A while back we received a comment with an impassioned plea for the new super high school on the south campus. You can view it in the comments here.
We promised to revisit and comment on the commenter's opinions but the more we thought about it, the angrier we got. The time, energy, resources, and money that CCUSD has spent on these issues is not only obscene but it has been an unmitigated disaster. A disaster that the administration plans to continue until at least October with the formation of the new Elementary and Middle School Planning Committee (EMSPC?). Let's review what has transpired:
2006 - Formation of the LRPC. Fine
2007 – After 1+ years of work, LRPC presents four options to the governing board.
2007 – Board rejects LRPC work and asks for an option with a super southern HS (SSHS).
2007 – LRPC presents SSHS and board loves it even though it leaves the district with two empty schools.
2007 – Administration pushes for SSHS, Technology Plan, and other capital needs to be rolled into a massive quarter of a billion dollar bond for the taxpayers. Are you kidding me!
2007 - Bond.Fails.Big.Time.
2007 – District proceeds ahead with new high school plan anyways; forms New High School Planning Committee (NHSPC). Didn't the voters just say NO?
2008 – NHSPC spends months working with the builder and architect on designs and plans for a high school. Seriously, we said NO.
2008 – District pays $12,000 for pollster to tell them things they already know. This really tees off the anti-tax crowd. Nice work.
2008 – Apparently the administration tosses out all the work of the LRPC (thank you for your service) and comes up with seven (or six, not sure) NEW AND IMPROVED options. Not sure where this plan came from, who was involved, and whether the community was invited? You can see these options here. So much for community engagement.
2008 – Mr. Bailey resigns from Cactus Shadows after only two short years. No doubt in part because of the failure to get the SSHS. Did Ms. Ashby promise him a shiny new school. Hmmmmmmm....
2008 – The fractured (of course) board apparently sends three options to the NHSPC.
2008 – Administration calls for the EMSPC. EMSPC to present more options to the board by October.
2008 – Supposedly the NHSPC last week decides to send one of these options to the board, but the NHSPC also seems fractured.
(we have tried our best to get this accurate. Please let us know if we have erred or our memories are faulty)
Despite all the total man hours that this has entailed so far nothing has been decided and there is no end in sight. Just look at this list. Is this how we want our administrators spending their time and our money? THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. We need to get back to the business of educating children, not building empires. Finally, we have this message to deliver:
Dear CCUSD Administrators and Governing Board,
Read our collective lips. There will be no SUPER SOUTHERN HIGH SCHOOL. PERIOD. EXCLAMATION POINT.
Not ones to just throw stones, CCUSD Watch has the answer. The answer is our new slogan for the capital bond and override in November 2009. This slogan is…
CCUSD: Growing Smart, Getting Smarter
The solution…
- Add on to CSHS at the existing site This is GROWING SMART. Do whatever it takes. If you have to raze old BMES than do it. If you have to go two stories than do it. Don't give us BS about how the bond money or SFB money can't be used for this or that. We don't care. If you have to return bond money or forgo SFB money than so be it. Show the community that you have come to your senses and realized that leaving two empty schools was dim-witted. And if anyone dares to tell us there is no room, go and look at an aerial view of the northern campus. Did you know there are TEN separate baseball fields of varying sizes? You could build three more schools on that campus.
- Package up all the repair and improvements the district needs but be SMART about it. We know this has been done, but for goodness sakes, we really don't need GPS on the buses, electronic billboards at each school, and we certainly do not need wireless laptops for kindergartners. And oh yeah, we are not are not giving you 20 years worth of interest to pay for repainting. Give us a package that shows how CCUSD is investing in and protecting the building and plant. Show us a plan that will stop allowing things to fall into disrepair. (For example, can anyone explain the huge disparity in landscaping maintenance between schools? This is fracked up. And why are we doing any landscaping if HVAC systems are failing?)
- Come up with a plan to spend 25% of the total package directly on curriculum and classroom improvements (educational not physical). This includes things like new programs, teachers aides, self-contained and expanded gifted program, back to basics schools, IB middle school, expanded foreign language options, etc…This is the GETTING SMARTER. Show us you actually care about educating the students and commit to having the top TerraNova test scores for any district in the county.
Bond. Override. SFB. We do not care where the money comes from. Just package it up how every you need to and get it to the voters. Again we do not want to hear excuses. You figured out how to turn elementary bond money into a middle (flex) school, and you have successfully spent 10% bond money three times. Put your noggins together and get it done. If you have to, tell the SFB you are building a second HS next to the first one. Then one day after opening, vote to combine the schools into one.
If you do this, CCUSD Watch will lead the charge and succeed where Cave Creek Support Our Schools failed.
If you insist on the SSHS then prepare to feel the heat.
I sat through several of the meetings you mention in your timeline and it seems pretty accurate to my old mind as well. What you fail to mention is how some of the agendas got forced upon the committees. Board members had ideas of their dream schools and plans for pools,fine arts centers and equine centers. Some Board members went so far as to attending the meetings and forcing discussions about topics they wanted heard. When the idea of building a second HS on the South campus was proposed certain board members(especially the one that left)pushed for a super campus, they didn't care where or how; but they wouldn't agree to a plan for anything but that' yet there was no plan for the other schools. Just build a big school.
ReplyDeleteThey could have discussed converting the current CSH to a middle or an academy or let a tech school move in and rent it, etc.
