The Rightsizing Committee will present their list of recommendations to the Three Rivers School District Board on Wednesday night, Feb 27, at 7 PM. It would be awesome to see lots of Williams people come out wearing our Save Williams School shirts. It would also be great to see people from other areas in the district. We’re all in this together.
Archive for February, 2008
A Call To Petition The State of Oregon For More Education Funding
Dale Fisher sent this out and asked for it to be posted.
Dave Strahan and I chatted via email today several times, and he has made a good point that I wanted to share and get sent out. Would it be possible for you to send this out (if you agree with it). I have posted the following on my blog per Dave’s request:
Today, Dave Strahan our school board chair sent out an email with a great message, and I wanted to share it here. This is a plea for help, and something that needs immediate action. Will you please support Dave, no, will you support our kids and take action on this?
We need to have every person that has given ANY thought to rightsizing, school closure, common prep., trimesters, limited busing, etc… etc… etc… to understand that while we pick at slivers, the very framing of our educational institution is being torn away, and we need the people that asked for our votes and support to go to to stand up, take notice and help us out here.We need to understand that it doesn’t matter if we close two or three schools, it doesn’t matter what tweaks we make to our schedules, it doesn’t matter what bus routes we drop, we are looking at short term, non-effective in the big picture, cuts that will only get us a few more years until we are fighting the same fights again.
Rather than the time and energy that seems to be going into nit picking individual staff members and each other, I really think we could do our kids and our district much more good by channeling our efforts to the real, baseline problems in our district, which is lack of adequate funding from the state. Below is a note I sent to Rep. Peter Buckley, Chairman of the Education Committee in the State Legislature.
I strongly encourage you to share his address with your peers and ask that they too, let our elected officials know that we are tired of continually cutting and gutting our school district and we look to them to help us out. Leslie and I have been involved in the cutting of this district for a decade or better. Enough is enough. We need to be heard loud and now. There is power in numbers and the squeaky wheel does get the grease!! Can I rely on your help?
Sincerely,
Dave Strahan
And now that letter…
Honorable Representative Buckley,
Please excuse the informality of this note, as I am sending it out of frustration and desperation, and striking while my emotions are hot. (and I am rushing to get to my paying job…..) I am the Chairman of the Three Rivers School District Board of Directors and our district is embroiled in, once again, a nasty game of “what artery do we cut this year”, with our budget. We are trying to make decisions we simply should not have to be making!! While my note below specifies only “local elected officials”, that is not totally fair or accurate. I have never approached you, or our new Representative Ron Maurer on this issue, but over the years I have had a deaf ear turned to me by Carl Wilson, Gordon Anderson, Dennis Richardson and Jason Atkinson. I have personally, or as part of a group, approached all of these individuals only to be ignored or blown off. Heck, in some cases they didn’t even know what we were talking about or give any indication of any desire to learn what we are talking about!! It is with deep frustration and heartfelt disappointment that, if nothing else, I needed to point out that our schools are dying a slow, painful death and it seems that no one outside our district knows or cares. Is there anything you or your committee might find to assist our struggling school district and the 5,000+ Rogue
Valley children that we serve??
Respectfully,
Dave Strahan
Chairman, Three Rivers School District Board of Directors
You know what?…Dave is right on the money with these statements. Let’s put some energy into this action, as we have the legislature now in session. Let’s make them hear from us. You have issue with what is going on? Do something! Don’t sit on your hands a gripe about what decisions are going to be or have been made by someone else…let’s get the word to Salem!
Thanks and God Bless,
Dale Fisher
Rightsizing Committee Presentation Wed, Feb 27 7:00 PM At TRSD Office
The Rightsizing Committee presentation to the Three Rivers School Board has been set for Wednesday, February 27th at 7:00 at the District Office. Please spread the word. We need to have lots of community support in attendance.
The Three Rivers School District Office is on New Hope Road in Murphy. Turn from Williams Highway onto New Hope between the gas station and veterinarian’s office. The district is next to the vet’s office across the street from the church.
Three Rivers School District Meeting Feb 11 Will Not Discuss Rightsizing Committee
I don’t know if the board meeting will occur tomorrow night, but they will not be discussing the Rightsizing Committee. I have heard that the Rightsizing Committee presentation of their recommendations to the board will occur in two or three weeks. I will post the date when I hear about it.
