Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

School Facilities Conversation 9/27

136 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

"Time is of the essence as this one initiative works to solve the issue of facility costs- this is the simple decision - plain and clear."

Time is of the essene is one more example of we much pass this bill to find out what is in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The argument makes me uneasy - sounds like scared rabbits - like we better grab it while we can, because it might go away.  It's never a good idea to make business decisions based on fear - usually leads to regret.

Everyone I've talked to with any insider knowledge has said the state will offer more if we don't take this deal - and our own district's history backs that up - so why are we caving to less than half from the state when other districts have gotten much more?

You mention that we would feel foolish in the future if we don't take this deal now, but don't those who were pushing the deal the last go-around feel very foolish for wanting to take that low-ball offer from the state back then?  At that time, it was the same argument - we have to jump on this or it will go away (and I must admit, I fell for it too at the time) - but look at how worse off we would have been if the voters had taken that deal back then.  By not taking it, the state offered to pay for more.  It seems like everyone is ignoring how wrong those people were who were saying "This is our last chance" back then.  And considering the many districts who have gotten so much more kicked in from the state - I've heard that some have even had their new schools paid 100% by the state - why are we running scared?

Is there anyone with any real knowledge and not just speculation who can comment on this?  While I would like our students and communities to have beautiful new buildings, I'd rather wait a year or two and have the state pay for it than have taxpayers pay for it.  And that scenario would have the taxpayers' and community's support, rather than the divisiveness that is now going on. 

While I don't have a set-in-stone opinion on this yet since there are so many unanswered questions, it seems to me that the most beneficial thing for our district, and for our students, is to have a unified support system in place, and anything that can bring about unity and goodwill in our district and our community is what is needed most.  The goodwill generated by asking for less money from the taxpayers due to more funds being kicked in by the state is more valuable to the school district than having new buildings one year earlier.  In this case, the phrase "Patience is a virtue" may apply.  But as I said, I'm not sure since there is too much muddy information and some clarity is needed.

 

 

I don't know what additional information these insiders might have, but if that were the case I doubt the district would have this bond issue on the table at all. Why would they, if they knew there was a better deal at some undetermined future? I don't think anyone can really predict what might happen in Columbus with regard to these funds.

And again I say that interest rates are at their lowest. If the state offers more but the rate to borrow is higher isn't that a wash? We have been faced with this issue for several years now so I don't believe we can say we don't understand the issue and what is at stake despite the best efforts of some to muddy the waters.

It is about replacing old and out of date buildings with vastly more efficient facilities to carry this district well into the future. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Resolution

"The Bonds are expected to be issued on or about July 1, 2017, shall bear interest at the rate now estimated at four and forty hundredths percent (4.40%) per annum, and shall mature in substantially equal annual or semiannual installments over a period not exceeding thirty-seven (37) years after their issuance."

Not quite the low interest rate these days ThreeHats. Do you understand ThreeHats, by issuing Bonds the BOE is asking the tax paying public to place themselves in greater debt? The tax paying public will now owe a thirty seven year debt, transferable to any new home owner.

Edited by Mirth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

If you're uneasy -- then there's something wrong!

Would it be great to have new schools?  Sure.
Does it make sense from a taxpayer/community fiscal perspective?  No. 
Are there other options?  Yes.
What are they?  The district refuses to look at them.
Are there better options -- educationally and fiscally?  Probably.

So accepting what is only offered is silly.  They're counting on people to walk in blindly and hit the "yes" vote.  Total refusing to look at alternatives, listen to taxpayers or frankly not even willing to find out if there is something better for the kids and communities.  That's not right -- that's why you're uneasy!

 

  

Edited by Christine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Christine,

The taxpayer who is involved will know what is being debated, but the taxpayer who does not get involved right now does not know that they will be paying for 37 years.  That has not appeared anywhere in the literature.  It makes it sound like that is the only choice.  I hope that this is not the case but I feel a Chicago Election coming up.  This will not be the first one and I am afraid that it will not be the last one.

The Cincinnati Public, as it was presented in the Enquirer answers to taxpayers about the Bond Issue, if it did not work out for better results you can always not renew it after 5 years I believe it the length discussed...but we will not even have that choice.  37 long years which it is another mortgage to your property.

Which by the way, Princeton just announced that they had one Merit finalist and several semifinalists.  Imagine that! 

