More than once over the past week or so I have heard people (including at least one board candidate) defend the Hoover closure partly on the grounds that it would throw off the facilities plan if Hoover could no longer be used as a “swing school”—that is, as the building that will temporarily house kids whose schools are being renovated.
But the facilities plan does not include any use of Hoover as a swing school. The school board rejected that option early on. Hoover is scheduled to serve its own attendance area until 2019, and then to be torn down (unless people like me succeed in getting the plan changed to keep Hoover open).
The facilities plan has a lot of parts to keep track of, so it’s understandable if people have some misimpressions, but that’s one that we should lay to rest.
.
21 comments:
Isn't new Hoover scheduled to be a swing school?
Chris, I thought the concern was that New Hoover would not be built, hence not available as a swing school before opening for its permanent students.
Anonymous -- Yes, for the first two years after it's built, for students from Mann and Longfellow when those schools are being renovated.
Anonymous #2 -- That isn't how I've heard the comment made. But as I've argued here many times, the choice between Hoover East and the existing Hoover is a false one. It isn't true that we can't open a new school unless we close an existing one; instead, that's a *preference* by this superintendent which this board seems unwilling to scrutinize.
"Anonymous -- Yes, for the first two years after it's built, for students from Mann and Longfellow when those schools are being renovated."
So in a sense "Hoover" is being used as a swing school? If enrollment doesn't justify both new and old and new isn't opened where would you foresee housing Mann and Longfellow during their transition?
Anonymous #3: Again, the supposed conflict between the new East Elementary and the existing Hoover Elementary is not real (any more than there is a conflict between opening the East Elementary and keeping Mann, Lincoln, Shimek, Hills, or Longfellow open). I do think that it will probably be very hard to create attendance areas that would open the East Elementary at its full capacity of 500 students, as I wrote about here and here. I don't think it would make sense to open it with that many students anyway, because the whole point is that the area around the school will start to be developed. If we were to open it at 500 students, what would we do when development pushes the enrollment up even further? It makes more sense to open it at a medium enrollment and then the area grow into it (as is also happening with Alexander).
Thank you for not actually answering the question that was posed - your work as a politician is off to a good start.
I am sorry, but an awful lot of people seem to want to get me to talk about what we will do if we can't build the new East Elementary, which, again, is a red herring. So I think pointing out that it's a red herring is not an unfair response. (Are you asking the other candidates which additional schools they will close if enrollment is lower than projected?)
But yes, it is possible to renovate a school without either closing another school or displacing another school's population. I'd wager that it happens all the time in America. During the facilities planning process, our district discussed alternatives to swing schools, such as using modular 8-plexes to reroute kids away from the renovation work. I don't think something like that would be the end of the world, although, again, I do not think that is the situation we are in.
In any event, I certainly do not think that the desire for swing space for a couple of years should be driving the decision about whether to close an elementary school.
Just so I am clear, its a bad thing to use a "red herring" but its acceptable for you to use a false slippery slope argument by claiming closing Hoover will lead to the closure of Mann and Longfellow. Wouldn't it seem odd to invest 11 mil + per school only to turn around and close those schools?
I am glad you finally decided to put your money where your mouth is on these issues - and will be happier when you eat them again this election like last where only 1 save Hoover candidate was elected out of the 3 spots up and that was only because NL and CB bullet voted for her.
PS - is it true you asked when you could withdraw from the election when turning in your papers? I see McGuinness posted that somewhere.
How many rooms does Mann and Longfellow have? I would assume more than 8 and I thought given the complexity of those renovations kids couldn't be onsite due to asbestos and lead paint abatement requirements. If that's true, would an 8-plex even work?
Anonymous -- you and I obviously disagree about how to value keeping existing schools open versus other options. You should vote for a different candidate, as it's clear you already know.
Not sure what the big Facebook deal is about asking about the withdrawal procedure. I would have been happy to withdraw if I had seen that there was another candidate that I felt comfortable supporting, which is exactly why the law provides a five-day withdrawal period. As you can see, I chose not to withdraw. I can think of more productive topics of conversation.
Someone is stealing McGuinness' arguments. The rudeness reminds of someone from recent twitter discussions.
Anonymous 3:53: Because of people like you, understanding the options for withdrawing is reasonable. You are not respectfully engaging in the discussion and you are hiding behind "anonymous" to do it. It's a miracle anyone decides to run for office. Board members must be able to respectfully disagree with fellow board members and the public. Chris has demonstrated he can do that.
Anonymous 3:45/3:53's analysis of the 2013 election results is completely wrong. Tuyet received the most votes. She received support from all over the area. She received more votes at City High than Karla Cook or Brian Kirschling. Phil Hemingway, who supports reviewing the Hoover decision, was barely beaten by Kirschling. He also had broad support from the area.
Board members must be able to comprehend the data and must not spread bad information.
Thanks, Anonymous. As long as we're at it, it's worth noting that not only did the highest vote-getter, Tuyet Dorau, support keeping Hoover open, so did the second-highest vote-getter, Chris Lynch, as you can see in his statement here (upshot: "I'm supportive of keeping Hoover open."). Of course, there were many issues driving the vote on that election, but when the top two finishers were in favor of keeping Hoover open, it's hard to see how the results are at all indicative of community support for the closure.
We do love your spin on the last election but once you dig deeper your argument fails, again. Tuyet was the top vote getter largely and only because CV and NL block voted for her. The remaining candidates were left fighting over the split east side vote - which BK and Patti won. As much as you would like to make close count with Phil it doesn't. He has failed twice in his attempts and this time will be the third. It's not shocking Tuyet got more votes at CHS as that is the polling site of Hoover parents, correct? Anywhere outside of that and where they I know voted she faired poorly. Thus, the last election was 2 for keeping the current plan, one that was for closure, and one/Chris who you certainly did a piss poor job of vetting given his current stance. So, by my count, you have to get all 4 of the save Hoover candidates elected to overturn the vote.
Well, readers can judge that one for themselves.
I do want to say that I'm not feeling critical of Chris Lynch on this issue. He and Tuyet did their part in December 2013 to get the board to reconsider the closure. Even now, he has said that he is open to reconsidering the closure if the enrollment projections justify it. When the board has to redraw boundaries to open the new East Elementary, I believe that it will become apparent that the district needs to keep Hoover open, and that Lynch (and maybe even Brian Kirschling) will be open to that conclusion.
Some of these Anonymouses (Anonymi?) woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Reading their words made me think of that quote some people attribute to Ghandi: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."
Looks like we've reached the third sentence already.
Chris, no one is saying use current Hoover as a swing school. They're saying new Hoover would be a swing school and if we keep current Hoover open, we don't need new Hoover, therefore no swing school and no chance to do renovations at those other schools whose populations would be displaced. Your post is really misleading. I hope you'll make it more clear and not rely on people reading comments to realize how misleading it is.
Anonymous: i disagree. I have heard people who are under the misimpression that the existing Hoover building will be used as a swing school. This post is just to correct that misimpression. Anyone who already knows that that is not the case will not be misled by this post.
There is another misimpression that I also sometimes hear: that the current Hoover students will be going as a group to Hoover East. Again, this is an understandable misimpression, but it's not the case. The administration has talked about splitting up the current Hoover attendance area among Lemme, Longfellow, Lucas, and possibly Horace Mann. In any event, there has never been a plan to keep all the current Hoover students together after closing Hoover.
Regarding Chris's comment at 7:50 AM, I have recently heard both of these things said around town, both by Hoover parents and by others. So Chris is correct here and not intentionally misleading anyone.
Post a Comment