna. Other than that, it's better to pay for it now, as opposed to the state stepping in, in a few years, and forcing something upon us. The state has already determined that these schools need replaced. So lets do it under our terms while the state has money to pay a good portion of it."
bc
10:00 AM, 2/26/2010
REPORT ABUSE

bc: keeping a building in South Vienna was originally one of the options that was under consideration. There is a program implemented by the Ohio Department of Education called the "Acceleration Program" that allows qualified students from a lower grade to "accelerate" into a higher class in a particular subject. For example, an 8th grader who is proficient in math can be challenged in a 9th or 10th grade level math class. This benefits the student. By having to transport the student from SV to Northeastern HS, the student would lose a class period in transportation alone, plus the cost of transporting the student amounts to about $8000 annually, paid by the board (your taxes). By having a campus arrangement, we can efficiently have a good acceleration program without the cost of transportation and loss of classroom time.

One option I would support is to have an elementary building in SV since there is enough land available and the acceleration program is not as viable from elementary to middle school. I would support a K-5 building at SV.



"Here's the deal:
1) The board doesn't spend money the way promise they will. Voters have a long memory.
2) This district is too big for one campus. How long do you want YOUR kid riding the bus?
3) The price tag is too high.
4) It’s cheaper to remodel than rebuild.
5) People would rather feed their families than send their kids to a *new* school.
6) Kids can learn anywhere, if there are good teachers. They don’t have to be in a *new* building."
NS
9:59 AM, 2/26/2010
REPORT ABUSE

NS: My reply to your list.
(1). Can you give me some specifics where we didn't spend the funds as we promised? Your statement is quite vague.
(2). I agree totally with you.
(3). In this economy today, I would agree, however, there are many benefits to an economy today, such as lower cost for materials, quicker construction due to people looking for work, and lower construction cost due to companies wanted to bid low in order to get the work.
(4). According to the Ohio School Facility Commission (the agency providing us the $48 million dollars), the cost to remodel our buildings is over 2/3 the cost to rebuild. They do not fund remodeling if the cost to remodel is over 2/3 the cost to rebuild. That is their guideline.
(5). Can't argue your statement if that is your priority. I would question how many people are in a "starving" economy that they would choose food over their child's education.
(6). Very true, EXCEPT that technology today, in conjuction with highly qualified teacher,is needed for kids to compete for college and into the workplace tomorrow is not available in our buildings today. Also, an equally important factor is that the safety of our kids today is more important of an issue than it was a generation ago.



"Board members said that the cost of constructing one high school was the same as building two

Hogwash. Does anyone actually believe this?"
No
9:38 AM, 2/26/2010
REPORT ABUSE

No: I do. I've explained above that the cost of construction of schools is based on square footage. The cost of square footage is based on the number of students in a building. Combining the buildings will bring the same number of students.



"Question - I understand the argument of personalized attention - but wouldn't there be more opportunity if efforts were combined? and maybe the one school would help with the ill feelings between the 2 schools now? Just asking -
2 high schools?"
9:37 AM, 2/26/2010

2 high schools? : good question. There are pros and cons to the issue. Yes, we could offer additional classes including additional foreign languages as an example. There would be minimal reduction in staff due to staff numbers is related to number of student in educational systems. I feel what would be gained in additional classes would be diminished in opportunities for students to participate in other programs and activities. Likewise, the cost associated with constructing new athletic facilities would have to be borne by the residents.

There are so many arguments on this that we could have a community meeting on this topic alone. I personally believe the overall public does not want one big high school.