As I said to GG: "If you are not getting any answers to your questions that is your answer".

The Mad Botanist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You are incorrect. There has been several significant changes- namely the increase from state from $33 Million to $48.8 Million further lowering the local share and a question most worthy of new, vigorous debate.

There are many who do support, do trust and do honor the importance of strong public education. 

If the state buys into this district and they increased their contribution after a NO vote -- THEN -- vote NO on Issue #50 and see if it increases again!  I think Gambier Girl mentioned this somewhere. Even more reason to vote against it.  Let the state take over -- if they believe it's worthwhile then maybe they'll pay for the whole thing -- OR -- look at other alternatives (which is what should be done).

I think all of us understand the importance of strong public education.  The key word here is "strong".  That's where the district has fallen short.  The taxpayers have done their part -- the district needs to take responsibility for decisions which has led to the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Regarding the question as how to best handle the costs for aging facilities, there are several options. We can either fix existing building, renovate existing buildings, or take advantage of state co-funding.  The option to do nothing costs more than all other 3, and not just financially, but educationally.  The State of Ohio, as an independent agency, had stated that the cost to renovate existing buildings is greater than their formula of 67%- actually several buildings would be about 82% to renovate as compared to new construction, With the contribution from the state, this amount becomes more manageable locally. 

Guess the "real world" solutions realized by over 400 school districts in Ohio represent no imagination or poor insight?  Northwest schools recently passed their new school bond as another district who realized state funding is vital to offset the costs to our local taxpayers. 

Hold on one minute, Paula!

The passing of new bond issues to build new buildings offsets NOTHING to the taxpayer! Yours and the other Board members knowledge of economics is a detriment to ALL taxpayers. The level of ignorance is abhorrent. And, let me be clear: I didn't say stupidity. I said "ignorant" and there is a BIG difference.

You answer zero questions to you posed by many on this Board and carry on with stifling representations and grandstanding for other Board members to tow the line.

Here is just one simple question for you that have been asked by numerous other people on this site over the course of several years that NOT ONE SINGLE BOARD MEMBER FOR THE SCHOOL HAS ANSWERED: Why are nearly ALL of the Catholic Schools in this city over 50 years old yet still graduate a much higher percentage of students with a higher level of that education resulting in a higher ability to achieve later in life?

so, using the Board's and the State's own words - being that outdated buildings cannot provide a healthy learning environment - why does the data clearly show that students who attend these old buildings still produce students who are excelling academically?

I would LOVE to hear your answer.

Edited by Kris Danvers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just to clear things up, I didn't advocate for people to vote no as Christine suggested - I simply advocated for the board/administration to get all the information and not be rash in taking action in regard to our school district that can have long-term effects (both good and bad) for not only the students but also the taxpayers, and ultimately our entire community.  Since I have some connections in Columbus who are suggesting that the state would be willing to kick in more than what is currently being offered (and we have already seen the state do it once, so the proof is there that this is a reasonable outcome to expect), and since other school districts have gotten a much bigger chunk paid for by the state for new buildings (as much as 100%), I was simply asking if anyone has talked to the experts to get more information on this possibility.  I don't get why there is the disconnect between our district saying this is our last chance for state money, and the people I know in Columbus (who know much more about school funding than me) saying that we'd get more if we asked for more.  Has our district even tried asking for more from the state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Danvers,

While your question and accusations have nothing to do with the subject matter and frankly is pretty insulting, the answer is very simple.  Demographics.

Who are the high performing public schools?  How do they differ demographically from Winton Woods?  Income, race, language, disabilities?  And why is that?  The higher the relative income levels, the higher the property valuations, which selectively reduces (not eliminates) race, language and disability students from attending those schools.  I'm sorry to be so blunt

On the other hand, "selectivity", either by entrance testing as some Catholic schools do or the mere fact of paying a healthy tuition costs over and above taxes paid for public schools selects those who attend private schools.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If public schools had the ability to eliminate "problems", did not have to provide all of the services that by law are required to provide (and they have to provide some of these to private schools) then you might be able to compare apples to apples.

Like it or not, the three communities in the district represent modest homes, a lot of green space, churches, and not as much commercial property as many people believe.  This represents lower property valuations, attracting populations with lower relative incomes, of which you used to live and don't anymore.  It is a poster child of what's wrong with how we fund schools in Ohio with the over reliance on property values.

