Oh well . . . I guess my daughter could always be learn'n to play banjo fer when she gits into one of dem dar fancy mo-bile classy roooms!

Not sure what that is supposed to mean?

Oldest kid was in the mobile in 8th grade and it didn't hurt him in the least, as a matter of fact he liked it out there. Nothing wrong with the mobiles, except for the fact that we don't need any more, despite what the administration says. I know they aren't "Glen Ellyn Style."

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
Not sure what that is supposed to mean?

Oldest kid was in the mobile in 8th grade and it didn't hurt him in the least, as a matter of fact he liked it out there. Nothing wrong with the mobiles, except for the fact that we don't need any more, despite what the administration says. I know they aren't "Glen Ellyn Style."

Maybe she prefers breeeicks an morrrturr to mo-buyals.

Sorry, bad joke about mobile homes. And yes, I agree, the mobile class rooms are just fine, even better in some cases, and alot better than a 40mil Super Hadley. My point is that I wish they could put more thought into the music program and stop worrying about mobile class rooms that are not needed.

It is frustrating to hear about changes that will affect the kids, without feeling that the community was given the opportunity to give feedback. I noted in one of the New Horizons articles mention of parents participating, yet there is no mention of who was on the committee. I did read in SchoolWeek that one very involved parent quit the committee because she disagreed with the approach being taken, that should be very telling to the rest of the community. It brings back the bad memories of the facilities committee and how a very small group of people expected the rest of the community to fall in line with their recommendation. Have we not learned?

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
Have we not learned?

Another great way to restore faith and trust in our Board and Administration. Wasn't that priority #1 after the failed ref?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
Have we not learned?

Another great way to restore faith and trust in our Board and Administration. Wasn't that priority #1 after the failed ref?

Right after the "victory" party at Curly's.

From the Board Highlights from the April 28 meeting:

"MORE HADLEY PORTABLES REQUESTED
The administration recommended that the BOE approve leasing six portable classrooms for placement at Hadley, bringing the number of portable classrooms at Hadley to 10, and the total across D41 to 32. Superintendent Dr. Ann Riebock explained that the additional portables will not solve all Hadley's space issues, but will allow the school to better meet instructional goals, among them delivery of the Literacy Block in the same room by the same teacher, and incorporation of Hadley New Horizons recommendations for academic support and core extensions in place of Large Group. The request for portable classrooms is consistent with the BrainSpaces space utilization report, which recommended adding 6-8 classrooms at Hadley. One-time all-inclusive costs for installation, furnishings, electrical hookups, landscaping, stairs, ramps and fees will be $525,000; the annual lease-renewal cost is $54,950. Board members asked for more information on how the portables would be used and a cost-analysis of leasing versus purchasing the units outright. The BOE expects to take action on the matter at its May 19 meeting after a 7:15 p.m. public hearing. If approved, the unit will be placed north of the existing portables."


_______________

Question -- if class sizes are adjusted upward to the administration set/board approved targets and enrollment continues to shrink, when will we hit the point of having more students in the mobiles than are in the school buildings?

This has to be my favorite part of the band/orchestra changes:

When the band/orchestra teachers finally found out what was going to happen to THEIR program, they asked to be on the committee. They were told they could not participate.

Can you imagine not letting the Math Department participate in a committee to change the math curriculum???

No, I cannot imagine that.

To reference Maid Marian's comments above, the following was also in the Board Highlights from the same meeting:


"PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A number of residents asked about the implications of the Hadley New Horizons work on the instrumental music programs. Chief among their concerns were that there would be a continued focus on excellence, the impact of changing the delivery of instruction, a desire for continued ability-based programming, and the opportunity for participants to have the same choice options that non-instrumental students will have."

Is this change a done-deal? Seems to me that this falls under the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. How much did the "consultant" have to do with this change? How sad for the kids and the teachers.

If you look in the agenda packet for last night's meeting, you will find the proposal from our Super. She mentions frequently that these are leased because, partly, they are not a replacement for bricks and mortar. Sounds like a gear up one of these election cycles.

Was there a meeting last night? Did this proposal get approved?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I refer back to Ohma's assertion that enrollment itself is not driving the issue at Hadley, rather program and curriculum growth. Should we not be stewards of our existing space before we expand on programs and offerings.

Just thought this bore repeating.

Does it seem to anyone else that D41 is hellbent on building, and is furiously flailing about for any possible argument to support their desire?

Is this proposed expansion for curriculum reasons an acknowledgment that no enrollment crisis exists? After all, when the anticipated hordes of children materialize, won't they need the new space?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
If you look in the agenda packet for last night's meeting, you will find the proposal from our Super. She mentions frequently that these are leased because, partly, they are not a replacement for bricks and mortar. Sounds like a gear up one of these election cycles.

Was there a meeting last night? Did this proposal get approved?

It looks like the portables are scheduled for a vote on May 19. It was on the agenda for discussion purposes last night.

Dinsdale, I agree with you that the district is bent on building. Just look at the history. Dr. Irwin started the ball rolling with the "Blue Ribbon Committee" in 2002-2003. Then the next superintendent (whose name we can't use, but continues to be associated with D41 via the School Exec Connect web site) spent his tenure on facilities issues. I think "hellbent" can be defined as riling up the entire community by threatening eminent domain and year round school. And so, the legacy continues with the current administration. We have spent more than 6 years and countless dollars on "space." Do you think that the upcoming "Vision process" mentioned in the Board Highlights will be a starting point for the next referendum?

Hi,

Is it my imagination or does it sound like there might some push-back on the part of some board members regarding the addition of these portables? I just got one of those D41 board meeting highlite emails. Doesn't sound like it will be a done deal without further discussion. And maybe some 'selling.'

Ohma, can you email me offline? I wanted to chat w/ you regarding your recent post. I'll share with the BB after we talk.

Thanks!
CLE

"Space utilization would go from 91.5% to 82.4% (the recommended standard for a middle school is 78%), allowing some flexibility of scheduling."

This is a direct cut and paste from the District 41 Board Highlights meeting May 5.

Could someone explain to me how adding a 6 room unit decreases our space utilization by 9.1% or am I misunderstanding this sentence, which is possible?

It seems reasonable to me. Suppose that they measure the capacity of Hadley in "students" and that the capacity of the school is 1200 students. 91.5% of 1200 is 1098 students. 1098 is 82.4% of 1332. If you take the increase of 132 students and divide by 6 clasrooms, you get 22 students per classroom, which sounds reasonable.

22 in a classroom may be reasonable in K, 1 and 2 grades, but not for junior high. Apparently, the board agrees, as they approved the target class sizes much higher for Hadley. I can't find the exact item from the board packet, but I will be able to given some time. I believe that the target class sizes for Hadley are in the range of 25-27 students. If class sizes at Hadley are in the 22 student range, then the board needs to have a discussion and adopt new targets.

The target class sizes are not new, they have adopted the same ones for the past few years.

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
I can't find the exact item from the board packet, but I will be able to given some time.

Did you find it yet ohma? We are waiting...geez, it has been almost 13 hours now.

Sorry to keep you waiting, Rob.

Page 4 and I remembered incorrectly, the admin recommendation for grades 6-8 is higher (26-28). But don't try to do the math, the facilities consultant doesn't quantify building capacities.

I noticed in School Week that the line item for landscaping for the proposed portables at Hadley is $30,000. Based on what I have seen of past D41 portable landscaping, this estimate seems about $27,000 too high.

The D41 landscapers don't even know how to properly use mulch around trees. The manner in which they pile it high around the tree trunk is more likely to kill a tree than protect it - likely part of a master plan for continuing business.