The letter posted here was published in the Rye Record on April 20th. The writer has asked for questions to be answered in a public forum by the School Board.
EDU 101 offers this space for other issues to be discussed and answered by the board. Any requests for an Umbrella Topic can be sent to ryeedu101@yahoo.com .
· What’s the rush? Which gym are we talking about? The one there or a new one?
· Have all other solutions been explored? Milton’s multi-purpose room was intended to function for some gym programs, but in actuality is a uni-purpose room – the cafeteria. Couldn’t a creative physical education program and dynamic administration techniques solve the space dilemma just as well as a new building?
· What’s the cost? This has been presented as a one-off expense, but it’s not. What’s the maintenance? When plant square footage increases, are we required by law to increase staff hours, salaries, etc.? How much green space does Milton lose - space that can never be reclaimed again? What’s the long-term cost when it comes to energy? With White Plains constructing a “Green” elementary school –the energy costs will pay for themselves in a decade – why is Rye proceeding apace with an outmoded design?
· Where’s the accountability? The last construction project at Milton ran into several hundreds of thousands of dollars in change orders. If this project proceeds, it will be the same firm, same supervision on site. Would anyone do home reconstruction this way? Isn’t it prudent to put aside money for a rainy day?
· What does the community think, particularly those who live on Hewlett Ave.? Most puzzling is to hear trustees imply that there must be parity when it comes to facilities for all three elementary schools. Now there’s a slippery slope! From who or where did that directive come? Is it law? If not, why is this policy without community discussion?
· Then there are the questions raised by listening to discussions about moving money from one budget line to another. If our money is fungible, why not put it where our values lie? What do we value? Educational initiatives, small classrooms, emergency funds, or more buildings? What kind of message does that send our children?
9 comments:
I see two fundamental questions about the Milton gym. First, is it important to have equivalent facilities for all of our students? Or is it okay that when weather and space conflicts prevent it, a group of students is forced to give up physical education?
Aside from the fact that State law requires that we provide physical education to all of our students, providing it on a consistent basis is the right thing to do. Students, particularly elementary school students, learn better when they have physical activity mixed in with academic, sedentary activity. That’s part of the argument for having recess. If the number of days of physical education is missed by Milton students was negligible (lets say less than 20 days/year or 10%), then there would be a clearer argument for deferring investment in a gym for Milton. But that’s not the case.
Second, is providing a gym the highest priority need for the district? No, but it is one of a set of high priorities that have been identified in the proposed budget. Others include
> Keeping class size within guidelines
> Fulfilling our commitment to special education students and state/federal mandated programs.
> Improving student performance in math
> Broadening the education of our student’s education (Elementary school foreign language; High School arts program)
Constructing a budget is a balancing act which involves identifying and meeting the set of highest priority needs while at the same keeping the cost of primary and secondary education to an affordable level.
Is it reasonable to link the needs of members of the community to pay for the repair of storm damage with the proposed School District budget? On a purely financial basis, perhaps the comparison is reasonable. But given that the proposed budget is expected to increase the typical Rye home owner’s property taxes by $656 this connection seems a bit stretched. Yes, $656 is not a trivial sum, but for most homeowners and business people who suffered storm damage, it won’t even cover the insurance (if they have coverage) deductible.
Bob, thank you for this well reasoned and well-expressed response. We can now begin to spread the word that this blog can be a commons for Rye and issues in education.
In the interest of keeping this post short, I will respond to only two of the statements. The first is those who are supporting the construction of a second gym for Milton School - remember, they already have a gym - are conflating the offering of physical education with a brand new gym. As someone who has taught "art in a cart" I can guarantee that if a teacher and administration believes in a program, the program will be offered. Not rain, nor hail, nor snow, nor sleet, nor dead of night, nor lousy budgets, will stop the program. What the public learns from those who argue for a gym, is that Milton's staff isn't committed to offering physical education unless the conditions are ideal.
Second, if the Board is really committed to equivalent facilities for all three elementary schools - which is debatable on its own - why rush into a gym when Milton does not have an auditorium? Are the taxpayers in for another surprise down the road when some Milton parents go through auditorium-envy?
And..here I go breaking my own rule...what about future expenses? Green building? Staffing?
Maybe some other Board members would like to take advantage of this public forum.
To address the two points reiterated:
Operational costs exist with all facilities. In the case of the gym, these would consist of utilities associated with lighting, heating and cooling the facility. There would also, probably, be some marginal cost for custodial work. I think it is quite reasonable to ask for an estimate of these "run" costs (which I will do), but I suspect that they are not material.
Related to the auditorium, if the gym is constructed, then Milton will have a gym, an auditorium, and a multi-purpose room as do each of the other two elementary schools.
Bob - again thanks. I'll keep this brief and hope we get more engaged in the dialog.
Last year I heard the energy costs for the RMS and RHS were $15,000 a month. Looking at the wasted space of the Milton atrium, the intended multi-purpose room (i.e. cafeteria), and the increase in all building costs, I am skeptical that the price will be not material.
Why isn't there a task force to address these issues?
It's possible that heating costs for the Middle and High school are $15,000, but I suspect that rate covers more than just heat. Note that the MS & HS are also presently using a temporary boiler for heat.
That said, the size of the MS/HS complex is many times larger than the gym so I still expect the "run" costs to not be material. I'll post them when I get them.
The utility facts are in:
HS/MS average costs:
- per month = $36,954
- per square foot per month = $0.16
Milton average costs:
- per month = $9,903
- per square foot per month = $0.14
If we assume the new gym is 5000 square feet (I think that's an over estimate), the cost per month would be approximately $715.49/month or $8,591.33 / year. While not zero, these would seem to be very, very small costs.
Thank you for the numbers. Those energy numbers are astonishing! Why is making a task force to "green" our school buildings not a priority? It could be done on a collaborative level, involving students with community members. Certainly more valuable on a resume than yet another AP class.
And of course all these numbers will change given the cover story on today's Metro section of the NY Times - Con Ed is seeking to raise rates 17% for homes and 10% for businesses.
Astonishing? I think so too, but because of how low the cost is given the usage the schools get. My comparative residential rate is about $0.05/square foot, significantly less than the district's cost, but my usage is also significantly lower than the district's.
To put in perspective the requested ConEd rate increase, if it fully applies at 17% to the District, that would raise the cost from about 14 cents / square foot / month to 16 cents / square foot / month, a total of $819 a month - at the outside. Not a pleasant increase, but again, for the capability provided with the gym, a very manageable charge.
This kind of focus - cost per square foot - is important, but not the place to stop asking questions. Our middle school softball schedule has a note on the bottom: "Let's think GREEN - arrange car pools." Let's pull together as a community and think sustainable.
Post a Comment