Oregon & California-registered Civil Engineer Refutes TRSD Cost Estimate For Williams School
January 29th, 2008
Right Sizing Committee
C/O Williams Elementary School
20691 Williams Highway
Williams, Oregon 97544
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Dennis Hart and I’m a registered Civil Engineer in Oregon and California and the Design and Construction Manager for the City of Medford Public Works Department, Engineering Division. On Jan 23rd, I visited Williams Elementary School to perform an assessment of the basement, roof truss system, and general school facilities. Additionally, I was asked to review the Three Rivers District Facility Maintenance REcommendation for Williams Elementary School written by Crow/Clay & Associates and make comments as needed.My findings are as follows:
1. Basement flooding: I spoke to the person in charge of maintenance at Williams School. Wes Nevotti, and he stated it has been a few years since the water last surcharged from below the foundation onto the basement floor. Since the storm ditch was fixed along the school’s frontage following the 1996-97 floods, water has not entered the basement from the parking lot ground level. Water is solely introduced through the sump pump wells and when the electricity is off or the sump pump(s) can’t handle the volume, water surcharges onto the concrete basement floors. A two prong solution far cheaper than the $103,000 recommendation is to buy a backup portable generator ($300-$700) to run sump pump(s) when the electricity is off and to install higher capacity pumps (approximately $200 each) to handle increased volume. This solution can be performed by maintenance staff thus eliminating $15,000 in Architecture fees associated with Crow/Clay’s recommendation.
2. Parking lot paving: At approximately $7-80/ton for asphalt concrete and using $5,000 each for grading and mobilization, approximately 1 acre (43,560 square feet) can be paved for $72,000. However, the existing gravel surface is in good condition and currently a pervious surface (water will drain through it). Another solution to mitigate dust problems is to use a dust abatement product. For example, Lignin costs approximately $0.65 per square yared place. If only the traffic areas, in lieu of parking stalls, are treated this would cost between $1000-2000 per treatment.
3. Automatic Irrigation system: According to Wes Nevotti, an irrigation system currently exists to irrigate the soccer field. It isn’t as convenient as an automatic system, but it works and doesn’t require an inordinate amount of time to operate. I coordinated with a City of Medford Parks Dept. facility maintenance supervisor and he obtained a few quotes on irrigating a 360 foot by 225 foot (regulation soccer field dimensions) field with an automatic system. Competitive pricing resulted in a $20,000 price tag for almost 2 acres of area. This type of work is labor intensive and volunteers could construct this item for material cost at approximately one-fifth the cost of Crow/Clay’s estimate ($36,000) and save the 15% Architecture fee ($5,400) associated with their recommendation.
4. Bow String Truss Repair: During my site visit, I climbed up to the attic and inspected the truss system. The system was in good condition with no visible damage to structural members. All bolts felt tight and wood members were free of cracks, splits, and deterioration. As a longtime resident of the Williams Valley, I know this roof has experienced numerous snowfall accumulations of 12″-24″ and the system seems unblemished. Maintenance personnel monitor the system each month and haven’t noticed any changes. Personally, I’m troubled by Crow/Clay’s report which seems to be practicing outside their field of expertise (Architecture) with their repair and cost assessment of this item. ORS 671.030 prohibits the practice of architecture from planning, designing, specifying or supervising the alterations or repairs to a building if the structural part of the building is involved.A structural engineer should be employed to diagnose the required repair and/or reinforcement for this item. Scott Pingle, of Kas and Associates, Inc., is a reputable structural engineer who has recently viewed and commented on the condition of the existing bow string trusses at Williams School. Moreover, an engineer familiar with bow string trusses and the Lorna Byrne Gymnasium collapse provided the following commentary:
These are excerpts from two emails received from Charley Greenwood of Greenwood Engineering who is an engineer familiar with the structural design of the Lorna Byrne Middle School gym (and therefore the Williams School gym which, I understand, is identical in design):
“As long as the repair/improvement work at the Williams gym included the installation of corner tension plates and proper hold downs, the building should last for many years-if it is not otherwise compromised. When I inspected the site [of Lorna Byrne Middle School] immediately after the failure, it was my opinion that $100 worth of simple brackets would have prevented the Lorna Byrne collapse.