When the idea of converting the North Campus to the one High School was proposed; the one board member said "her constituents" didn't want the extra traffic or noise in their back yard. She even quoted traffic studies and how the extra traffic with the Y and the College would make it impossible out here. It got so ridiculous that I couldn't go to their meetings anymore.
They weren't asking what is the best decision for the kids and the teachers, it was a fight to see who got their way first. You would have thought they were getting their name on the building.
There is plenty of space and many great ideas to remodel the North campus. It won't be cheap, some of the buildings are 20 years or older. Some may actually need to be razed and replaced; but enough about the craziness of building; what about the kids?? Show us how you are going to help the kids.
TDBR
TDBR,
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct and thanks for explaining why the district wasted money on a traffic study before any decisions had been made.
We tried our best to keep the politics out of it, but your point about the meddling is well taken.
"Her constituents" didn't want it.
ReplyDelete"Her constituents" vote for her, but her charge is what is best for the district and the kids. It is clear that this board member is not fulfilling the duties that she was charged with. There must be a mechanism to recall, has anybody looked into it?
honeymom
thanks for sharing all this information. I had no idea about a super high school. That is rubbish.
ReplyDeleteI am not real fond of any of the plans to go K-8 in the schools. I really don't want my younger kids hanging out with kids that are so much older than they are. I am okay with K-6 as that is the norm.
Combining the high school with the elementary school to make it bigger seems like the logical choice. They are right next to each other and therefore perfect. I have a real issue with the schools that sit empty when they complain of overcrowding all the time. I refuse to vote for bond that allows them to build any more schools (HS OR OTHERWISE) until they use the buildings they have.
Were any of those "total man hours" given by anyone from your group?
ReplyDeleteThanks for giving a plan. I am glad YOU have the answers now. Fortunately you don't have to get teachers, admin, board members, community members to buy in. You just get to throw it out there and huff and puff about how you'll fight any effort that doesn't go your way.
No wonder so many kids have the "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it my way" complex. They may be inheriting bad traits from those around them.
Also interesting how quickly you have a developed a new slogan. Is it the curriculum, the buildings, the admin, the board, the money or is it whatever you are most angry about at that moment?
Seems to me this district can't win. Since your group now has the answers, perhaps you'd like to step up to the board and take a stab at what it's like to run a district. It may be a little bit harder than running an anonymous forum but you never know. Give it a go. We'll see how much support your ideas garner.
In thinking about this, some of what CCUSD Watch says makes sense. But, the last poster was correct, it is one thing to lay out a great plan, another to work it through all of the levels it needs to go through.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many of us who would agree with your viewpoint, we are dealing with community members who are NIMBY's. Perhaps we have impeded on their way of life, but they are very outspoken and numerous and they have the backing of the major community newspaper up here. How would you go about them agreeing to expand the North campus? Knowing now that there may not be a way to reach that consensus as evidenced by prior posters, how would you suggest relieving crowding in a way that everybody can agree to (I think that the previous posters have adequately laid out the case of why it is unlikely that expanding onto CSHS will pass muster).
You claim that you have parents and businesspeople in addition to staff and teachers on your group. If that is indeed the mix of your group, please ask someone who is not hindered from running by the boe by a prestanding relationship with the district to do so.
honeymom
Were any of those "total man hours" given by anyone from your group?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Thanks for giving a plan. I am glad YOU have the answers now. Fortunately you don't have to get teachers, admin, board members, community members to buy in. You just get to throw it out there and huff and puff about how you'll fight any effort that doesn't go your way.
Welcome to the Internet.
No wonder so many kids have the "I want it all, I want it now, and I want it my way" complex. They may be inheriting bad traits from those around them.
Your comment here seems like seems like childish discourse. We laid out the problem and are offering solutions. When did we say we want it now?
Also interesting how quickly you have a developed a new slogan. Is it the curriculum, the buildings, the admin, the board, the money or is it whatever you are most angry about at that moment?
You must have stopped reading our post at some point. Isn’t it clear we want this empire building to end so we can focus on academic achievement and academic achievement is a core part of our plan. See number 3.
Seems to me this district can't win. Since your group now has the answers, perhaps you'd like to step up to the board and take a stab at what it's like to run a district. It may be a little bit harder than running an anonymous forum but you never know. Give it a go. We'll see how much support your ideas garner.
Yes we will see.
Queston for you. Do you believe the district, board, and volunteers have spent too much\too little\just right amount of time and money on this?
Whether or not they have spent too much time on this, how does CCUSD propose alleviating crowding at Cactus Shadows if expanding the north campus is not an option due to NIMBY's in the area and on the boe?
ReplyDeletehoneymom
Ugh, last post should have read CCUSD Watch, not CCUSD.
ReplyDeletehoneymom
With NO members of CCUSD Watch participating in any committee I would ask: When is doing NOTHING ever enough?
ReplyDeleteYour lack of involvement seems to be indicative of so many in this district. Let others take care of it. Until of course it doesn't turn out the way you wished.
When is enough, enough for you?
New curricular materials are being developed all the time. If you wait until the 'just right' program exists, what do you use? If you change frequently because something better comes, who bears the financial burden?
All districts ask teachers & community members to evaluate the options out at the time of the review. Singapore Math wasn't considered last time. Why? I don't think it existed in the form they are marketing now in the US. What should they have used? I ask because if you were here at that time you would have advocated for something, what would it have been?
