Budgeteer Letters to the Editor - July 19, 2009Tony Stauber proposes an alternate to the Red Plan and Plan B.
Proposing a better educational option for less money
Taxpayers, note what Ralph Doty observed in a recent Budgeteer: Design for remodeling of schools requires engineers and architects, yet many make suggestions not from a professional standpoint but from NIMBY-ism.
Wasn’t Plan B proposed to require a vote on spending? Why is it a postponement of the inevitable?
We have almost 40 percent more space than needed, wasting millions of dollars every year.
Professionals plan what is directed by the school board; our board directed something unreasonable and we got the Red Plan.
Doty was right: The Red and B plans cost about the same, and neither has funding for programs.
I’m not an engineer or architect; I am simply a knowledgeable educator objectively evaluating and recommending a plan acceptable to the taxpayer. Any plan will solicit negative comments, especially NIMBY-ism.
This plan reflects something reasonable and affordable — which the taxpayers deserve.
To save more than $50 million, direct the professionals to use a K-6, 7-9 and 10-12 configuration.
Remodel East and Denfeld as they stand and control parking by policy. Remodel one of the three western junior high schools to use as the Western Junior High. Use Ordean as the Eastern Junior High. Continue refitting elementary schools to fit population trends. Close suggested schools, assuring that every vocational program now at SVC is absorbed in the two high schools, or leave it as is.
By remodeling secondary schools, the total cost will be reduced by tens of millions. Recommend an additional operational levy to reinstate the seven-period day, provide more electives, update textbooks and equipment, stabilize class size and maintain co-curricular and extra-curricular programs. Isn’t that what any good long-range plan should do: give students a complete educational experience, in a safe building, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer? This plan would do just that, cost less than $100 million; but, as usual, even though this is a good, common-sense plan, the board will ignore it. But the taxpayer will know one exists.