[This message was sent to the School Board]
Hello School closing criteria subcommittee:
Thank you for keeping interested citizens informed in the evolution
of your comittee's work and for providing us with a relatively effecient way
offering our two-cents regarding your work thus far. Let me make a few
comments.
First, I think more attention has to be given to the "urban
amenities" criterion. As it stands, there is only one,r athe oblique,
reference to the availability and accessability of educational opportunities
for part-day,full day field trips. This reference is under the category of
transportation and it reads: "distance to educational field trip sites..."
While I think distance is relevant, I don't think it begins to capture the
advantage of being close to such sites, especially those within walking
distance. I think there should be criteria that say:
--How many urban amenities//field trip sites within walking
distance?
--Are there educational field trip sites within walking
distance?
--Conversely, how close are various facilities that send
people into the schools (ie. for example, WSU students going into the
schools: how easily can they get to the respective school.?)
--How many field trip sites can be achieved by walking vs.
only by bus?
To have the issue of accessiable field trips//educational sites buried or
lodged within a transportation category basically downplays the advantage of
the school's location for providing such enrichment opportunities.
Indeed, one might wonder why green space is featured prominently within a
relevent category (called grounds), when distance to educational field sites
is lodged in a category called transportation and not "urban enrichment
possibilities." In fact, such an imbalance seems to favor those schools
with lots of grounds over those with fewer grounds (green) but more access
to urban cultual enrichment opportuniites.
Second, regarding the age of the building category. AGe is really
meaningless. Any buidling that receives adequate upkeep should be around
for a long time. But for some of us, age can be code for "�ld" which, in
turn, can mean--to put a positive spin on it--historic, interesting, and
aesthetically pleasing. So: how about a criterion that captures the
historic/aesthetic qualities of the buildings.
Relatedly, I don't think I saw a criterion that addresses the
artistic/aesthetic qualities within buildings--surely, such qualities have
an important influence on the buidling's environment, hence, the learning
context. For example, are the abundant art tiles in Madison and other
aesthetic features to be ignored as irrelevent? (Putting this under the
sub-category of "city development plans" is not the same as treating the
building's historic/aesthetic values in their own right as separate
criteria....at least place with age)
Third, I think understanding current enrollment and projected
enrollment and how this relates to building capacity is pretty basic. If
you have schools packed to the rafters, and that they are projected to stay
that way, doesn't that tell us something?
Fourth, the issue of technology should be kept in perspective. This
should only be about wiring--all computers can be moved--and even then, we
have to remember that there is no pressing need for children in grades K to
4 to be accessing the internet. They will learn how to do it easily and
soon enough in middle/senior high school. In fact,
we might wonder why there needs to be any internet access for grades K to 4.
Thanks for your time and attention.
John Campbell,
Madison parent, taxpayer, voter, PTA
member, concerned citizen
-------------
This message was sent to the School Board of Winona Area Public Schools.
To send a message to the entire School Board, address it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] All messages sent to that address are viewable by
the general public. A public archive of emails sent to and exchanged
between school board members is available at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
