Your math is wrong. The newest building is from 1972. The high school is 50 years old and every other building is closer to 60. Not lousy maintenance by a long shot. These buildings have served their purpose and are worn out. Whether the district was "high performing" or not, the buildings would still need to be replaced. Please get back to the issue of the report card.
The buildings are being replaced because they are old, outdated, and have served their purpose.The communities got their money's worth and now it is time to replace them with buildings for the next 50 years. That is a separate issue from the state report card. State report cards only show the obvious: Higher socio-economic communities score higher than lower socio-economic communities with tests and results designed by and for higher socio-economic communities. Winton Woods is doing a good job with the students it is mandated to educate. It is innovative in many ways and many students are receiving excellent educations and going on to do better things. State report cards are used by many to bash school districts for perceived poor results.That is unfair to the teachers, administrators, and the communities themselves. The fact is, the goals keeps changing and supposedly "good" districts get low marks in some areas because the state continually messes with the formula. To me, the "state report cards" merely reflect the challenges each district faces and it is unfair to use them as you do, as a way to shame and blame your local district. You could use the state report card to ask why Wyoming isn't perfect in every category, couldn't you? Report card data is good for some things but not for many others. It doesn't really reflect what actually goes on in schools and communities. There was no report card in the good old days so there is no way to compare then and now and to do so is unfair.
And you want to disband the school district. Was that thoughtful and caring about the students and families of Winton Woods? You were never on my "side." You have made that perfectly clear. Thanks for the negative comments.
All of the Catholic schools you mention are not my concern. I care about the students of Winton Woods who need better facilities and deserve the same level of infrastructure as other students in this region. The buildings in this district are old, inefficient, outdated, and too expensive to maintain. The cost of maintenance is nearly the same as the cost to build new buildings. These are not toys. These are educational facilities needed to provide the best educational opportunities for the students of the Winton Woods school district. The current buildings are 50+ years old. The notion that the district has not been a good steward of taxpayer money is false. Do I think new buildings will last more than 25 years under the current maintenance programs? You bet I do!
The deal on the table is the best deal there is. New buildings are needed to replace old, outdated, and worn out buildings. To not take advantage of this offer would be financially irresponsible on the part of the district. This deal is good for the children, the families, and the communities.
I think there is more to this story than anyone here will know. I don't think EQ told the whole story and anyone from the district is certainly not going to speak to this issue on this forum. I think that everyone is trying to read into this whatever it is they already believe and it shows nothing or proves nothing. Others can either continue to speculate or just forget about it.
I might say the same thing. The fact is, these buildings are worn out, the cost to maintain them is nearly as much as new buildings, they cannot hope to be relevant for 21st Century education, the state is offering the communities a good deal, and it would be a fiscal and economic mistake for them to not take advantage of the opportunity.
I think the district has done a very good job of maintaining buildings that are far past their expiration date. Again, the budget to repair is nearly as great as the cost for new buildings. Old buildings will continue to cost more just to keep the doors open never mind keeping them in pristine condition, which is impossible anyway. To suggest the district isn't doing all it can to maintain a decent learning environment for kids is unfair. The buildings are simply worn out. The newest building is over 40 years old and the facilities cannot hope to meet the educational needs of children in the 21st Century. I certainly care about the citizens of the communities. And I care for the children who will make up that next generation. I think the priority is for the future. The district cannot be held accountable for water, electric, and garbage collection and they shouldn't have to pay the price for those decisions made by others.
They have been doing this for years and it is costing more and more each year. It would be wrong to assume they are not. The buildings aren't neglected, they are worn out. The district is reaching the point where the cost of preventive maintenance is approaching the cost of new buildings. The state is offering 40% of the cost so the district gets new, 21st Century learning environments for all students at a 40% discount. That is a good deal. Preventive maintenance on new buildings will be far less than current costs.
If we turn down this offer we lose out on state money which includes taxes we have already paid. Which means we do not get back any of our money. We then pay 100% of any new construction in the future. That is not a good deal. What we have before us is a good deal. We are paying 60% and getting 100%. That is being fiscally responsible on the part of the district. The students need new buildings. The current buildings are costing more to maintain than building new. That is throwing good money after bad. That is not good for taxpayers. This is about buildings. Nothing more.
To my mind, the district has the students it has. There are no right or wrong students. The districts takes all students including many with many needs. That is the difference between a traditional public school and a private school. This is the challenge of the district which may or may not be the same as other districts. The issue isn't the students. The issue is the buildings. They are old and out of date and too expensive to maintain. No matter who the students are the buildings need to be replaced. They have served their purpose for 50+ years and now should be replaced with buildings going forward for the next 50+ years. Every student deserves a decent place to learn. The current buildings no longer meet that need and are costing more and more just to maintain. That is very inefficient and a poor use of taxpayer dollars. The buildings should be replaced. The state is offering a good deal and the communities should take advantage of that.
The fact is that the buildings are old and worn out. They no longer are adequate to provide what is needed for teachers to teach and students to learn going forward into the 21st Century. They served their purpose well for the mid- to late-20th Century but their effectiveness is past. The state is offering a fair incentive for new buildings. The cost to the communities for new buildings nearly matches what is being paid to maintain old and out-of-date buildings. The communities made the difficult decision to build the current buildings back in 1960 or so and now the communities are faced with this decision. I'm sure if the state had offered to pay 40% of the cost of buildings in 1960, residents would have jumped at it. Today's residents should see this opportunity for what it is: a good deal.