At the PTA meeting, Ruth Adkins attended to talk about the various issues facing PPS. After the jump, there's more about what was discussed at the meeting. One good thing: Apparently the portable is definitely "in" for Rieke as well as several other schools in the district.
She is going to address the budget; stimulus, capital plan, and talk about various action items. Rick H. asked Q's re splitting funding between high schools and elementary schools. Sup't Smith is going to report on staffing formula proposals between the various schools. They're not at that point yet.
Big issue is cuts in state budget. Risk is that it may be as much as $20M for this year; next year is going to be at least as bad, even if it goes well. State probably won't make decisions until June, so PPS may be in a situation where they have to have a "budget A" and "budget B," with the latter a worst-case scenario. Risk is $25-35 million next year. Supt. Smith said that they "cannot protect the classroom," so there will be a combination of layoffs, program cuts, and more days off. See her presentation here.
At the federal level, the Senate pulled out education funds; to get the money back,
it would be great for people to call their representatives in Congress. At this point, the House is the best hope -- Rep. David Wu is 202-225-0855.
Once we get to the point of making PPS-specific budget decisions (which will be much easier with federal money, if it comes through), there is a "listening session" on 2/26 at Wilson, 7:00pm. Come and share views, and learn more about the budget (the state will have updated budgets by that point).
Part of the discussion regarding budget cuts will obviously require labor involvement; for more on that topic, see this page. On school year length, we do need an exception / waiver from state to go shorter, but Oregon is already short and we really need to try and avoid that -- but it might not be possible.
On facilities: Last night, PPS established a capital fund for the first time in a long time. Capital money is separate from general operations fund. They will borrow against cash on hand at the moment, and raise some for basic needs; $25M will fix roofs, get some portables including one here at Rieke (see p. 11 in the Board book from the 2/9 meeting here); prepare planning for bond funds -- "momentum work." There's still a lot of urgent work.
PPS has $87M in "shovel ready" projects that could be implemented within 18 months; that's out of $270M.
In terms of budget crisis, closure of schools is not on the table. Esp. at K-8 level -- if anything, we're overcrowded. On school size issue, it's a little moot because the newer buildings will look very different than "a school of size x." Very flexible space. Mixed use, etc., will help with flexibility. Conventional wisdom is still 400-500, but Ruth says she tries to remind the staff that we're not a cookie cutter district. Sup't Smith is from an alternative education background, which helps a little bit.
Nominating committee (Cathy, Cindy) report: "We need to fill an awful lot of spots." Need to fill all but Treasurer (Dick has indicated a willingness to stick around).
Rieke run -- Charlene wants to do "Run for Technology." Wants new computers. Maintain some art in the school. Something more low-key. Still keep art in school , but not as big. April 29th / Rain Date May 6. Principal Russell indicated that they don't have a particular plan for which computers to use, other than one supported by the district, and other than a general need for laptops (or something else that's consistent with the electrical system in the lab). After the run, there may be a further meeting to discuss this issue.
Principal Russell indicated that we should have staffing from the district assigned in the first weeks of March. That's when we will need to make further decisions regarding tradeoffs. At K roundup, we have 57 Rieke addresses, or siblings of current students. That number will increase (might lose 5, gain 20, based on history). Should be 3 full day.
Cindy Duley -- not enough interest for a spring play here; but Capitol Hill and Bridlemile will take people.
Lisa Nelson -- will create a "service club" here at Rieke. Idea is parents, kids and siblings will come one day a month; first project -- March 2 -- will be to help create cards to take along for Meals on Wheels. Will announce in Rapper. We will also help do a food drive for Neighborhood House following on the March 2 meeting. Some funding / supplies will come from various community groups that already do this work. Assistance, perhaps, with dropoff of cans in the morning might be useful. Principal Russell pointed out that there is a project "Second Wind" that's done a food drive in the past, and Sturges plans to do it again this year.
12th Preschool Story Hour
26th Listening Session
26th Science Fair 6:30-8:00
26th Listening Session on Budget at Wilson 7:00.
March 10 next PTA meeting
Showing posts with label School Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label School Board. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
... or no portables
Despite the below post, Charlene announced at the January PTA meeting that apparently PPS is now -- something out of the blue, from my perspective -- considering not providing an additional portable at Rieke next year. The budget gaps are part of the problem, of course. Obviously, such a decision, if it holds, would be fundamentally inconsistent with the District's endorsement of the Rieke growth plan. Based at least on our observations of the surrounding neighborhood, it will be a full kindergarten class next year, and it wouldn't take much to fill three K classes once again. But if we don't have another classroom -- i.e., if we don't have enough space to add the third 2nd grade class (as well as three 1st and K classes) -- there's nowhere to put the kids while maintaining space for enrichment.
So that means probably no transfers -- and limited growth. Depending on the numbers, it may even be that it will mean that we can't guarantee a full day K. We'll see how this plays out over the next couple of months.
Permalink / Read More ...
So that means probably no transfers -- and limited growth. Depending on the numbers, it may even be that it will mean that we can't guarantee a full day K. We'll see how this plays out over the next couple of months.