“Yes, you can quote me as a licensed engineer in this and six other states who walked past the police tape on the morning after the collapse and conducted his own independent investigation of the facts My kids had gone to school there and many friends were in that building a few days before it went down.
“I was provided a set of the original plans to study by the maintenance man who stated that roofing tiles had been falling on the floor for weeks-indicating that the trusses were already under unusual stress conditions. Mr. Hoback, then principal of Lorna Byrne, did everything he could to keep me from conducting my own forensic study“
January 17, 2008 Charlie Greenwood-Greenwood Engineering
5. New Exterior Siding (Entire Complex): Crow/Clay & Associates cite areas where wind driven rain enters the wall then take a colossal leap to installing new siding on the entire complex. Naturally this requires repainting the entire facility. The combined cost is approximately $130,000, not including the Architectural Fee ($19,500). This assessment is based solely on the potential for dry rot.
6. Retrofit Interior and gym lighting: Crow/Clay & Associates recommends replacing all interior and gym lighting with energy efficient fluorescent lighting. Although a popular and noble venture, has anyone calculated the return period for the energy savings? Let’s look at simple math to gauge the results. Let’s say lighting represents 30% of a $1000/month electricity bill and the new lights reduce usage by 50% (Oregon Dept of Energy claim T8 lights use up to 50% less energy than T12 lights). So 50% of the $300/month bill will save $150/month. The result is a $61,000 investment ($53,000 + Architecture fees) will be recovered in approximetely 400 months or 30 years. Other variables, such as bulb replacement costs will reduce the return period, however it is important to understand that it looks like a poor investment unless subsixized through federal or state monies. Outside sources will provide funds to forward energy efficiencies. Why hasn’t Crow/Clay researched this or itemized it within their estimate? The same argument can be extended towards the $21,000 investment in more efficient windows; however, the efficiency percentages are less favorable than the lighting. Lastly, I spoke to staff at Williams School and they currently energize half of the lights within each of the 5 portable classrooms and all of the lights within the 2 standard classrooms. Each modular classroom has 33 housing units each containing 2 bulbs. Staff feels using half of the units provides ample light for the students. Uusing that data, I quickly calculated the number of instant start ballasts and T8 bulbs (4 footers) needed to replace the current lighting demand. The material price was approximately $2600 (95 ballasts and 230 lights). Installation of this item can be generously assumed to be 1 hour per ballast (100 hours total). I’ll assume $50/hour which totals $5000. Grand total is $7600. Crow/Clay’s price estimate for interior lighting is $33,000 not including the 15% Architecture fee ($4,950).Moreover, the current electrical code allows low voltage certified personnel to install the aforementioned ballasts without the high cost of a journeyman electrician. The district may have maintenance personnel with the appropriate certification to perform this work and further reduce installation cost.In summary, I’d say the list of recommendations is not needed, but merely someone’s vision of what is wanted. The scope of work is not refined and costs seemed unchecked. Quick analysis of a few items shows a large reduction in scope and price.
As the Design and Construction Manager with the City of Medford Public Works Department, I’m responsible for millions of dollars of design and construction each year. I consult with the Professional Engineering community to procure Bridge designs, Roundabout designs, and Intersection modifications. The engineering cost as a percentage of the construction price is generally between 5-10%. The numbers fluctuate based on specialty (Bridges) or consultant location (Portland or Medford).The majority of work recommended by Crow/Clay & Associates is not specialized and can be delivered through contract specifications. Other items such as lighting, painting, irrigation, basement drainage, etc, can be procured and managed by maintenance personnel. There seems to be no competitive pricing or solicitations of opinions for the recommended work. Estimated prices and the subsequent 15% fee will naturally remain inflated until a competitive market has been introduced.
If you have questions or comments or need further assistance, please call me at 846-0701.
Sincerely,
Dennis Hart, P.E.
