Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 51 of 51

Thread: Should the School Committee be in the "override business?"

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TracyScheidemantel View Post
    So now that you are aware that there are a "handful of spaces" which were truly not used for the classes they were designed, do you agree that "we should do something about it"?
    Not at all.

    Here's what I said:
    "If there were a handful of spaces at each school that were truly unused we'd want to do something about it."

    Here's how you represented what I said:
    "...there are a "handful of spaces" which were truly not used for the classes they were designed"

    Not everything is a classroom.

    Feel free to use these graphics showing Claypit Hill, this year and next, to demonstrate where the wasted space was that will be better utilized next year.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexia Obar View Post
    Tracy

    I have to say I am not too familiar with the CH classroom situation but I don't think having actual classrooms for Technology is an extra.
    Like I said, if needs have changed, that is another discussion. But people think when an empty classroom absorbs another use, that it becomes designated for that...it does not. The guidelines used for determining how many class sections a school can hold, goes directly to how many classrooms are designated for such use. So there may very well be a case for Tech. or other needs to be reassigned to a classroom space, but until that discussion takes place, capacity is still based on classroom space. Some might say we have been lucky to have had empty classrooms in which to enjoy space for such needs. It seems wrong to "kick them out", but they were only there temporarily until we needed the classroom space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexia Obar View Post
    Also the incoming k students from what I hear is larger than predicted which means this level of overcrowding will continue.
    I have not heard that k is larger, but even still, you can't say overcrowding will continue based on that alone. There are shifts in other grades as they work through the system that need to be factored in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexia Obar View Post
    I understand that there was a need for belt tighting they just picked the wrong ones in my opinion and there were other choices that weren't well explored. ...my choice would have been to decrease the amount of bussing and think creatively until we came to a time when we really could move to the 2 1/2 school model or better yet group the grades which actually saved the most money.
    I'm curious what you think would've been the "right" belt tightening choices that weren't explored and how we would've decreased bussing. I think some see the ES reconfig. as a creative solution and believe we actually can move to the 2 1/2 model--maybe crowded, but I think that if we can keep our great teachers, that will make all the difference.

    Re: the grade grouping, the SC raised this possibility and MANY people came to the mtgs to speak out against it. I think the only support I heard came from those in the teaching profession who understand the logistical and curricula benefits of having a districts grade level housed together.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    We're going from the SC and Administration's recommended target of 84% capacity up to close to 100% in each school.
    EDIT - (Sorry, that's incorrect! I don't know what we're going from. 84% represents the recommended target - that's what I meant to say!)
    I'm curious about the source of your 100% assertion. By my calculation back in June, we'll be in the area of 90% at both Claypit Hill and Happy Hollow. Do you disagree with any of my assumptions? Is the logic of my approach incorrect? Is there an error in my calculation? Or are you simply ignoring what I've put together?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    Do you disagree with any of my assumptions?
    Frequently!

    Without going back and looking it up, so these may be off by a point or two, there are two sets of numbers I remember hearing:

    92% CH, 96% HH and 96% CH, 104% HH.

    The first set was from the SC, the second from a parent who'd based it on something from the DOE.

    Either one is bad.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Frequently!
    Okay, which capacity assumptions don't you buy?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Without going back and looking it up, so these may be off by a point or two, there are two sets of numbers I remember hearing:

    92% CH, 96% HH and 96% CH, 104% HH.

    The first set was from the SC, the second from a parent who'd based it on something from the DOE.

    Either one is bad.
    Regarding the WSC numbers, perhaps you can pull out the video. I ran those calculations, and I don't recall any other members doing so. They were 87% CH and 92% HH. Later, on my own, with updated school enrollment numbers, I estimated 90% and 90%. That's a lot more than "a point or two" different. I showed all my work. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine, but please provide a bit more basis than "I remember hearing." If I'm incorrect, I'll have no trouble saying so.

    As for the DOE numbers, I remember something on the order of of 96%/104% as well. I looked on the DOE site, but couldn't find the reference. I'd like to take a look at it, though--please pass it along.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Feel free to use these graphics showing Claypit Hill, this year and next, to demonstrate where the wasted space was that will be better utilized next year.
    Looks to me like the following will occur (I'm working from the bottom entrance clockwise):
    1. Conference Rm becomes OT/PT
    2. Rm 110 (blank) becomes classroom
    3. Rm 130 becomes a class again (library adopted this empty classroom space)
    4. Rm 126 (Tech rm #2) becomes classroom again
    5. Rm 124 (SPED rm #2) becomes classroom
    6. Rm 116 (blank) becomes classroom
    7. Tech rm #1 remains as the Tech Rm
    8. Tech rm #3 becomes Resource classroom
    9. Blank rm (under rm 107) becomes Guidance
    10. Blank rm above BASE becomes Conf. rm
    11. Rm 106 (OT/PT) becomes Ms. Cote's room
    12. Conf rm near art becomes OT/PT


    So as I see it (and it wasn't easy to see!!) 5 classrooms are back to classrooms. I don't think anyone would say the space was "wasted". Of course it was very useful. Again, nobody is saying this is GOOD, but until space needs are reassigned (do we need more SPED, Tech, etc. room), or enrollment rises enough, it is certainly a reasonable option. And a good lesson to all of us in checking the facts before saying there are no empty rooms.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •