Worth the Wait?
Patience is a virtue in short supply.
Take for example the current debate on when to hold the new school referendum. “We need a new school! We need a new school! We need a new school!... NOW!!!”… is the mantra of a few who remind me of my two-year old grandson throwing a fit demanding he get his way…NOW!.
He hasn’t learned patience yet; he has an excuse for his reaction.
Although there are a few like Mike McCormick who would have you believe that this project has been in the works since 1990, this new school project is far, far from what was planned in the early 1990’s. There have been a variety of ideas for renovation or replacement of the aged middle school facility since District voters rejected the last school board new school proposal in September 1991. ( Check your notes for accuracy Mike.)
Some of the past proposals for replacing the inadequate facility have included a renovation/new construction of the middle school, with renovation /reconstruction of shared space with the Primary School; new construction of the Middle School on the current site attached to the Primary School; off-site stand-alone Middle School with reconstructive renovation of the Primary School and demolition cleanup of current Middle School.
In 1996, a New Facilities Application to DOE resulted in a rating of 18th, and a subsequent appeal was unsuccessful. In July 1999 another new school application was submitted, and the beat goes on etc.
Please note that these were all documented plans considered by a variety of school boards as we attempted to seek approval for a new MIDDLE school.
The current proposal for a PreK-8 consolidated school was born out of the NEED for a new middle school, and the politics of appeasing State DOE consolidation movements. I know. I was there. I believed that the District leadership would understand the need to involve the communities in the process, something we began as a series of meetings with the townspeople. The meetings generated interest and questions which promoted future dialogue; but those community conversations were stifled by unwilling Superintendents, who apparently only want you to know WHAT they want you to know, WHEN they want you to know it, and WHY you must support it.
How else do we explain the lack of any news other than tightly controlled Superintendent’s press releases?
Sure, there have been a few opportunities for citizens to get information and express themselves; but the burden has been placed on the voters to find out about these meetings, which have been held on short notice with little or no public announcement (with the exception of public hearings and straw votes as required by law). More time is needed to put all the cards on the table. Take the time to educate all of us, not just the school community.
Can anyone argue that there are negative benefits to further discussing the merits of the consolidation? What arguments can be made for not holding the referendum in June?
Anything worth having is worth waiting for.
Take for example the current debate on when to hold the new school referendum. “We need a new school! We need a new school! We need a new school!... NOW!!!”… is the mantra of a few who remind me of my two-year old grandson throwing a fit demanding he get his way…NOW!.
He hasn’t learned patience yet; he has an excuse for his reaction.
Although there are a few like Mike McCormick who would have you believe that this project has been in the works since 1990, this new school project is far, far from what was planned in the early 1990’s. There have been a variety of ideas for renovation or replacement of the aged middle school facility since District voters rejected the last school board new school proposal in September 1991. ( Check your notes for accuracy Mike.)
Some of the past proposals for replacing the inadequate facility have included a renovation/new construction of the middle school, with renovation /reconstruction of shared space with the Primary School; new construction of the Middle School on the current site attached to the Primary School; off-site stand-alone Middle School with reconstructive renovation of the Primary School and demolition cleanup of current Middle School.
In 1996, a New Facilities Application to DOE resulted in a rating of 18th, and a subsequent appeal was unsuccessful. In July 1999 another new school application was submitted, and the beat goes on etc.
Please note that these were all documented plans considered by a variety of school boards as we attempted to seek approval for a new MIDDLE school.
The current proposal for a PreK-8 consolidated school was born out of the NEED for a new middle school, and the politics of appeasing State DOE consolidation movements. I know. I was there. I believed that the District leadership would understand the need to involve the communities in the process, something we began as a series of meetings with the townspeople. The meetings generated interest and questions which promoted future dialogue; but those community conversations were stifled by unwilling Superintendents, who apparently only want you to know WHAT they want you to know, WHEN they want you to know it, and WHY you must support it.
How else do we explain the lack of any news other than tightly controlled Superintendent’s press releases?
Sure, there have been a few opportunities for citizens to get information and express themselves; but the burden has been placed on the voters to find out about these meetings, which have been held on short notice with little or no public announcement (with the exception of public hearings and straw votes as required by law). More time is needed to put all the cards on the table. Take the time to educate all of us, not just the school community.
Can anyone argue that there are negative benefits to further discussing the merits of the consolidation? What arguments can be made for not holding the referendum in June?
Anything worth having is worth waiting for.
posted by Art | 1/08/2007 10:08:00 AM
5 Comments:
Art,
My notes are accurate. The concept of replacing the middle school has been an on going debate since the first defeat. Yes there have been several reiterations and the current K-8 project is what it is due to the length of time this district has taken to get to where it is today. Much of time was due to a lack of leadership from the Board when you were vice chair. And now the project is what it is because of the changing face of education in Maine, declining students, increasing costs, and declining revenues.
My facts are accurate, I just dont have as much time to dwell on it as you do.
I am more interested in solving the problem than creating roadblocks as you appear to aspire to. Your lack of leadership has led to this project being a 5-8 one at $6million to todays project of K-8 and $30 million. Oh the cost of procratination and delays. If you successful in delaying this project further, we will either lose the opportunity for state funds and/or increase the costs even more.
Get on board and help find a solution!
mike mccormick said to "Get on board and help find a solution!"
Why the hell are you ready to vote, if you don't already have the solution?
You'd better have the solution before we vote or you'll have an even bigger problem!!!
GEE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE FACT IS IF YOU HAVE A 2year old Grandson he must NOT be going to THE Dexter school !!!! How can we Not be pushing for a new healthy environment for the children to learn in ! The current school is making my children (one in Primary school and one in Middle school) sick !!!!! They are both sick on all kinds of allergy med THAT IS UNTIL SCHOOL VACATION ! This is not just a problem facing my family it is more common than not !!!
People like you scare me ! Why are you taking so much for your energy to fight this school but rather try to help resolve the problems !! Or DO YOU JUST LIKE CONFICT !!!!!!!!
Do your kids spend their vacations with relatives?
Anyone who doesn't want to take the time to thoroughly examine and critique a "once in a lifetime" decision is doing themselves and their children a disservice.
The real problem is ignorance, the proof of which lies in not taking the lessons from the past. Based on studies to determine the causes for the last new school rejection, the location and the credibility of the District were cited as two of the reasons.
Even the DOE's Scott Brown is saying that they (State) need more time to review the details of some elements of the plan before they will approve the concept. Will you now say that he too is stalling the proposal?
Playing loose with facts or fearmongering and name calling are not evidence of finding a solution. Get your act together, then allow the public the opportunity to really review what is supposed to be THEIR school. It is starting to look like a June vote is not too far away after all.
Post a Comment
<< Home