Winton Woods, in reality, graduates 90-95% of each class, each year.  However, those students who don't or can't pass graduation testing by the 12th year, the school is now required to "carry" them on the books until they are 23 years old.  That's why the state shows a graduation in the 70%'s instead of the 90%'s they did 5 years ago.  One in five students are students with disabilities, nearly 70% receive free or reduce meals, 1 in 10 English is a 2nd language.  You can do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WWWarrior,

You say that Danvers' question is "pretty insulting", yet it seems your entire response is basically an argument that the Catholic schools are higher performing than Winton Woods because they have better students - that seems pretty insulting to me.  Your response seems to denigrate anyone who isn't white, wealthy, English-speaking, and able-bodied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Winton Wood School System failed to graduate 60 Seniors this year. This is a system failure,, no matter how you try to spin it.

It would appear WWW that you have never left the BOE, even though your elected job is to represent he citizens of Greenhills, not the Schools.

 

Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Like it or not, the three communities in the district represent modest homes, a lot of green space, churches, and not as much commercial property as many people believe.  This represents lower property valuations, attracting populations with lower relative incomes, of which you used to live and don't anymore.  It is a poster child of what's wrong with how we fund schools in Ohio with the over reliance on property values.

WWWarrior, if this bond levy passes, it's a moot point at ever looking at alternatives; the property owners are on the hook for 37 years. Territorial transfer, off the plate. In your view is there ever a point at which the property owner is pressed 'enough'? Is it conceivable, if desired by the property owners in the sliver of Wyoming within the district boundary, to ever request and be granted a transfer into Wyoming? Could the BOE even entertain the idea?

Your assessment of problem of this districts ills will not be overcome by new construction. It is and remains a family problem. And whatever Paula et al. think, new buildings are not going to over come that. New buildings will not educate these kids in some new and fancy way, this district will not spend its way into a 'better' outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Danvers,

While your question and accusations have nothing to do with the subject matter and frankly is pretty insulting, the answer is very simple.  Demographics.

Who are the high performing public schools?  How do they differ demographically from Winton Woods?  Income, race, language, disabilities?  And why is that?  The higher the relative income levels, the higher the property valuations, which selectively reduces (not eliminates) race, language and disability students from attending those schools.  I'm sorry to be so blunt

On the other hand, "selectivity", either by entrance testing as some Catholic schools do or the mere fact of paying a healthy tuition costs over and above taxes paid for public schools selects those who attend private schools.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If public schools had the ability to eliminate "problems", did not have to provide all of the services that by law are required to provide (and they have to provide some of these to private schools) then you might be able to compare apples to apples.

Like it or not, the three communities in the district represent modest homes, a lot of green space, churches, and not as much commercial property as many people believe.  This represents lower property valuations, attracting populations with lower relative incomes, of which you used to live and don't anymore.  It is a poster child of what's wrong with how we fund schools in Ohio with the over reliance on property values.

Winton Woods, in reality, graduates 90-95% of each class, each year.  However, those students who don't or can't pass graduation testing by the 12th year, the school is now required to "carry" them on the books until they are 23 years old.  That's why the state shows a graduation in the 70%'s instead of the 90%'s they did 5 years ago.  One in five students are students with disabilities, nearly 70% receive free or reduce meals, 1 in 10 English is a 2nd language.  You can do the math.

What exactly was the accusation in my post that offended you? My post is exactly warranted. Questions are not being answered by those who are privy to have the answers. Paula is a School Board Member. She ran for office and WON. Now, because of her position as a School Board Member she is afforded the information which should then be forwarded to her constituents. Real questions afford real answers by her constituents. She doesn't have to agree with the questions. But, as long as they are worthy to the topic at hand (and I believe mine is) then she should take at least a minimal effort to answer those questions. And, I'm not the only one posing them. Please don't single me out as the lonely questionneur.

Who are the high performing public schools?  How do they differ demographically from Winton Woods?  Income, race, language, disabilities?  And why is that?  The higher the relative income levels, the higher the property valuations, which selectively reduces (not eliminates) race, language and disability students from attending those schools.  I'm sorry to be so blunt

Let me try and break down this first paragraph:

First off, Demographics have NOTHING to do with the ability for students to learn. Because if they did then, in your estimation, based on the district's demographics, there would be ZERO reason to build new schools - right? To the first point, parents and responsible people have the ultimate impact on child's lives (Parental responsibility!). Surely, you are not insinuating that because you are black or Chinese that that means a child can't learn. From what I'm reading from your statements you are bending towards the belief of the following:

1) If you are black or other minority it is harder to learn than a white person 

2) If you are poor it is harder to learn than a rich person

3) If your parents don't pay high property taxes then it is harder to learn than a family that does

I certainly agree with you that if you have students who can't even speak English that it would, in fact, be harder for that student to learn. What is the percentage of those students in the school? My guess, is that's under 2%. Please feel free to correct me as I'm ignorant of the real number.

On the other hand, "selectivity", either by entrance testing as some Catholic schools do or the mere fact of paying a healthy tuition costs over and above taxes paid for public schools selects those who attend private schools.  If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  If public schools had the ability to eliminate "problems", did not have to provide all of the services that by law are required to provide (and they have to provide some of these to private schools) then you might be able to compare apples to apples.

Let me try and break down this second paragraph:

The public school system, as a whole, in this country is abhorrent. WHY? At least part of the problem is because:

1)  The Board of Education HATES choices for parents because the people who are in charge of the BOE think they are the solution 100% of the time instead of allowing parents and teachers to guide the system or even TRY and anything different. And, why is that? For one, they would lose their paycheck. Two, they have control now and giving it up would be "an assault to the educational system of the United States".

2) The Federal Government needs to GET OUT of educating children and leave it to the states.

The ideas of vouchers and other options for parents should ALWAYS be afforded the chance to succeed. The Union would state and has stated in the past (as can be read in other threads on this site) that THEY (BOE) know better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qlRxAFQlG8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syp_jR4BNBk

The fact of the matter, is that privatization of schools should NOT be blamed for success. And, they are as can be read in your sentence (If Catholic schools were REQUIRED to take all comers, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) Do not blame the success of others on the failures of others not to do better.

Like it or not, the three communities in the district represent modest homes, a lot of green space, churches, and not as much commercial property as many people believe.  This represents lower property valuations, attracting populations with lower relative incomes, of which you used to live and don't anymore.  It is a poster child of what's wrong with how we fund schools in Ohio with the over reliance on property values.

I'm not following your first sentence above. Second sentence: Lower incomes do NOT affect learning. Responsibility does. You cannot BUY your way into learning. You have to KNOW the information. Poor people don't have a lesser amount of brain cells than "rich" people. If you don't believe that please let us all know. The Ohio Supreme Court has found the use of the way of property taxes are being used as unconstitutional at least two decades ago. Why is the teacher's union not fighting for the change? Why isn't the BOE coming to the fight for the change as the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled?

It took me so long to write this that others have already filled the slots with some of my own arguments above.

Threehats, how do you respond with the "age of building over success" ratio between the WWSD buildings versus the old Catholic buildings, most built before any of the school buildings in the WWSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well Danvers, I hate to challenge you on this point but take a look for yourself and not just Winton Woods but every public school in Hamilton County

Clearly all children can learn and do.  The job is to get them to learn to their fullest potential. The unfortunate reality demographics do predict success in what is currently used to determine educational accountability in the State of Ohio via required standardized tests.  Are you disputing that top half of county districts are not the wealthiest, most white, least minority populated, least % of disabled?  Or is it testing itself is somehow misrepresenting actual educational effort to overcome some of these issues?

 

DISTRICT2014 PerformanceBlack %% Disabled% Economic 
Wyoming City11311.77.97.51
Madeira City111.90.911.17.52
Indian Hill Exempted Village111.23.68.45.83
Mariemont City109.21.710.3104
Sycamore Community City108.97.99.717.65
Forest Hills Local106.91.59.214.66
Loveland City105.91.811.614.97
Oak Hills Local102.11.814.221.98
Southwest Local101.8014.336.19
Three Rivers Local100.50.617.840.110
Deer Park Community City100.15.91345.811
      
 Top Half Avg.3.40%11.60%20.16% 
      
Finneytown Local98.444.315.246.412
Reading Community City98.38.617.256.313
Norwood City96.511.614.873.414
Princeton City94.742.715.264.315
Northwest Local (Hamilton)94.626.114.754.616
St Bernard-Elmwood Place City91.928.718.479.817
Cincinnati City86.963.419.471.718
Winton Woods City86.264.116.269.319
North College Hill City83.676.42071.420
Mt Healthy City83.670.121.185.421
Lockland Local83.447.215.982.422
      
 Bottom Half43.90%17.10%60% 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WWWarrior,

While I see your statistics, and I am not doubting them, it just doesn't sit right with me.  It's too much like you are saying that Winton Woods isn't doing well because it doesn't have the "right" type of students.  That bothers me.  But let's say you are correct and the problem is that Winton Woods doesn't have the "right" type of students to be successful because there are too many black students, too many poor students, too many special needs students, too many ESL students.  (Just to be clear, that is not my opinion.)  So in using your argument, then the most efficient way to increase Winton Woods achievement scores is to get more of the "right" type of students (again, not what I believe.)  So would new schools help or hinder in this regard?

In other words, would new schools attract more white, rich, non-disabled, English-speaking students?  Or would the increased property taxes drive them away?  What are the statistics on this?  Please cite any studies or statistics you have.   I am not being facetious - I really do want to know what history has shown to be the case in other districts that have built new schools.  For example, how did the demographics change (or not change) when Mt. Healthy built their new schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WWWarrior,

While I see your statistics, and I am not doubting them, it just doesn't sit right with me.  It's too much like you are saying that Winton Woods isn't doing well because it doesn't have the "right" type of students.  That bothers me.  But let's say you are correct and the problem is that Winton Woods doesn't have the "right" type of students to be successful because there are too many black students, too many poor students, too many special needs students, too many ESL students.  (Just to be clear, that is not my opinion.)  So in using your argument, then the most efficient way to increase Winton Woods achievement scores is to get more of the "right" type of students (again, not what I believe.)  So would new schools help or hinder in this regard?

In other words, would new schools attract more white, rich, non-disabled, English-speaking students?  Or would the increased property taxes drive them away?  What are the statistics on this?  Please cite any studies or statistics you have.   I am not being facetious - I really do want to know what history has shown to be the case in other districts that have built new schools.  For example, how did the demographics change (or not change) when Mt. Healthy built their new schools?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Agreed ThreeHats.

GG, The figures do bother me, as they should bother you.  But you quit reading too soon.  I then said:

Clearly all children can learn and do.  The job is to get them to learn to their fullest potential. The unfortunate reality demographics do predict success in what is currently used to determine educational accountability in the State of Ohio via required standardized tests. ........ Or is it testing itself is somehow misrepresenting actual educational effort to overcome some of these issues?

There are tons of examples of Winton Woods graduates who have succeeded with high honors, gone on to higher education and are doing great...and many fall into one or all of the categories. Danvers apparently chooses to ignore these students, chooses the broad brush statements that all public education is failing and that only vouchers can save the day.

http://www.wintonwoods.org/userfiles/557/my%20files/superintendent%20scholars%20promotional%202016.pdf?id=6475

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hold on one minute, Paula!

The passing of new bond issues to build new buildings offsets NOTHING to the taxpayer! Yours and the other Board members knowledge of economics is a detriment to ALL taxpayers. The level of ignorance is abhorrent. And, let me be clear: I didn't say stupidity. I said "ignorant" and there is a BIG difference.

You answer zero questions to you posed by many on this Board and carry on with stifling representations and grandstanding for other Board members to tow the line.

Here is just one simple question for you that have been asked by numerous other people on this site over the course of several years that NOT ONE SINGLE BOARD MEMBER FOR THE SCHOOL HAS ANSWERED: Why are nearly ALL of the Catholic Schools in this city over 50 years old yet still graduate a much higher percentage of students with a higher level of that education resulting in a higher ability to achieve later in life?

so, using the Board's and the State's own words - being that outdated buildings cannot provide a healthy learning environment - why does the data clearly show that students who attend these old buildings still produce students who are excelling academically?

I would LOVE to hear your answer.

Here is the question- our district owns tangible assets, our buildings many of which are 50 plus years or more having aged to the point where an important question for our community to ask- what is the most economical, fiscally viable option for our taxpayers to answer. How can we maximize your tax dollars and mine ( all of our money) that will deliver the best advantage today and tomorrow- even for generations to follow?   What is best financial course to resolve this facilities question and how do the option cost  compare  between 1) mending as necessary (Projected $67 million for next 20 years)   2) renovation to state of Ohio standards ( no cofunding and $81.5 million sticker cost)   3) building new with cofunding of $48.8 Million from the state.

