Steve Colarossi is the BOE Finance Committee Chairman.
As Chairperson of the Board of Education’s Finance Committee, I consider it my duty to explain the actions of the Committee as the comments posted by Mrs. Haynie do not fairly reflect our efforts. First, we have several schools that are over-crowded.
To assist us in assessing what the efforts should be to reduce this overcrowding, a competitive bid process was undertaken so that a firm would be hired to evaluate our elementary schools. The result was that Partners for Architecture was retained to study each elementary school and evaluate if, within current attendance districts, future population estimates warranted consideration of school expansion plans.
In any multivariate analysis, there must be some constants—the analytical tool fancied by Mrs. Haynie in which every conceivable and inconceivable potentiality is evaluated and factored simply does not exist.
In my opinion, the analysis undertaken is a fair assessment of future population shifts.
In my opinion, the experts retained by the Board of Education were well-versed in assessing the current data and developing an appropriate model to assess future population trends. The result was that we can expect several areas of Norwalk to see growth in the population of school-age children.This growth necessitates school expansion.
Secondly, there are significant studies that have examined the critical role a child’s physical environment has on his education—that is why I was such a vocal proponent in 2009 for the timely ordering of portable classrooms for Naramake. I knew that overcrowding, and using classrooms without adequate natural lighting, would have a profound impact on educational attainment. Therefore, expanding those schools which are currently over-crowded, and in which over-crowding is expected to continue, must be a priority. It is critical to student achievement.
Third, pre-school education is critical to our students. he program locations are not fungible, particularly for the typical-atypical programs. Therefore, there is simply no logic to suggesting that they can be moved without any analysis of the costs of retrofitting classrooms, designing physical therapy and occupational therapy facilities and training staff for the inclusion of these students.
School-based pre-school programs have been proven to close the achievement gap. Reducing or impinging those programs will undermine student achievement and should not be considered.
Fourth, the plan does not neglect Jefferson. Jefferson is blessed with an amazing principal, motivated staff and a student body that is making tremendous gains. If Jefferson were to become an entirely lottery-based magnet school, all overcrowding issues could be resolved. However, there is a significant neighborhood population that attends that school. Therefore, before there can be a final proposal for expansion and renovation of Jefferson, there must be critical dialogue with the community served by this school—which appears to be the process advocated by the critics of the capital budget proposal.Yet, the capital budget opponents use the lack of this community dialogue as a basis to prevent ANY forward movement for the overcrowded non-magnet schools.that facilitates capital (read: bricks and mortar) projects.
Our children deserve schools that are not over-crowded and we have the means to borrow a modest sum of money to take our analysis of needed school expansion to a logical next step.
Sixth, although many posters provided some detailed suggestions about operating budget reductions, the capital budget is an entirely separate matter. Capital funds cannot be used for operating expenses. Therefore, whether or not we expend $1.5 Million on elementary school projects will not impact the current operating budget.
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the author not NorwalkNet.com
Monday, December 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Bravo Steve, we can always count on you to dot the i's and cross the t's. Thanks for your thorough response.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many schools who have been achieving more with less. My comments are not meant to pit one school against another, but to serve as an eye opening moment for Ms. Haynie. For instance, both Naramake and Rowayton school enrollment has exploded because they are in growing neighborhoods. They are both positive learning communities and have been doing more with less all along. Art on a cart, strings class in a closet -- whatever was needed for the kids. The staff should be commended at these schools for the success they have achieved with little budgetary support from NPS.
These schools are in neighborhoods that are experiencing population growth -- that's the reality Ms. Haynie. Jefferson deserves further analysis, so why doesn't she make analyzing Jefferson's needs her project? I'm certain they are in need of repairs, additions, etc., but at the 11th hour, to throw Jefferson's building into the mix is unfair to other schools who have been doing more with less for far too long. Jefferson has a great future ahead -- spend some time figuring out if they're a magnet school or a neighborhood school -- then present your findings to Norwalk. We will all be there to listen.
I am not certain what schools have been doing without for so long. There is relatively no open property to build on in Norwalk so school populations will obviously flucuate depending on property ownershop.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is the time to spend money on buildings what don't need to be built or paying for studies to be conducted to determine if buildings should be build. I think my teachers have more an impact on my child's education than the amount of natural sunlight they receive.
Come on Steve. Take a look at your community. There is alot of pain out there - homes that have been foreclosed... even the shelters are laying off people.
We need to work with our unions to determine how we can together sustain and hopefully improve our educational system. We also need to make that we are using our current facilities properly including reviewing out of district. Class size might not be optimum but is certainly something that can be overcome if our hands are not tied.
Thank you Sue for your representation.
Dear 'Parent' not Politician,'
ReplyDeleteYou sure sound like a politician to me. Now we have BOE members arguing in a public forum. Please get your act together behind closed doors. Work together, not opposed to one another.
A REAL parent, not politician
I don't get why the last 2 people attacked attack the elected official who defended the work of a school board committee he works on with Jack and Glenn. I for one am glad that Steve defended Jack and Glenn-- none of them shirked their duties (that's what Sue said in her letters). They all are working hard.
ReplyDeleteThis was a courageous letter for a BOE member to write, although it did sound like Ms. Haynie doesn't understand the capital/operating budget distinction. Years ago I served on a School Facilities Committee appointed by the mayor to look at a similar problem. We recommended portable over bricks and mortar. If there was no discussin of restricting or use of portables, then the BOE members haven't discussed all the options.
ReplyDeleteYes grand poobah, its a capitol budget. An analysis conducted under the premise our grand list, affordable housing would explode exponetially with the planned construction that probably wont get off the ground fr a decade if ever, like super 7. So Jefferson and couple others have few extra. Kids grow fast. High schools are where we are losing big time and we will be facing higher populations in those schools. An expansion are total replacement and rewrite of Briggs is certainly desperately needed. But what if we could get soem coperation from wilms and mocciae and instead of all thoses construction and archictect and processes get going, wouldnt it be wise to invest strategically and like super size our technology into the classrooms. Investing in bricks and motar when it is clear to all virtual classrooms are the future just seems so, out of touch. And Sue is absolutely correct to raise her concerns. Thats why I voted her in there to do. Ask questions, get answers and make logical decessions. Isnt that the platform Steve ran on? So whats the beef about? Marks is correct, lets get temps in that can fill the gaps and save us on the benefits for the interim. I was very skepticle of Dr. Marks before she arrived. She is very bright and is making things happen and derserves the entire communities support.Question to BOE, can we please give that 250 to Poleselli and start getting some tech in the classroom? And whats up with McMahon over there. The kids want to broadcast news and entertainment. They can broadcast with thier cell phones at no cost to the district. Why is their resistance. PUT McMAHON on the air NOW. And lets see some students on the BOE council. Lets get with it here people.
ReplyDeleteThe last comment suggests an interesting approach. Years ago, possibly under Sloan, there was student reprentation to the BOE. Elected student representatives met with the BOE maybe once a month and gave feedback as to what was happening in the high schools. Does this still exist?
ReplyDelete