Architect For State of Washington Refutes TRSD Cost Estimate For Williams School
January 24, 2008
Three Rivers School District
Attn: School Board of Directors
PO Box 160
Murphy OR 97533
Subject: Williams Elementary School
Williams OR
Dear School Board Members,
I visited the Williams Elementary School facility on January 20, 2008 to perform a walk-thru evaluation of several key areas that have been identified as the subject of focus in regards to recent consideration by the Three Rivers School District to close the school. I was accompanied by Wes Nevotti and Bob Morgan, who were extraordinarily helpful not only in explaining to me the purpose and importance of addressing the issues, but also their invaluable insight into the building, both historically and currently.My evaluation involved the visual assessment of key elements of the building’s architecture, with my subsequent comments based on my understanding of appropriate building material performance criteriia, building code applications, and life safety elements. My credentials include registration as an architect in the State of Washington with over 28 years of professional prectice in both the public and private sectors, with built projects throughout Washington, Oregon and Nevada. After a general briefing from Wes and Bob, they relayed to me four specific issues as the core of the school district’s concerns, those being 1) the structural integrity of the roof system supporting the gymnasium portion of the building, 2)the validity of flooding allegations in the basement, 3) the viability of the existing exterior building siding material, and 4) the concern for application of barrier-free accessibility throughout the facility. We then proceeded to physically investigate each of those issues, which are summarized individually in the following:
GYMNASIUM ROOF
We climbed up into the attic space of the gymnasium building so as to get an up-close view of the bowstring trusses and their supporting structure, and walked the transverse length of the entire structure as well as investigated the full length of the truss spans themselves. I was looking specifically for evidence of material deterioration, stress, cracks, misaligned or compromised connections, and other telltale anomalies that would indicate a possible deficiency in the structural capabilities of the roof system. After looking at the general as-built design configuration and examining varied random connections, I found nothing that indicated lack of structural integrity or anything that warranted consideration of “repairs or replacement” of the entire structural roofing system as referenced in the Board’s December 17, 2007 meeting minutes. As further substantiation, it was brought to my attention by Wes and Bob that there is a person (whose name I can’t recall) with a working background in structural systems whose services have been engaged by the school to regularly monitor, analyze, assess, and report any evidence of changes in the structural system and elements of the system. According To Wes and Bob, this person has been investigating this building monthly for quite some time and has reported that there has been no evidence of structural deficiencies or deterioration. If there is still overwhelming concern however, my recommendation for ascertaining a definitive determination of the building’s structural integrity would be to engage the services of a licensed structural engineer, who can provide a detailed analysis including confirmation of the integrity of the existing structure or recommendations for appropriate alterations if required.
BASEMENT
I was given a thorough tour of the basement of this facility, navigating from the old previously used library and classroom area through the current storage and mechanical spaces. Because of a comment stated in the Board’s December 17, 2007 meeting minutes concerning the basement’s history of “perpetually flooding”, I was consciously looking for evidence of ongoing water infiltration damage. I did see a few signs of past flooding occurrences (from years past), but what struck me as questionable was the fact that even though the entire Pacific Northwest was innundated with an inordinate amount of rainfall in the past month, I noticed that there were numerous low-lying book-filled shelves as well as book-filled cardboard boxes sitting directly on the concrete floor that showed no evidence of being contacted by water or even threatened by the intrusion of water. When I questioned Wes and Bob about this, they explained two things to me: 1) there are two active sump pumps serving the basement area which adequately evacuate any water that does happen to enter the basement floor, and 2) through their own monitoring of the situation that’s been referenced, they’ve uncovered what appears to be several specific areas of water intrusion caused by subterranean hydrostatic pressure pushing water up through cracks in the concrete floor, causing surface wetness only but no accumulation. And when that does happen the water is immediately diverted to the sump pumps. Therefore, it is my belief that the proper concern for the school district should not be over allegations of the basement “perpetually flooding”, which connotes a severe breach of water infiltration barriers, but rather addressing the identification of isolated water infiltration points and the subsequent appropriate resolution of that anomaly. There does not seem to be any apparent reason warranting excessive expenditure of money to resolve “flooding” issues.
EXTERIOR SIDING MATERIAL
Wes and Bob explained to me that the exterior of the building is sided with a combination of redwood horizontal T&G boards (on the gymnasium portion) and lapped horizontal fir boards on the remainder of the facility. All exterior siding is painted, except for a few isolated instances where either the paint is chipped or alligatored, or joints are not properly caulked or sealed., the condition of the exterior finish of the building appears to be acceptable and performing as expected. As is the nature with materials and finishes similar to these, a regular maintenance schedule (i.e. repainting, recaulking, etc.) is very important to maintaining a durable weatherproof barrier and preserving the desired appearance. I believe this is all that would be required at this facility.
