Rockford School District spending, Waste of Money or Good Idea
When I first read this article presented by one of
our local channels, WREX, I thought that I had misread it and had to read it
again. After reading it several more
times, I was still overwhelmed by a sense of “what the heck” and then it
occurred to me that maybe they had more information than this article
provided. Maybe they did know what they
were doing and even if it appears like a severe waste of money, the information
that was not published in this article made the decision sound.
The article reported that “the Rockford Public
School Board has approved a plan that will drastically change the district. The
approved 10-year facilities plan includes closing eight elementary schools,
building two new ones and adding on to 13 schools. The plan is expected to cost
$250 million. "I am confident that
moving forward will be able to execute a facilities plan that is one that best
serves our students," said Dr. Ehren Jarrett, Superintendent of RPS 205. Approved amendments to a previously
introduced plan include: Naming or
re-naming the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Presenting a
budget to the board for new classroom furniture for all of the district's
schools, Identifying funds to complete additional deferred maintenance, as identified
in the facilities plan, Presenting a budget and making recommendations to the
board for the demolition or disposal of any buildings not covered by the
facilities plan that are owned by the district and for which the administration
determined the district has no expected use within the foreseeable future and Continuing
to explore ways to air condition school buildings in the district that do not
have central air conditioning and to explore ways to add air conditioning to
those schools. New schools will be built
to consolidate Kishwaukee and Nelson into one building, and Thompson, White
Swan and Cherry Valley into a second new building. Sites for new buildings have not been announced
yet.
It first struck me as a waste of money because if
you already have schools that you wish to close, why not extend or rehab those
instead of building brand new ones? It
appears to me to cost much less to rehab than to build brand new. The second thing was the new furniture
concept. What is it about new furniture
that you cannot do with the old? I mean
is a brand new desk going to help teachers educate our children better or make
them learn easier? Will a new brick in a
building go anywhere as far as a brand new idea on teaching? Just how can it be justified that we do not
have money to put sports back on the curriculum but we can always find room for
the latest furniture idea?
Now like I said, if there is more information than
we are being given that makes this plan sounder than what it appears here, fine
but if there is not, at what point are those who truly care about the education
of all our children going to stand up and say enough is enough.
Comments
Post a Comment