The state has said they will not fund renovations as the cost exceeds greater than 66% of a new build. They consider this action a  waste of money and will not assist. I agree as would most reasonable folks who are examining this issue. 

Whether we like it or not, the care and appreciation of our school district's  tangible assets are very real; the obligation will not go away; and the costs will be due for our community to pay. As a community are we bright enough to understand the co funding from the state ( nearly half) will relieve this burden while also infusing much needed new infrastructure into our community?  

Your question about catholic schools has no bearing on this question as they are always soliciting contributions and I am pretty sure if the feds were offering $48.8 million to help fund new construction, this would be an option chosen immediately. So what is your real question as it pertains to the bond issue?  

This is a question about local taxes and how to best fund our tangible assets while creating growth, sustainability and stretching our local contribution. This measure will be the catalyst reinvigorating our stagnant community. 

This plan is best course for our community! 

 

Edited by paula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hold on one minute, Paula!

 

Here is just one simple question for you that have been asked by numerous other people on this site over the course of several years that NOT ONE SINGLE BOARD MEMBER FOR THE SCHOOL HAS ANSWERED: Why are nearly ALL of the Catholic Schools in this city over 50 years old yet still graduate a much higher percentage of students with a higher level of that education resulting in a higher ability to achieve later in life?

so, using the Board's and the State's own words - being that outdated buildings cannot provide a healthy learning environment - why does the data clearly show that students who attend these old buildings still produce students who are excelling academically?

I would LOVE to hear your answer.

 

Regarding Educational outcomes:

 

1) Admission testing- selective admissions

 

2) Create strong alumni groups and fundraise effectively

 

3) no mandate to graduate all 100% of incoming freshman who enter their school

 

4) Ability and practice to push out students who would not graduate or fit in

 

5) ability to mandate forced obligatory parental involvement and or a fee 

 

 Know these advantages by private institutions inherently create/ steer outcomes not found in public schools. That is ok and i have no dispute with Catholic schools as I endorse all education for every child - EDUCATION is this is the great salvation for the future and needed for all children not matter the conditions or circumstances into which they were born. 

 PS- I have 4 children - 2 graduates of private and 2 graduates of WW and 100% all exceed academically. professionally and as a citizen. SO my record shows either way our families can chose, strong academic outcomes are delivered - let's push for even better results!

 

 

What else do you want to ask me? 

 

Edited by paula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Regarding Educational outcomes:

1) Admission testing- selective admissions

Yes, private schools are selective, but they also admit students who do not meet the selection criteria -- in order to give them opportunities they would never have.  For example at St. X the school sponsors young men from Boy's Hope.  In fact, there are two homes that house the students nearby, one being right on campus.  St. X believes if you place young men in a disciplined environment, set the expectation for excellence and place them among a group of students who also believe in excellence -- the young men will adapt to those ideals.  It's hard work, met with reluctance in many cases -- but extremely successful.  Proof positive that discipline, high expectations and zero tolerance works.  

In addition, a public school can easily set up a "selective admissions" systems by using the career academy approach.  Most students would find homes, some you'd have to create specialized disciplines.  I have stated this on multiple occasions.  For example:  A career academy could be a "Fine and Performing Arts Academy" housed in the white building.  Grade 7-12 with 100 kids in each grade.  Students apply and are accepted (just like at a private school).  You now have 600 kids that have met a high standard criteria and have an interest in common -- setting the foundation for excellence.  Now, just like Boy's Hope, you accept an additional percentage.  These kids have the potential, they may not have a great academic record, or a great home life -- but if placed in the proper environment they will adapt to specific ideals.

The concept can be carried on with; Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Academy; Health and Physical Fitness Academy, etc.  Then you may be left with a group of students who struggle and have issues.  Based on their needs you may end up with a Boy's School ROTC type program and a Girl's School ROTC type program that focuses on leadership and discipline.

2) Create strong alumni groups and fundraise effectively

There is absolutely nothing stopping the district from doing it now.  You create a Development Office, develop a strategic plan, determine funds required.  Salaries become a part of the fundraising effort and are included in the strategic plan.  There is no cost to this, it's not hard to do -- you just have to want to do it.  Walnut Hills (Cincinnati Public School) has a huge Alumni group -- nothing has stopped them.