Rebuilding / Prioritization Delay; Portables?
As I discussed in this post, the School District is currently working on prioritizing the "21st Century" school rebuilding projects. That prioritization was originally expected in late winter of this year; the School Board now appears to have decided to put that decision off until the District is finished with its comprehensive review of the high school system in the district. (See here for more information from the Finance committee.) So the prioritizing won't be happening for at least another year.
On the "good news" front, the Finance committee and staff also presented the district with a budget for "short term / interim" facility expenditures. Both the long and the "short list" of those expenditures includes two portables for Rieke (at $320K each) -- consistent with the belief that the school will continue to grow. (BUT see the next post up...)
Permalink / Read More ...
On the "good news" front, the Finance committee and staff also presented the district with a budget for "short term / interim" facility expenditures. Both the long and the "short list" of those expenditures includes two portables for Rieke (at $320K each) -- consistent with the belief that the school will continue to grow. (BUT see the next post up...)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Capital Projects and "The Long Wait"
On occasion around Rieke, I hear discussions about the possibility of engaging in "capital improvements" at the school. Whether this is "front entrance" improvements, renovated playgrounds, or replacing the soccer field, one typical response to these proposals is "well, if the school gets rebuilt, won't any capital improvement go to waste anyway?" While this may be true, I don't think that it should foreclose us from looking -- seriously -- into this kind of substantial improvements at the school. This is true primarily because I remain skeptical -- perhaps too skeptical -- about when a "new" Rieke is likely to come to pass. After the jump, I'll explain why.
As was reported earlier in the year, Rieke is one of ten schools that deserve, in the District's eyes, a "total rebuild." What wasn't well reported in that discussion, however, is that this conclusion does not mean that the school is on the "top ten" list for the district's priorities. Let me repeat that: The conclusion that Rieke and ten other schools should be replaced when the time comes DOES NOT mean that Rieke is on the "top ten" list for capital improvements. Instead, it simply means that when the time comes to repair, renovate, or otherwise fix up the school, the district has concluded that it makes sense to replace it. This is primarily a function of community desire and the relative cost of repair to the cost of a new school. There may well be other schools that are higher on the priority list -- even if those schools will be "fully renovated" or "fully modernized" rather than entirely rebuilt.
How will the district assess which schools to prioritize? This is part of the district's current discussion -- which appears to have been resolved, at least in principle, at the October 13 Board meeting -- about setting criteria for reconstruction. (The proposed criteria are listed at pages 15-18 of the Board Meeting Book for October 13; see also this list of proposed criteria from a month before. ETA: The board has adopted new criteria substantially similar to these; I'll discuss them in a later post.) The criteria include several factors that the staff will consider when establishing priorities for the reconstruction of the district's schools. (I'm going to comment more on one of those criteria -- "fulfilling prior commitments" -- in a later post.)
Based on my observation of the Board, staff, and the facilities process, it is apparent to me that the most important of these criteria is the "Facility Cost Index" -- which is the "ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school." See the definition on this page. The higher the ratio, the more pressing the need to replace the school, and the easier it is going to be to do it. (Note that in this context, "replacing the school" basically means "doing all the necessary capital improvements, whether they take the form of renovation, modernization, or construction of an entirely new building.") It's for this reason that I've heard district staff suggest that the FCI will be a substantial, if not overwhelming, factor in the setting of criteria for school rebuilding.
So where does Rieke stand when it comes to the FCI? As far as I know, the only public information on the web is in this chart. As you will note, this preliminary chart from early in 2008 has some red highlighted numbers that (1) highlight schools that have enrollments under 400, and (2) highlight schools with an FCI above 59% or so. As you will note, Rieke's FCI is high, but not that high compared to a number of other schools. I see 23 schools and other buildings with FCIs above 59%, and Rieke is 18th on that list.
Now, I should note that there are only 8 schools that have enrollments of under 400 AND that have FCIs over 59%. Rieke is one of those, and maybe that suggests that if both of those considerations enter into the analysis, Rieke might be higher on the priority list than I expect. But I doubt that will be the case. Not least of my concerns is the fact that as enrollment increases, we're likely going to require a second (and maybe even a third) portable classroom in the next couple of years. Once the district makes that commitment -- particularly if they are new portables -- I can easily see the district arguing that "Rieke is all set" on space, and then focus their attention on other schools. (Indeed, the fact that the district would be willing to put portables at our school strongly suggests that the District doesn't think that there's much risk of losing their investment in all of the site improvements that go along with placing new portables.)
