2 responses to “Board Moves Toward Central HS Renovation”

1. 

   admin April 7th, 2009 at 19:20

   We received this comment:

   Eric:

   It sounds as if you are quite satisfied with the addition to Central. I was shocked to see this “sewing on of the head of the monster” pass so quickly. I see coaches being a main proponent followed closely by the new theatre proponents. Neither of these two parties address the real problem at Central which is overcrowding and annonymity for our students.

   Making the problem bigger and spreading it out is both shocking and irresponsible. Research shows that making a campus
   larger only alienates students at a greater rate.

   The idea of the Megacampus was more or less created on the west and east coast of the United States beginning in the 1960’s and 1970’s to incorporate a more qualified pool of athletes to build high school dynasties and fuel competition. Is this what we are thinking? Most assuredly we are not an athletic dynasty and even if we were academics and school loyalty are what fuel a real high school.

   It seems as though that elephant in the room has now diminished into a mouse and overcrowding can be remedied by building a facility that will be able to accomodate 3,000 students. Hurray! Overcrowding solved.

   Education and ranching have one thing in common. Neither allows you to place too many living, breathing, bodies on a piece of ground and be successful in your outcome. In both cases the inhabitants require both food and nurturing to grow. When these two items are spread too thin disaster often results. Whether it’s a starving animal or a student that feels anonymous and drops out, the results are the same. Teenagers need attention not gymnasiums and theatres. They have names just like us, and identities.

   I realize that this may be seen as a victory for some. I also realize that Central needs renovations to a certain extent. What I don’t understand is a community’s lack of response to “sewing the head on Frankenstein”.

   I see some merit to a ninth grade wing, I taught and coached ninth graders they need some space to find themselves. However this large of a campus will only spell failure for the future of many. Students such as our Native population and our high risk students will find more alternatives to attending school (yes even with the new law).

   An administrator once told me, you worry too much, the cream will always rise to the top. What this wise administrator failed to understand is, though the cream is rich and tastes good, it is the milk that is the life force for our world.

   A third campus with a restructuring of our boundaries is the only responsible way of addressing our problem, whereas band aids (no punn intended) and placebos will not cure an epidemic of annonymity among our youth.

   Let’s check out the success rate of mega campuses around the country. It my understanding that our entire nation is struggling with this issue of how we help our students succeed. A campus of 4,500 in Los Angeles does not necessarily mean we need to follow suit.

   As we have seen in the past it is often wiser to forge your own path rather than follow someone elses. We need to implement what all of our students need not the few. Hot shot athletes along with theatre and band kids seldom lack the coping skills that others need to thrive in a overcrowding situation.

   The money that MGT stated would finish this project was 38 million dollars. I realize the phases of the project, but the final was this figure I believe. That is one hell of a lot of money for an already existing facility, is it not? Build new and alleviate overcrowding in the only sensible and responsible way. Stop patting each other on the back for a job not well done, let Frankenstein be, don’t awaken him.

2. 

   Eric April 7th, 2009 at 19:31

   When I ran for the school board and during the entire time that I was on the board, I chastised my fellow board members and the administration for continuing to do nothing about the overcrowding at Central and even adding to the problem by allowing students to transfer in from out of the District to attend Central.

   It seemed to me that there were a lot of things the District could do to begin to fix the situation including: market Stevens to more 8th graders, especially at Dakota; redraw boundaries to move more students to Stevens, or create special programs at Stevens or other places that would tend to relieve the burden at Central.

   A number of board members pushed the administration for several years to develop a master plan for facilities because we thought the project-of-the-year process was not meeting the long-term needs of the students in our community. I was very pleased when we hired MGT. They seemed to have the right skill set. They worked to engage the public. The product and strategy they produced seemed reasonable.

   Unfortunately, while the board has referred to the study and used it to justify the effort with Central, to my knowledge, they have never taken a position on the study, adopted it officially, acknowledged whether the study’s sequence and timeline would be their timeline, or even given the public a clear indication of what the first couple of projects would be.

   A key part of MGT’s strategy was fix first, build second. They told the board you have to fix Central and you need a third high school. MGT’s strategy for the third high school was to build a smaller school, an alternative school (or a magnet school) on a piece of ground that would allow the district to expand it into a full-fledged high school someday.

   I liked this idea very much, and it appears that the District (and WDT) are quietly heading in this direction as they develop a technical high school at WDT. I don’t know how far they will go with this idea or what their timeline is, and since they haven’t been open with the public about their long-term goals, we haven’t had a chance to discuss the merits of this approach versus building a facility on the south side of town where the district has property.

   Again, I wish the District would be more public about these things, and my knowledge of what Pete Wharton and Craig Bailey are doing is very imperfect since I’m not on the board anymore.

   Compelled to accept the idea that Central has to be fixed first, I am most concerned about how big or all-inclusive the project should be? There are a couple of issues that come forward here: 1) what needs to get done to solve some of the academic issues (new science classrooms and a ninth grade wing are priorities in my mind); 2) what needs to get done to win political support (gym and theater here); 3) what can the district afford without jeopardizing the other projects that are in the MGT sequence.

   The District is arguing that building a third full-service high school would cost much more than fixing Central. I haven’t done the research to know for sure that that’s true, and we’ll get a chance to test that idea when they come back from Design Development and start putting together some real cost figures for what they have planned. I know some board members are working to resist any efforts to gold-plate the expansion.

   The bottom line for me is not that I see what’s been proposed for Central as the best alternative, I’m just trying to be pragmatic at this point. I see it as finally getting past the gridlock of the last ten years and offering something to the students who pass through that facility year after year and the staff who try to make the best of an inadequate facility.