Some things I've learned:
1) You dislike everyday math, yet seem to disregard data on those kids who've used it from the start that shows improved achievement.
2) You likely weren't around when EM was adopted here.
3) You clearly were around for social studies adoption which just happened this spring and yet you have no idea what was selected.
4) Your interest in total curriculum reform is questionable as you have no idea of any curriculum materials being used at elementary now other than EM.
5)You likely are not a current CCUSD parent as the schools hold curriculum nights each fall where the materials and standards are shared.
6) You want change, but on your terms.
Many of us want change. To get change you don't have to trash an entire school system and rebuild from ground up. Many things are working well in CCUSD and many people have been ACTIVELY & OPENLY part of that success.
Dear District Apologists,
ReplyDeleteYour focus seems to be on CCUSD Watch. Our focus is on CCUSD.
We have replied to just about every one of your questions. Any reason you cannot return the courtesy of answering our direct questions to you? BTW, if anonymity is so bad, why are you hiding?
I do not know the answer to that question, hence no answer. While it does seem like a lot of time, without having been involved in the process, I would be making an uninformed judgement call. I think that you may be resorting such an uniformed judgement call yourself.
ReplyDeleteFor the past several days, I have seen some better progress on how you deal with community members, but once they got a little tough in this blog post you are resorting to name calling (district apologists?). You may be frustrated, and I recognize that you have some questions, too, but I don't think the answer to your question is a black and white one. I also don't think that the posters on here are apologists. I think they are trying to explain process to you and what has happened.
Would you like us all to simply abandon any hope to fix the overcrowding at CSHS? That is what you may be calling for by saying that enough time has been spent on this, this is the way to do it, to heck with whether the boe and constituents in the district buy into. We live in the real world, not just the internet one, and real solutions are not always simple ones. Some solutions take years, not minutes.
As to anonymity, you started this blog as an anonymous one. You are trying to portend a lot of credability. Perhaps you have it, perhaps you don't. I haven't spoken of any sorts of credentials other than I am a soccer mom with kids in the schools. I have also mentioned that my kids have done well with EM and that I came from a top district with EM and small class size. I have mentioned that I have been on PTO. I have also said that I haven't gotten involved with curriculum reviews because I am not an education expert. You on the other hand claim to have members that work for the district and teachers on your side.
I have not asked you to give up anonymity. But, it would be nice to know a little more about your background, whether or not you have kids in this district, something material to make us think that you might know something about what you are talking about. There are plenty of other blogs (i.e. Education Watch) with similar stances to yours. I am not sure whether you have any expertise or are a really good cutter and paster.
I have met parents that remind me of you. They live in the district, but send their kids elsewhere for various reasons. Unfortunately, most of them have not even taken the time to explore our schools, visit them, talk with the teachers and admins. I'd like to at least know that you are not one of them. I had my concerns about your ties to the Sonoran News. You have denied them and I don't think that they would agree with some of your stands here anyhow.
I am not anonymous to this district and have probably thrown enough clues that anyone who knows me, will know me on this board. But, that doesn't mean that I want to give up anonymity to an anonymous blogger.
I suppose you can still keep the blog anonymous, but find a way to be more involved in the process. I think there may be more than one of you, because some of your posts are extremely rational and considerate, others a little more confrontational. I give up trying to figure out who you are, but don't expect to gain instant credability when none of us know anything about you and you don't know a thing about district process.
honeymom
3 yr CCUSD parent:
ReplyDeleteTake everything you read from CCUSD watch with a grain of salt. They won't reveal their composition. For all we know, CCUSD watch could be another district. Don't vote NO because you don't want a super high school. If this goes to a vote, please read EVERYTHING carefully so you're aware of what your NO vote will quash. I think that's what happened last election. Everyone read the newspapers that shall remain nameless and didn't investigage exactly what their NO vote was for - now, we're all(parents, kids, teachers, support staff, administration) paying the price. Oh yea, there are NO EMPTY BUILDINGS - CSHS is overcrowded and flows over into the old Black Mountain campus -
Take Note: I was the one who brought this issue up with CCUSD Watch (Via E-Mail)
ReplyDeleteI’m serving on the NHSPC and My wife served on the LRPC,I Volunteer countless hours and money to the HS and Middle school.
I brought this issue up for three reasons,
1. The Issue of converting the district to K-6, 7-8 was a forced issue to the Community.
This will max out all Elementry and the single Middle School. Create a K-8 Campus that most Parents will not want there children going to and The Teen's would probaly fight not to attend.
Forcing a Closure and another empty School.
2. The NHSPC was giving 3 options to decide on 6-4-08 and we are to report to the Board on 6-24-08, Now the District is Calling for a NEW Committee http://www.ccusd93.org/education/sctemp/f0b42143548a8fe041379e0dbdb4b71d/1213850609/Call_For_Elem_and_Middle_School_committee.pdf before they have even heard what we have come up with.
3. None of the Original work from the LRPC has been brought back out for review.
When ever possible I attend board meetings, and I’m disappointed sitting thru 1-1.5 hours of awards, presentations, and school play skits. Then having everything pushed off until the next Meeting..
Dear 3yr CCUSD Parent, The vote was last year 11/3/07 the community voted NO. Problem was the community also voted NO for the Districts M&O Money.