So what's the net result of all this for Rieke? In my view, at least, it means that barring some dramatic change, we are probably at least a decade away from any "new" permanent building here. At best, it seems like the school is likely to be in a second bond measure, rather than a first (my impression is that we're likely to do at most 10-12 buildings at a time). Even that seems questionable to me given the commitment of portables we're going to need here. And even if Rieke is in one of the early bond measures, it's probably at least 3 years away, and then there is all the site planning, design, and preparation to do before making the commitment to actual reconstruction. My guess: 10 years, at least, before groundbreaking on a "new" Rieke building.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But for all the above reasons, then, I think it would be very shortsighted to simply say "let's stop talking about any capital improvements at the school." I think that a major rebuild at Rieke will be a fairly long time coming, and most of the capital improvements that I've heard proposed have been improvements that will likely themselves need replacement or renovation in 10 years or so. So there's no harm in making every effort to make Rieke the best place it can possibly be at any given moment. We certainly shouldn't stop making efforts to try and make the improvements that matter. If those efforts pan out, and we get to the point of being able to make a major decision to commit funds for a new playground or field or ...., we can double-check to make sure that nothing has changed in the criteria listing. If it has and things look better than I expect, we can hold off. But if, as I expect, we're many, many years from a full rebuild, we do more harm by waiting. So my vote, at least, is to develop those projects and seize parental and community initiative while we can.
See you around the school...
Permalink / Read More ...
As was reported earlier in the year, Rieke is one of ten schools that deserve, in the District's eyes, a "total rebuild." What wasn't well reported in that discussion, however, is that this conclusion does not mean that the school is on the "top ten" list for the district's priorities. Let me repeat that: The conclusion that Rieke and ten other schools should be replaced when the time comes DOES NOT mean that Rieke is on the "top ten" list for capital improvements. Instead, it simply means that when the time comes to repair, renovate, or otherwise fix up the school, the district has concluded that it makes sense to replace it. This is primarily a function of community desire and the relative cost of repair to the cost of a new school. There may well be other schools that are higher on the priority list -- even if those schools will be "fully renovated" or "fully modernized" rather than entirely rebuilt.
How will the district assess which schools to prioritize? This is part of the district's current discussion -- which appears to have been resolved, at least in principle, at the October 13 Board meeting -- about setting criteria for reconstruction. (The proposed criteria are listed at pages 15-18 of the Board Meeting Book for October 13; see also this list of proposed criteria from a month before. ETA: The board has adopted new criteria substantially similar to these; I'll discuss them in a later post.) The criteria include several factors that the staff will consider when establishing priorities for the reconstruction of the district's schools. (I'm going to comment more on one of those criteria -- "fulfilling prior commitments" -- in a later post.)
Based on my observation of the Board, staff, and the facilities process, it is apparent to me that the most important of these criteria is the "Facility Cost Index" -- which is the "ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school." See the definition on this page. The higher the ratio, the more pressing the need to replace the school, and the easier it is going to be to do it. (Note that in this context, "replacing the school" basically means "doing all the necessary capital improvements, whether they take the form of renovation, modernization, or construction of an entirely new building.") It's for this reason that I've heard district staff suggest that the FCI will be a substantial, if not overwhelming, factor in the setting of criteria for school rebuilding.
So where does Rieke stand when it comes to the FCI? As far as I know, the only public information on the web is in this chart. As you will note, this preliminary chart from early in 2008 has some red highlighted numbers that (1) highlight schools that have enrollments under 400, and (2) highlight schools with an FCI above 59% or so. As you will note, Rieke's FCI is high, but not that high compared to a number of other schools. I see 23 schools and other buildings with FCIs above 59%, and Rieke is 18th on that list.
Now, I should note that there are only 8 schools that have enrollments of under 400 AND that have FCIs over 59%. Rieke is one of those, and maybe that suggests that if both of those considerations enter into the analysis, Rieke might be higher on the priority list than I expect. But I doubt that will be the case. Not least of my concerns is the fact that as enrollment increases, we're likely going to require a second (and maybe even a third) portable classroom in the next couple of years. Once the district makes that commitment -- particularly if they are new portables -- I can easily see the district arguing that "Rieke is all set" on space, and then focus their attention on other schools. (Indeed, the fact that the district would be willing to put portables at our school strongly suggests that the District doesn't think that there's much risk of losing their investment in all of the site improvements that go along with placing new portables.)
So what's the net result of all this for Rieke? In my view, at least, it means that barring some dramatic change, we are probably at least a decade away from any "new" permanent building here. At best, it seems like the school is likely to be in a second bond measure, rather than a first (my impression is that we're likely to do at most 10-12 buildings at a time). Even that seems questionable to me given the commitment of portables we're going to need here. And even if Rieke is in one of the early bond measures, it's probably at least 3 years away, and then there is all the site planning, design, and preparation to do before making the commitment to actual reconstruction. My guess: 10 years, at least, before groundbreaking on a "new" Rieke building.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But for all the above reasons, then, I think it would be very shortsighted to simply say "let's stop talking about any capital improvements at the school." I think that a major rebuild at Rieke will be a fairly long time coming, and most of the capital improvements that I've heard proposed have been improvements that will likely themselves need replacement or renovation in 10 years or so. So there's no harm in making every effort to make Rieke the best place it can possibly be at any given moment. We certainly shouldn't stop making efforts to try and make the improvements that matter. If those efforts pan out, and we get to the point of being able to make a major decision to commit funds for a new playground or field or ...., we can double-check to make sure that nothing has changed in the criteria listing. If it has and things look better than I expect, we can hold off. But if, as I expect, we're many, many years from a full rebuild, we do more harm by waiting. So my vote, at least, is to develop those projects and seize parental and community initiative while we can.
See you around the school...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)