ACCESSIBILITY
Although I wasn’t able to investigate thoroughly the facility’s detailed compliance with national accessibility requirements, as a professional practitioner of architecture I address accessibility issues on a regular basis and am quite familiar with the design and performance criteria. One of the things that arises consistently during facility assessments is the notion that existing buildings must comply with the latest code requirements in regards to accessibility, and that is simply not true. There are exemptions granted to existing buildings through the purview of the national accesibility codes (IBC 2006 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003) which allow conditional nonstandard applications if strict compliance with current code is technically infeasible (IBC Section 3409). Therefore, in a cursory review of Williams School through visual assessment of existing conditions coupled with explanation of the building interior configuration from Wes and Bob, my belief is that the facility is generally in acceptable condition as pertains to accessibility criteria. I do have two primary concerns however, which I discussed with Wes and Bob. First, as a comment, it is the general desire of the disabled population to be able to use the same basic routes of travel, entrances, facilities and pathways as people who possess full mobility. A common complaint I often hear is when the building layout or site conditions of a facility require a disabled person to have to circumnavigate the normal path of travel or be relegated to going in “the back door” in order to access a building. The condition tends to emphasize a disconnect rather than offer a feeling of unity. However, it does not violate code. The issue at Williams School involves an accessible path of travel which is quite circuitous (having to enter the back side of the building), and which does not lend itself to being a “welcoming” portal for the disabled community even though it is a legal pathway. I see a very simple and relatively inexpensive solution to this issue, by creative redesign of the main entry to the school which incorporates a unified ramp and stairs to accomodate all people at the front of the building. Upon mentioning this to Wes and Bob, their enthusiasm over the idea led to their telling me that there are plenty of qualified individuals in the Williams community who would happily donate their time and talents to create and implement such a change. Secondly, if this approach were deemed excessive as it relates to the available budget, my strongest comment is that the existing facility lacks appropriate signage identifying the accessible path of travel. Signage and identification of defined accessible pathways throughout any facility is a vital link to appropriately accomodating disabled people, but that is absent at Williams School. The immediate solution of providing signage is utterly simple. As one of the services I perform on a regular basis through my regualr job, I can certainly provide a more detailed accessiblilty assessment of Williams School if you so desire.
In summary, I’m optimistic that the assessment I’ve presented through this letter serves to provide positive reinforcement for the Three Rivers School district’s Rightsizing Committee to appropriately evaluate and reconsider that Williams Elementary School is indeed a sound, viable and essential element of the Williams community. If you have any questions or comments on my evaluation, or if you desire further elaboration, please feel free to contact me by any of the means shown below.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
John C. Martin
cc:
Michelle Sesock, Principal, Williams School
Linda DuBose, Rightsizing Committee member
Bob Morgan & Wes Nevotti, Williams School
Rightsizing Committee Recommendations-2/5/2008
The Rightsizing Committee came up with their list of items to forward to the board of directors, to cut expenses for 2008-09 school year. The following is the list in order of importance.
Note:This list was created before yesterday’s (2/7) decision to drop the trimester plan. The trimester plan accounted for $500,000 in cost reduction.
1. Recommend the Board revisit the transfer policy and consider revoking any pre-existing agreements with other districts.
2. Implement a full-day staff development model (1-4 days).
3. Enact the state construction excise tax.
4. Continue to revise and review transportation routes to reduce the number of busses required.
5. Enact a local options tax.
6. Proposal to potentially merge small schools in 2009-2010 and recommend to the Board that it then implement the School Closure Policy.
7. Recommend to the Board they eliminate the superintendent position and reassign responsibilities to existing direcctors for a year.
8. Lobby the State for higher transportation reimbursment rate.
9. Implement community based strategies to recruit home and private school students.
10. Enhance school programs to attract additional enrollment and retain existing enrollment (such as Ruch School did).
11. Enhance rental revenue on district properties like Selma and Merlin.
12. Establish one or more charter schools in space available at district level.
High School Trimester Schedule Scrapped: Loss of $500,000 In Savings
Note: The status of this post is unclear. Apparently a lot of of rumor is flying around, part of which I guess is my fault for posting what is more heresay than fact. I would be pleased to post any factual information that people send to me, or you can comment on the posts themselves.