And as for the 43 classrooms at the Black Mountain , Last year Cactus Shadow used a Maximum of SIX. During the School year That’s 37 unused classrooms in my Book
Why can't they convert all elementaries to K-6, make STMS the 7-8, and somehow make CSHS and DAMS the combined high school campus? Let the district offices move to BMES.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to emulate the PV schools, they are K-6. Back in the dark ages, I finished elementary in sixth grade. Is there a solid reason not to do this?
Dear 11:24 PM - I think the previous poster was saying that there were capacity issues with going to 6 at some of the schools.
ReplyDeleteDear 10:28 PM - A few questions:
1) Are other committee members equally frustrated?
2)How do you recommend changing the process?
3) What actual action do you want to see people on this board take? Granted we can all keep tossing the blog ball on this, but that will not bring about change. At some point, if people are unsatisfied, they are going to have to write letters to the boe, speak at boe meetings, and address the subject. That will require dropping the cloak of anonymity.
I am hoping that some other members who served in the process will chime in. It is really hard to tell because of the anonymity here if what you say is true, or if you are just disgruntled.
If it is true, I would think that putting together an actual group of citizenry who are prepared to use their names might help. Strength in numbers, strength in conviction. But, how do we do it, when nobody knows who they are talking to here?
honeymom
The K-8 model for DAMS will happen. Their new assistant principal used to work at a K-8 school, which is why they hired him. I think they're positioning him to replace Ann Orlando.
ReplyDeleteDear Honeymom
ReplyDelete1) Are other committee members equally frustrated? Well we started 25+ Members and at the last meeting there where 9. I don’t know about the other Members Frustration beyond our Two top School representatives Both have Resigned from the district.
I don’t know anyone would not be frustrated when asked to Volunteer there time and asked to report back to the board, Then before the date that you were to report to the Board. They Decide to create another Committee to decide on the Option’s you and your Committee just Decided on. Also the Composition of this new Committee (looks a Little Suspicious to me) Good Luck to any Parent trying to get on it.
Also why is it that not one of the options being discussed in these committees does not Involve K-6
2) How do you recommend changing the process? To have a process there must be a Beginning, Middle and an End, for some reason there seems to be a lot of middles coming from the Board with no END.
3) What actual action do you want to see people on this board take?
The action they should have taken Nov 4 2007 was to pay back the $20M in bond money and ask the SFB for 12.5M an Expansion. That would have been Great PR Headlines for the School Board pays back $20 Million Dollar Bond.
Elminate all Awards presentation, School plays,Power point shows, and any Outside Presentation that takes more then 10min. This is a complete waste of time for a Volunteer Board, All of them can be handled in a better way. (will Elaborate if Necessary)
Do not go K-6 7-8 this will Max out Most of our Elementary Schools and Leave us with a Maxed out Middle School and K-8 Academy that wont get used. I think a lot of people forget this is an Open Enrollment State, Parents can send there child to any school, in any district they want. If the Don’t like the K-8 they wont go there.
My action Group is in Place and Election day is Coming.
You can always meet me at the next board meeting. It’s not like Honeymom really tells me who you are. I’m not Hiding behind a cloak, Very Simply look up the Members of the NHSC on the CCUSD web site and my name is there, If you know me give me a Call if you work for the District you know my Wife. Hey Look Im Not Anonymous anymore I have a screen name. :)
Sorry for any poor grammer& Spelling @3:30am I should have gone to bed Hours ago.
Also one more note: I would not worry about anymore over crowding I havent heard any numbers comming out our High School Yet, But from what I here from the Students, alot are getting out, and There are Waiting list at most of the High School's Surounding our district. I called!
ReplyDeleteDear I can open,
ReplyDeleteI think that some of my last message was a bit unclear. When I referred to this board, I meant this blog board not the governing board. I hear you and CCUSD Watch loud and clear on what the problems are. And, I am not trying to antagonize anybody over anonymity. But, I am really unclear as to what to believe based on what I read on this board. I see a variety of opinions, many from other people who also seem to be involved in the process. Some of those people describe others walking out en masse from meetings when they aren't getting their way. So I meant no offense to you with my line of questions. I appreciate anyone who does any sort of volunteering.
I am not into my kids playing musical schools and I understand what you are saying about capacity issues. But, you should know that I actually like the idea of the k-8 academy. I have one child that has real transition issues and while it will be too late for her, a k-8 would have really been a benefit. I have had conversations with other parents, several of whom feel the same way (some who attended k-8's). I think there is support for it in the community even if it isn't amongst your friends. But, as I say this, I am really scratching my head trying to figure out how they would make that work at DAMS of all campuses. The physical plant just makes no sense for a k-8 configuration.
I did try looking up NHSC on the district website. It doesn't come up in my search and I am not sure what the initials stand for. Please clarify.
Also, what reason, if any, does the district give for not using 37 classrooms at the old BMES? What do they say they intend to do with those classrooms? I agree that not using those classrooms doesn't make sense.
Thanks,
honeymom
NSHPC
ReplyDeleteNew High School Planning, you know the one formed AFTER the voters said no.
You can see some of there work here but you will not see the minutes.
High School Planning Committee
Sorry, NHSPC
ReplyDeleteNot much to read through for that committee. LRPC had minutes posted.