3) no mandate to graduate all 100% of incoming freshman who enter their school

There are no "mandates" to graduate 100% of incoming freshman.  It's an expectation set by the school.  That's the difference between excellence and accepting mediocrity. Not everyone graduates from the private schools.

4) Ability and practice to push out students who would not graduate or fit in

The private schools work very hard with all students in an effort to help them succeed.  They are limited in resources to help many kids and understand that not every school is a fit.  Yes, some get kicked out, as they do in public schools, for academic and other reasons.  Implementing a career academy concept would allow students to be moved into areas that are best suited for them.

5) ability to mandate forced obligatory parental involvement and or a fee 

Yeah -- I'm sure some school might have this, but believe me in the majority of schools no one is "forced" no matter how the school may try.  They "want" people to step up and may say it's "mandatory", but I can assure you people can easily bypass any involvement or fees.

Know these advantages by private institutions inherently create/ steer outcomes not found in public schools.

As for advantages, the WWCSD has a tremendous advantage over all private schools and that is the demographic of the district.  I worked for St. X in the Development Office and continuously looked for grants.  Grants for private religious schools are very difficult to come by, but grants for public schools with a minority exposure of over 68% -- are you kidding me?  Hundreds and hundreds of grants totaling millions of dollars are available.  I brought this to the attention of the district years ago during the Greenhills Development Planning Committee meetings and other private conversations.  I was provided a list of 100 available grants once.  St. X did not meet the criteria for any of the grants.  the WWCSD was eligible for 98 out of the 100 grants just based on the demographic exposure.  Millions of dollars just sitting.

So to conclude -- real change takes hard work.  Throwing out a bond issue -- just because you can -- is simply a cop out to what really needs to be done and what should be done!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

1) Admission testing- selective admissions

Yes, private schools are selective, but they also admit students who do not meet the selection criteria -- in order to give them opportunities they would never have.  For example at St. X the school sponsors young men from Boy's Hope.  In fact, there are two homes that house the students nearby, one being right on campus.  St. X believes if you place young men in a disciplined environment, set the expectation for excellence and place them among a group of students who also believe in excellence -- the young men will adapt to those ideals.  It's hard work, met with reluctance in many cases -- but extremely successful.  Proof positive that discipline, high expectations and zero tolerance works.  

In addition, a public school can easily set up a "selective admissions" systems by using the career academy approach.  Most students would find homes, some you'd have to create specialized disciplines.  I have stated this on multiple occasions.  For example:  A career academy could be a "Fine and Performing Arts Academy" housed in the white building.  Grade 7-12 with 100 kids in each grade.  Students apply and are accepted (just like at a private school).  You now have 600 kids that have met a high standard criteria and have an interest in common -- setting the foundation for excellence.  Now, just like Boy's Hope, you accept an additional percentage.  These kids have the potential, they may not have a great academic record, or a great home life -- but if placed in the proper environment they will adapt to specific ideals.

The concept can be carried on with; Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Academy; Health and Physical Fitness Academy, etc.  Then you may be left with a group of students who struggle and have issues.  Based on their needs you may end up with a Boy's School ROTC type program and a Girl's School ROTC type program that focuses on leadership and discipline.

2) Create strong alumni groups and fundraise effectively

There is absolutely nothing stopping the district from doing it now.  You create a Development Office, develop a strategic plan, determine funds required.  Salaries become a part of the fundraising effort and are included in the strategic plan.  There is no cost to this, it's not hard to do -- you just have to want to do it.  Walnut Hills (Cincinnati Public School) has a huge Alumni group -- nothing has stopped them.

3) no mandate to graduate all 100% of incoming freshman who enter their school

There are no "mandates" to graduate 100% of incoming freshman.  It's an expectation set by the school.  That's the difference between excellence and accepting mediocrity. Not everyone graduates from the private schools.

4) Ability and practice to push out students who would not graduate or fit in

The private schools work very hard with all students in an effort to help them succeed.  They are limited in resources to help many kids and understand that not every school is a fit.  Yes, some get kicked out, as they do in public schools, for academic and other reasons.  Implementing a career academy concept would allow students to be moved into areas that are best suited for them.

