|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 9:23:34 GMT -6
A flexible leased pool for sewing (or a creative joint venture w/ JoAnn Fabrics and Viking for a tax write off) might be a good idea. That way it can grow/shrink as needed.
There's lots of things that can be done, and it's not the SB's job to micromanage this. It's the District's. However, the SB needs to encourage this method of operation as much as possible. They are the public facing leadership point people.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Feb 21, 2006 9:29:31 GMT -6
That is only one class we are talking about. Overall, do we have enough sewing machines? Sometimes a class is overloaded because of the other classes the children are taking. Same with lunch periods.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Feb 21, 2006 10:02:41 GMT -6
Just the scheduling of class sections has to be a nightmare. Usually you drop a section due to low interest, but the opposite could be true just to fit into the schedule. I am not willing to jeopordize anyone's educational path. Curriculum will suffer. What used to be 4 kids dissecting on a frog, will now be 8 (not enough supplies) or the department budget cannot support the number of increasing students, sewing machines, microscopes, whatever equipment is needed. Also, repairs to that equipment will have to happen more often because of more use. That usually comes out of the department budget. 24 microscopes to be repaired can run $$$.
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 10:44:23 GMT -6
The same goes for Hill with things like the science labs. You know how we used to have lab partners? They have lab quartets. At some point, standing around while 4 kids take turns doing acid/base experiments or dissecting takes away from the interest level of the project. It is like running hockey drills where kids are standing in line 1/2 the practice. It is not the best way to teach or learn. Simply stated, the facilities are not meant to accomodate that number of students, and there is nothing you can do to make that so, short of adding additional facilities or adjusting the number of kids that can participate.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 10:49:40 GMT -6
The same goes for Hill with things like the science labs. You know how we used to have lab partners? They have lab quartets. At some point, standing around while 4 kids take turns doing acid/base experiments or dissecting takes away from the interest level of the project. It is like running hockey drills where kids are standing in line 1/2 the practice. It is not the best way to teach or learn. Simply stated, the facilities are not meant to accomodate that number of students, and there is nothing you can do to make that so, short of adding additional facilities or adjusting the number of kids that can participate. The premise I thought was to offload the 'increase' that's coming. If that happens, and the new school gets the proper amount of facilities and materials (assuming the $$ doesn't have to go to construction cost overruns or land price increases {yeah right}) then it means without a materials budgetary increase, the problem *STILL* exists for the current facilities w/ the current materials. Are you saying that the class sizes are actually going to DROP as the larger populations come through and if so does the 1 kid / class drop make the existing problem go away?
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 11:04:33 GMT -6
The same goes for Hill with things like the science labs. You know how we used to have lab partners? They have lab quartets. At some point, standing around while 4 kids take turns doing acid/base experiments or dissecting takes away from the interest level of the project. It is like running hockey drills where kids are standing in line 1/2 the practice. It is not the best way to teach or learn. Simply stated, the facilities are not meant to accomodate that number of students, and there is nothing you can do to make that so, short of adding additional facilities or adjusting the number of kids that can participate. The premise I thought was to offload the 'increase' that's coming. If that happens, and the new school gets the proper amount of facilities and materials (assuming the $$ doesn't have to go to construction cost overruns or land price increases {yeah right}) then it means without a materials budgetary increase, the problem *STILL* exists for the current facilities w/ the current materials. Are you saying that the class sizes are actually going to DROP as the larger populations come through and if so does the 1 kid / class drop make the existing problem go away? I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Trying to put 10 pounds of "whatever" in a 5 pound bag is precicely the problem. More kids need access than our facilities can accomodate. More facilities would allow a greater number of kids to participate in the proper manner. If a (2) HS science labs can hold 20 kids each and we've got 30 kids in each class (because clearly there are a limited # of laboratories in the school), moving 10 of the kids from each school over to a new school science lab doesn't solve the issue? The 3rd HS would have all the same features as our current schools, and of course would contain the necessary requirements of the standard 204 curriculum. If the standard curriculum has chemistry lab, the kids at the 3rd HS will have a chemistry lab and so on. I also am not really sure that the possibility that the project might go over budget should be part of a needs discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 11:15:00 GMT -6
If you have 4 kids at a station, you would need to move half (not 1/3) of the kids to 'solve' the problem and get back to 'lab partners' (2 kids per station). Moving 1/3 helps, but it does not 'solve' it in the example given.