ReplyDeleteQuick read through, a couple of questions:
1) There seemed to be an issue with whether bond monies could be used to expand north campus (I believe SRP bonds - only $1 million could be used for this option). Is that a factor, and how so, in expanding into BMES?
2) Are district offices/preschool at old BMES now? (last I looked they were in a trailer). If so, where could district offices go? Is there any money to build a proper facility for the district?
3) How big a problem are the NIMBYs in the North HS area? I understand that we have a problem with at least one boe member in regards to this. Is the problem just the one boe member, or is the problem greater?
4) Expanding in the North HS area seems to negatively impact the athletics program (uses up space). Would this be an issue if we expanded in BMES? (I may not have learned a lot in my years of parenting, but I have learned that athletic parents can be a pretty vocal lobby).
And are we using the old ST campus? Obviously we all know we are not using all of BMES. Expanding into that school makes more sense.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for a 2nd HS as long as it is used as a SECOND HS and not just a new HS because of the overcrowding. Having 2 HS makes more sense.
And if someone on here does want to actively start making some changes or present things, I am all for it.
CCUSD watch probably knows who I am now since I originally posted this with my REAL ID (oops), if they get the posts via email when they are posted on here, I am hoping they will not reveal my blogger ID to anyone else.
While I'm not a current proponent, why is there the belief that a K-8 academy wouldn't work? Is it modeled after Cheyenne Traditional in Scottsdale? That school has a perpetual waiting list.
ReplyDeleteDear 3 year,
ReplyDeleteYou should look at the ccusd93 website. Look up meeting mintues for the long range planning committee back in 2006-2007. There was pretty good discussion that seemed to go on regarding the 2 hs. I like 2 smaller hs better, too, but there were some real concerns over being able to offer athletics/extracurriculars and staffing at 2 schools vs. centralized.
honeymom
HM -
ReplyDeleteIt would take just as much money I would think to hire additional teachers to get the classrooms smaller regardless. While it may take more money for the extracurricular activities (meaning they may not have enough for all the same activities INTIALLY), I think it would be worth it for smaller class sizes in HS.
I will have to go and read on their website. Thanks for the info.
3year - I also wish they could make it work with smaller hs. My husband and I had a cow when we read about the "mega-school" concept. I told our principal (one of the dearly departed) about how much we hated it at the time and her response was that that was the choice and if we voted for it we would have a great hs for our kids and if we didn't, we would have a crummy one.
ReplyDeleteNow you know one of the reasons that I have hinted at about why I am not 100% upset about one principal's departure.
honeymom
Someone wrote...
ReplyDelete"While I'm not a current proponent, why is there the belief that a K-8 academy wouldn't work? Is it modeled after Cheyenne Traditional in Scottsdale? That school has a perpetual waiting list."
Hi, we are all for a traditional academy but why not have every school be a traditional.
Everything we have seen is that CCUSD wants to do a Fine Arts or Language Immersion academy and not a traditional, back to basics school.
Cheyenne is one of the best schools in the state, public, private, or charter. We cannot understand why SUSD doesn't roll this out to more/all schools. And for those keeping score at home, Cheyenne uses Saxon Math and not EM.
3 yr - how do you propose the district pay for 2 high schools - teachers, academics, sports, transportation, electricity, etc., etc., etc.....doesn't make sense to have 1 hs, one that fits everyone and has room to grow and keep all the programs, teachers, staff, etc., etc., etc...
ReplyDeletelast post should have read doesn't it make sense
ReplyDeleteIn response to questions asked June 20 7:53 am
ReplyDelete1) 1mil might put up some fencing and a little sidewalk
2) I ask this question Often to the CCUSD. Answers I have received. “It is being used by CSHS”. Well after investigating I now know that’s not true, 6 out of 43 classrooms are being used by CSHS. “It is Being used by the Community” and “Its all being used by someone”
3) Nimbys, Traffic and other issues are what was forced down the LRPC throat to guide them towards building a Mega High School at the South Campus.
My Opinion on the South High School. The District was looking to capitalize on losses they are sustain to PV and other districts.
4) There would be No Negative Impact on any athletic program, In fact you could gain (2) Soccer or Practice fields (16) Tennis Courts and with enough money we could put in an Aquatics Facility. There is Plenty of room up there
If Possible you should really try to get a look at the LRPC Option #2
3 year CCUSD
Old STMS is the current BMES
There will be no new 2nd HS (No Money to Build It)
The Current $20m is not even Close to what is Needed,
You cant get SFB money for It.(due to Current Enrollment, and size of current high school)
Now you can ask SFB for money to Expand CSHS (That is Build New only) not remodel old BMES.
And the $20M that is left in the bond Can only be used to build a New high school so just pay it back to the bond. Before having to pay taxes on it.
And I willing to accept that possibly the Community is 50/50 on a K-8 Academy but we still come to same conclusion, There is no money to remodel dams to a K-8 Academy.
You Fill up Most of the Elementary, and even with a 4.3M expansion of STMS you fill that to Capacity also.
Dear ICANOPEN,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the information. Here is some of what we think.
I ask this question Often to the CCUSD. Answers I have received. “It is being used by CSHS”. Well after investigating I now know that’s not true, 6 out of 43 classrooms are being used by CSHS. “It is Being used by the Community” and “Its all being used by someone”
3) Nimbys, Traffic and other issues are what was forced down the LRPC throat to guide them towards building a Mega High School at the South Campus.