5) ability to mandate forced obligatory parental involvement and or a fee 

Yeah -- I'm sure some school might have this, but believe me in the majority of schools no one is "forced" no matter how the school may try.  They "want" people to step up and may say it's "mandatory", but I can assure you people can easily bypass any involvement or fees.

Know these advantages by private institutions inherently create/ steer outcomes not found in public schools.

As for advantages, the WWCSD has a tremendous advantage over all private schools and that is the demographic of the district.  I worked for St. X in the Development Office and continuously looked for grants.  Grants for private religious schools are very difficult to come by, but grants for public schools with a minority exposure of over 68% -- are you kidding me?  Hundreds and hundreds of grants totaling millions of dollars are available.  I brought this to the attention of the district years ago during the Greenhills Development Planning Committee meetings and other private conversations.  I was provided a list of 100 available grants once.  St. X did not meet the criteria for any of the grants.  the WWCSD was eligible for 98 out of the 100 grants just based on the demographic exposure.  Millions of dollars just sitting.

So to conclude -- real change takes hard work.  Throwing out a bond issue -- just because you can -- is simply a cop out to what really needs to be done and what should be done!    

Regarding Grants: Winton Woods just receive nearly $1 million in grant money from the state this year;  A second sizable grant in the past 5 years.  Also the Winton Woods Educational Foundation in conjunction with our Performing  Arts Boosters was granted an award of $16,000 for our music programs.  Believe me, our district will continue to seek and earn grant money to augment our students. 

Regarding Alumni association- no criticism to private schools but applaud the work. Also agree this is important feature for WW to follow. That is why i stated this as a factor. 

Again, the bond issue is how to best manage our tangible assets- namely our facilities. Do we ask our citizens to foot the entire bill or to maximize our resources augmented with $48.8 Million co funding from the state ?  Throwing away this opportunity is poor choice and one that will cost you and me more while damaging our community.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WWWarrior, if this bond levy passes, it's a moot point at ever looking at alternatives; the property owners are on the hook for 37 years. Territorial transfer, off the plate. In your view is there ever a point at which the property owner is pressed 'enough'? Is it conceivable, if desired by the property owners in the sliver of Wyoming within the district boundary, to ever request and be granted a transfer into Wyoming? Could the BOE even entertain the idea?

Your assessment of problem of this districts ills will not be overcome by new construction. It is and remains a family problem. And whatever Paula et al. think, new buildings are not going to over come that. New buildings will not educate these kids in some new and fancy way, this district will not spend its way into a 'better' outcome. 

New buildings with the benefit of $48.8 Million from the state will SAVE and STRETCH our tax money thus increasing opportunity and resources available for instruction. Please understand this issue folks,

To change the question posed to our community is most unfair to the voters and is a distortion of the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To change the question posed to our community is most unfair to the voters and is a distortion of the truth. 

You guys aren't even telling the whole truth.  Here's some questions, maybe Cicero, or anyone, can answer:

1.  Is $48.8 Million the whole truth -- I can't find the Greenhills Journal right now, but there is an editorial that might state otherwise (information that was provided by the district).
2.  Will there be an additional operating cost in the future?  If so, when and how much?
3.  I can't find it, but on Junedale (during the last go around) it was proven that $61,000,000 in repairs was not accurate.  I thought another number of $9,000,000 was thrown out.  Does anyone recall?  Cicero? Dazed?

The fact is over the past decade the Administration and Board have never listened to anyone.  They knew best, everything was their idea -- no one knew better than them.  Now they are in a "pickle".  A "pickle" that they created.  To get them out of this "pickle" they want over $100,000,000 from the local taxpayers and state taxpayers.  From what I can see nothing has changed; They know best, everything is still their idea -- no one knows better than them.  They screwed up once, why would anyone give them money to screw up again.  They don't even pretend to listen to anyone.  I for one plan on keeping my money.  I will wait for someone that I can trust to step up, or wait for alternatives that make sense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Found it -- it says:

The true figures provided by the Treasurer of Winton Woods are as follows:

--  the cost to the local taxpayers is $61,500,000
--  the actual State reimbursement is $48,875,958
--  this leaves $12,725,042 difference which the State will not reimburse for since under State guidelines some items are not directly related to their education guidelines.

So, what is the $12,725,042?  Is that included in the $61,500,000?  Or, is that something else that will coming up?  It says the Board will probably "okay" this?  What is it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0