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 11:36:52 GMT -6
The above was more to be considered a hypothetical situation, not based on the 4 kids per bunsen burner problem specifically. Maybe there are 40 kids in that class and it is built for 20.
I wasn't really understanding what your thoughts were re. additional facilities not being able to solve the issue. "Offloading the increase" is solved of course with additional facilities, but clearly if current issues exist, the 3rd HS addresses those as well, because of size and number of students it can accomodate. I don't think anyone is saying that space is needed for 3000 new or "increase" students. That would imply that someone is projecting 8000 (current) plus 3000 (3rd HS capacity). No one is projecting 11,000+ HS enrollment numbers. The 3rd HS would offload the increase while also having the ability to offload the existing students already in the system.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 11:41:00 GMT -6
What I'm trying to say (and admittingly, it's probably not coming out right) is that if there exist material problems (or simple LACK OF) today, that problem will still exist even with a new HS because the referendum AS STATED does nothing for EXISTING facilities or EXISTING materials. Everyone talks of the 2009 referendum that will happen as well as the panacea for this. I'm saying "WHY WAIT 3 MORE YEARS" to solve a problem that people are claiming exists today. Should have stuck a much smaller budgetary increase on the ballot for this, or at least have one to put on Nov 06's ballot.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 21, 2006 11:45:14 GMT -6
I get what you are saying arch, but I do not think a referendum should be used to correct any lack of equipment for today's classes that needs to be addressed within the exisiting budget. If it is not, then we need to get on the SB/Admin to correct it.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 21, 2006 11:46:53 GMT -6
You are correct in the the 2009 referendum does nothing to address materials shortages today -- my guess is the SB feels if they put 2 referendums on the board today - that the NO vote only gets larger again -- even though part of the $124M referendum ( teachers and start up materials etc for the increased population ) still has to be handled regardless --
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 11:49:46 GMT -6
What I'm trying to say (and admittingly, it's probably not coming out right) is that if there exist material problems (or simple LACK OF) today, that problem will still exist even with a new HS because the referendum AS STATED does nothing for EXISTING facilities or EXISTING materials. Everyone talks of the 2009 referendum that will happen as well as the panacea for this. I'm saying "WHY WAIT 3 MORE YEARS" to solve a problem that people are claiming exists today. Should have stuck a much smaller budgetary increase on the ballot for this, or at least have one to put on Nov 06's ballot. OK, that makes sense now. If existing facilites are not even meant to accomodate the student capacity of the buildings, that's a different problem. I am making an assumption that some of the problems don't have to do with the number of facilities but rather the number of students that need to access those facilities. If we don't have enough lab stations in the main campuses for example to even accomodate a 3000 student body in an appropriate manner, that is an issue that deserves more research. How can we figure that out?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 11:57:04 GMT -6
Which "we" are 'we' speaking of: The Royal 'we', the Editorial 'we' or the patronizing 'we' ?
Ideally a direct question to the teachers would be most accurate in my opinion. They are the ones who would have the most intimate knowledge of exactly what we're talking about. Employees can be hesitant to talk candidly sometimes though depending on the work atmosphere, so that's obviously something that also needs to be taken into account.
A plan may be to start w/ the school roster and phone numbers and/or email addresses... but at the same time.. Isn't this something someone should be getting paid to do within the District anyways?...Whose job it is to be on top of these things...?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Feb 21, 2006 12:05:03 GMT -6
At the high school level, you have department heads who would readily know those answers.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 21, 2006 12:18:47 GMT -6
IMO, it is us, the public, who need to be on top of things.
|
|