Just as we suspected, these committees are farces and the political end goal is predetermined. The district is masters of The Delphi Method. Again, not what is best for the district or academics, just what is politically expedient.
The District was looking to capitalize on losses they are sustain to PV and other districts.
Again the district likely thinks we need the SSHS with swimming pools and high tech, when in reality, many are fleeing because of the leadership and the academics. Turn around the academics and the children will follow.
Now you can ask SFB for money to Expand CSHS (That is Build New only) not remodel old BMES. And the $20M that is left in the bond Can only be used to build a New high school so just pay it back to the bond. Before having to pay taxes on it.
We predict that there is no way these guys will give money back despite our calls for them to get this resolved. They will find some other creative terminology (see flex school) to use this money.
Thanks again for your input!
CCUSD Watch and I can Open:
ReplyDeleteThe back and forth volley was a bit confusing. To clarify:
1) Am I correct to assume that you would both advocate paying back the $20M bond since it cannot be used for remodeling BMES anyway?
2) Would we then have to vote for a new bond to redo BMES to expand CSHS?
3) Where would the money for new fields, etc. come from? Would this also have to be worked into a new bond?
honeymom
Also, any suggestions for how to deal with the nimby/nimbys on the boe?
ReplyDeletehoneymom
5/23/06 had 14 lrpc committe members voting against expanding existing CSHS, 4 undecided. Option 2 seemed to be discussed at prior board meeting.
ReplyDeleteThat is the vast majority voting against it. Do you know the reasons for the no vote at the time?
honeymom
1) Yes Payback the 20M Bond it does have a date of use, Experation, After that date it becomes an asset to the district requiring the District to pay the Taxes/penalties. If not returned this is what I was told from Mr. Frison
ReplyDelete2) Yes you would need a new bond if you want to remodel oldBMES for CSHS use.
Or we could go to the SFB and ask them for money 12.5m for additional classroom space
Note: SFB funds can only be used for New Construction and Minor Remodel of existing buildings. Such as adding a restroom, or Expanding the Cafeteria. oldBMES is not part of CSHS.
3) Yes you would need another bond to add anything new, Fields, Pool, Parking…..
I cant find the board meeting date but didn’t they just spend 500k-3.5M on Field Reconditioning ?
RE: Nimbys I don’t think there are very many in the surrounding Community, And especially with the current housing market a big empty high school does not improve value, Nimbys on the Board 5 of them are up for Election this year Vote for a Change.
I really hate Reading Between the lines and this only My Opinion, The LRPC was forced under a Guise that they could not expand the Existing campus.
Issues.
1. Army Corp of Engineers, and that it takes 6 month’s to 1 year to get them out on site. Well its been 2 years and we have done Nothing.
2. No Money they where under the Impression that they had only $1m to remodel BMES true but they also had 12.5M to build new with.
3. There where traffic Issues (Hmm 2yrs later Dove Valley has been Connected to Rancho Paloma Dr, and 60th is Currently under Construction to Lone Mountain).
4.Dr. Ashby was in the house and wow doesn’t a New High School sound Grand.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Sid Bailey for some reason he has resigned now that the New High School is not being built. (wondering what he was Promised)
To my knowledge, 60th to Lone Mountain is suppposed to be gated and open to residents only. Do you know differently?
ReplyDeletehoneymom
No I dont know.
ReplyDeleteBut thats nothing a good safety issue Lawsuit cant fix. Or we could be nice and ask for a traffic study, and have the city buy the street back.
Plus if one kid lives in there they all will.
Also I found out some the Composition of the OldBMS
Approximitly half it is being used for the Pre-K CCUSD Program, 2 rooms are being used for a Before & After School Program, and an unknown number are being used for community classes IE. Cooking, Sewing and the such maybe an AA metting. Classrooms 38-43 are trailers that should have been condemed and removed years ago.
FYI, Cave Creek Support Our Schools is not dead. You will see more of it this fall.
ReplyDeletehoneymom
Hi Honeymom,
ReplyDeleteWhen was CCSOS alive?
OK, sorry for the sarcasm, but honestly when did CCSOS do anything of note and does the resurrection of CCSOS have anything to do with the emergence of CCUSD Watch (or our we just full of ourselves?!?).
Why is CCSOS waiting until the fall? We are not waiting until the fall. We feel the problems in CCUSD cannot wait.
Do you know who will be in charge of CCSOS? We would like to reach out to them. Assuming they are not just a mouthpiece for the board and administration, we likely have the same goals.
Thanks!
I don't know the answers to your questions. Also, they may be meeting over the summer - I don't know either. I just know that they plan to be speaking with parents this fall.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to hold out info from you. I just realized in cleaning my inbox that I had communication from them.
June 24, 2008
ReplyDeleteI was one of the three that spoke on behalf of the HSPC, last night. We gave the board our option which was #4, Minus all the K-6, 7-8 and K-8 Academy. That should be discussed by the New Committee being created EMSPC. What we where asking for was to move forward using 12.5m of SFB money, Don Brubaker (architect) Confirmed with SFB that the district could use money in that way, and the money was still available.
We had support from Member’s Clancy (whole Heartedly I might add) and Ledesma to move forward with the design phase, Dr. Johnston threw a fit saying that the Christopher Verde District needed to be advised of this and we should hold off until the start of the new school year, and input could be provided from that district.
My Opinion (same as Clancy’s) No one really needs to be informed of a decision involving the use of SFB money to Expand the High School. Nor do we need to use a Survey Monkey or get any input, Even from me and other Community members Beyond: Building Style (One or Two story ) and placement. (Placement was actually worked out by the LRPC.)
So here I sit stagnate again, also in hope’s we wont lose more members of the HSPC.
I asked Mr. Frison if we could some how Reconstitute the Planning Committee and he does not see the need.
Also when speaking to the Board I requested that The Options be reviewed and 3,5 be replaced with Viable options or Thrown out all together and let the EMSPC start with fresh ideas.
There was something a Little Fishy in the Air also last night. When Member Clancy brought up Paying back the Bond (Part of Option 4) and what it would show this Community, on behalf of the Board, Ashby and Reese had a whispering session and came up with paying back 3.5 or 4.5M (Sorry that was hard to Hear)
So here is some Basic Math
Current Bond 14.9m
Minus an STMS Expansion 10% = 4.1m
Leaving 10.8M that should be used to pay back the Bond Only
Unless the Administration tries to pull a Fast one over on the Community. That is the K-6, 7-8 plan, And some how they figure on using more then the 10%. Per Documentation handed out to the HSPC it reads like this 7.25M expand STMS, 4.25 Expand K-6 Campuses. Leaving a 4.?? Surplus.
Is this Legal I really Doubt It.
Frustrated rantings...
ReplyDeleteMy frustration is this whole K-6 idea is thrown about as it is just simply a matter of moving some students from one school to another. When it initally arose or I first heard of it a year or so ago, it was from a parent who did not want her dear little one to be "mixing" with evil 7th & 8th graders which is NOT an academic reason. It is a stupid reason, to be frank, as her own perfect little angel will be a 7th or 8th grader some day...Of course, I suppose her child will be the ONLY perfect child of that age...
Anyway... here are some concerns/questions I have in regard to this "simple" solution.
1.) Are we going to retrain our 6th grade teachers to teach in multi-subject classrooms again? They are used to teaching only one subject...many have not had to teach more than that for several years.
2.) Are we expecting that 6th graders will move from classroom to classroom as they do now for each subject? Well, that math doesn't work out. If we plan to add 6th grade to each elementary school I can't imagine adding more than two classes (i.e. two teachers) at each school; but there are currently four subjects that 6th graders take each with a different teacher. Would you have each teacher teach three of the subjects?
3.) I don't believe you can just "add" 6th grade classes to all the schools without redistricting. The math doesn't compute. Redistricting is a nightmare, but I would argue that it is going to have to happen anyway with reconfiguration and since the only reason I can see that we actually want to reconfigure is to even out class sizes -- again there is LITTLE if ANY academic support of K-6 other than it is what other districts have done, etc. The popular model used to be K-8 which does hold some academic basis as it requires fewer transitions for students during their educational career and that has been researched to be positive for students.
K-8 definitely cannot be done at all schools without redistricting...
So if we're going to have to redistrict anyway, perhaps the best thing to do is redistrict to more evenly distribute students in the existing structure/format and forget trying to force a change.
Why, also, is the district responding to a SMALL but vocal group of parents saying they want K-6. There are 5000 parents in this district, just because 100 or so want the change is that reason to bend over backwards to give it to them? Is it best for the students? I don't think so.
And CCUSD Blogwatch whoever you are...it is easy to say you don't want to hear about the limits of how bond money can be spent or that this fund can't be spent on one thing or another that you want to see done...but that is just a load of crock. Unfortunately, state requirements and federal requirements all put in place by politicians hwo think they know more about how to spend a school/district's money better than the school/district can have created all these funds and limits on how certain monies can be spent and have put school districts into the position of receiving criticism for things they cannot control.
For example...the renovation at BMES of the field. I've heard several parents ask "Why are they spending so much $$ on that when the school needs so much facility renovation?" The question implies that someone in the district had a pool of money and said "hmm...let's see...I know that DAMS has air conditioning issues and bad plumbing and I know that BMES needs serious building repairs and upgrades...but I don't care...Let's put in a new field for the kids to play on."
Does that make sense? Is that really what people think? It's ludicris. NO, the district was told the money needed to be spent on grounds. So they did. I guess some think they should have done nothing with the funding... Yeah, that makes sense...especially since it is nearly impossible with the birdcage liner that gets put in everyone's mailbox and people like the ones behind this blog who like to stand aside and throw grenades at everything the district tries to do and really truly revels in failing bonds and overrides "we're for the kids" they say as they just work to sink everything the district tries to do.
I'd love for you folks to go meet with Kent Frison and study the district's books and locate that hidden pool of money all folks seem to think exists that the district is hoarding instead of spending on programs for the kids. Why in the heck would ANYONE want to be superintendent of this district? Why would you want to come to this town and deal with the crap that is thrown at you daily and be criticized for everything you do, be competely undermined by the board at every step of the way -- especially by those who say they are there to represent the community when they are only there to represent the 20 or so people in this town who like to complain about everything.
Yes, I'm going off track here and yes I'm a little annoyed. I am so SICK of the complaining by folks who make NO effort to solve the problem or by people who CHOOSE to remain ignorant.
Another statement of ignorance...DISTRICT FUNDS WERE USED ON DESERT ARROYO's ELECTRONIC SIGN. That money was raised by student leadership. Are there other places that $$ could have gone that would be more beneficial (such as computers)...yes...did the principal make that suggestion to the group...I don't know. I just know that when you have a gruop of folks willing to fundraise and volunteer and they say they want to raise money for a particular item would you tell them you don't want it?
Yeah yeah yeah to the folks here all the answers are simple. Let's teach Latin and all the kids will be brillaint. Let's just shuffle everyone around from school to school until everyone in the district agrees that the numbers of students/ages of students/types of students are all perfect at each school (by whose definition of perfect?)...all while saying we are doing this "for the kids". Let's just state we're going to raze BMES and expand Cactus Shadows over there...and we don't have to ask or care about asking where the $$ comes from to do that.
I hope there is a mass exodus to other districts and other towns so the house values start to drop here and then, perhaps, folks around here will feel it in their pocket books and stop complaining and start to actually TRY to help bring about change for the positive in teh district --- actual, thoughtful, positive change, not presonal agendas. Perhaps those who are really at fault for a lot of this will have some introspection and realize that...superintendents change, principals change administrations change...what stays the same? The community...Maybe the constant in the lack of success of our schools lies there...maybe some of those folks should take some responsibility.
As for the the comment about the LRP not discussing alternative uses for the CSHS campus if they built one big high school. That's just WRONG. They did discuss it. I was there. I saw financial figures linked with it...I heard the plans. They were there. The information was shown, costs reviewed...It is a LIE that they did not plan for other uses of CSHS.
The person who said that said they "sat through several of the meetings for LRP...but didn't sit through them all did they? How can the equivocably imply that there was no discussion of use for other schools? I was there and THERE WAS discussion of use of the CSHS campus for other things.
As for K-8 and little darlings being with those terrible 8th graders...Usually these schools are structured so there is little interaction and the interaction there is is on a mentoring/support level and can be extremely positive for both participants. I went to a K-8 school and NEVER remember being tortured by or even seeing 7th and 8th graders very often if at all...K-6 is the "norm" only because a lot of districts struggling with school capacity issues have turned that way.
Additonal stream of consciousness reactions to a variety of posts:
People are leaving this district BECAUSE of people like those behind this blog. The town of Cave Creek has the same problems. There are three or four extremely vocal grumpy people -- some who do not EVEN LIVE in the town currently--who just revel in sitting in town council meetings and shooting down any ideas that come along...How wuold ANYONE want to work in this district with these kinds of people? Then add to that the board members who are spokespersons for the birdcage liner and others who think they are superintendents instead of board members...man!
The voters didn't say "no" by the way! They SAID NOTHING!!!!! The parents in this district didn't vote at all. That's not a resounding "no" as you imply. It's a laziness...an apathy that is just sad and pathetic. Those who like to vote "no" on everything gloated over the last election as if they'd won some sort of victory. They didn't. There was the same exact number of "no" votes as there always are...year after year after year. The only thing different on this election --no parents came out to vote "yes". They didn't vote at all. No one can look at that and take it as a referendum of one type or another.
2nd High school....always thrown about with the assumption it would be a 2nd just like CSHS. Won't be...can't be... enrollment numbers show CSHS overcrowded but several years until two high schools of equitable size will be built. With existing funds they can build HALF a high school, no fields, no auditorium, not the least bit equitable. All those folks clamoring for two high schools because the two smaller high schools plan sounds romantic will be the first to say they won't want their kids at the south high school because it doesn't have the same programs/ opportuniteis as the north.
These issues are just not as easy as CCUSD Blog would like us to think. Just throw it out there because it came out of your head and you think it's great and, of course, it should work...There are so many elements to consider in all of these options. The reason most complainers don't sit on committees (most likely) is because on those ocmmittees you are forced to look at all the constituents and all the issues and you may actually have to compromise or change your mind on things when you completely understand how it all works. Or, you can just be cynical and assume that things you are being told (like that several lawyers have read the bond language and evaluated it and all say that the money CANNOT be spent on renovation of existing buildings and can only be spent on a NEW SCHOOL) are just being told to you to manipulate you into whatever decision the board wants. Of course we don't want to spend any money wastefully, but...let's just keep spending money on lawyers until we find one that says we can spend the money how we want and then, when we're sued we'll spend more on hiring lawyers to fix the mistake. OR let's spend huge amounts of money and wait for the three-year backlog for the Army Corps of Engineers to come and look at the CSHS site AGAIN...to see if anything has changed since the last time when they said what limited building space existed there.
I just don't know. I'm at my wits end.. BTW...Maybe you CCUSD blogwatch folks and micromanaging/voicepieces of the birdcage liner board members will be thrilled tonight and will be on pins and needles waiting for the board to get to points 6.3 and 6.4 on the agenda...you can see it on the CCUSD website...where, coincidentally you can also find minutes and research materials and other things from LRPC for those who might actually want to know hwat really went on there...
I've had enough... This is just so frustrating...I want to live somewhere where people actually care about the schools and WORK to make things better, not just sit back and throw stones. This town used to be it. When I was a kid we had a school in the MIDDLE OF TOWN that was a community focal point. People actually liked kids around here and supported families. Where'd those folks go?
Yes, I'm ranting, I'm not a CCUSD apologist...I'm a frustrated parent who works hard to bring about change and is tired of constantly having to inform people of the whole picture or provide correct information when they insist on spreading gossip and rumors and just not thinking things through...