Some people may not be aware that the Three Rivers School District includes elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. As part of the $1.19 million in budget cuts required for the 2008-09 school year, about $500,000 was to have come from re-organizing the high schools into a trimester schedule. I don’t know much about it but it is a very contentious issue. (You can read more about it at Dale Fisher’s Blog) At Tuesday’s Rightsizing Committee meeting, they said that $700,000 of the $1.2 million in cuts had been identified. Well, the trimester plan has been postponed or cancelled (I’m not sure which) for the coming year. This means that these 500 G’s must come from some place else now. Instead of $700,000 in cuts identified, the number is now $200,000, leaving $1 million in cuts that need to be identified for 2008-09. Despite the Daily Courier’s painting of the Williams School Bell Ringing Event as a victory celebration (It was not planned that way, though the occurence of events sort of made it that way. It was originally planned to be the same morning as the RSC meeting on Jan 30 but was postponed due to snow) it’s purpose was to rally the Williams community to action and raise a little money for the school. We succeeded in both endeavors.We are aware that the RSC has no real power. In fact, some believe it to be nothing more than a screen to diffuse blame from the board and Dr. Fritts when the axe finally falls. I have nothing to say about motives other than mine and those of the Williams community. We will continue to respect them and provide them and the TRSD board with factual evidence to back our claims that Williams School is a NET REVENUE GENERATING SCHOOL worthy of remaining open.As a community, Williams is prepared to meet the Three Rivers School District halfway. In fact, we have met these good people more than halfway and will continue to do so. We hope that they perform the jobs with which they have been entrusted with due diligence and a mighty conscience.
Panel votes to delay school closures: Wolf Creek, Williams, and Applegate safe till 2009, Daily Courier Feb 6, 2008
Story by Patti Richter/Daily Courier
Wolf Creek, Williams, and Applegate schools are safe from closure for now.In front of an audience of more than 75 parents, children and other community members, the Three Rivers School District’s Rightsizing Committee unanimously agreed Tuesday night to delay school closures until the 2009-10 school year.Delaying any closures for a year will give the three specific communities time to find cost savings and repair buildings in need of major maintenance. The committee also told community groups to investigate alternative ways to offer classes at the buildings, such as creating charter schools.
“Thank you. Thank you,” rang out through the room along with a loud round of applause. Many people in the crowd wore “Save Williams School” T-shirts.The committee was convened in November, with orders from the school board to find $1.19 million in savings from next year’s budget and another $1 million from the 2009-10 school year. Three Rivers School District has a $42.6 million budget for 2007-08.
Early on, district officials identified about $700,000 in savings from staff adjustments, restructuring high school schedules and reorganizing the district office. That left the committee with about $510,000 in reductions to make for the coming year.The cuts are necessary because school funding is based on enrollment, which has been in decline in the Three Rivers district for a decade. The final decision on any cuts will be made by the board, which plans to hold at least one community meeting in the spring to discuss the proposals.
The committee’s top recommendations Tuesday night were to revisit the transfer policy for students and consider revoking pre-existing agreements, which would increase enrollment and, therefore, state funding; implement full-day staff development training, which would reduce costs on those days; implement the state construction excise tax; revise bus routes to reduce the number of routes; send a local option levy to voters; and merge small schools during the 2009-10 school year.
Closing the three small schools drew the most comments. Applegate, which is a K-8 school, had an enrollment of 115 students on Sept. 30. In the same enrollment report, Williams had 88 students and Wolf Creek had 67 students.Some committee members voiced concerns about small schools costing more to educate children, while others advocated for the community education aspect a small school brings to the district. Others were worried about the majority of the district having fewer school days in order to save money so a meager percentage could remain in small schools.
“I can support closing a school,” said Peter Maluk, principal at Fruitdale Elementary School. “We are not offering you less by moving you to another school. Yes, there is some inconvenience. But to assume that Williams, Wolf Creek or Fruitdale is better than our other schools is not the way to make a decision.”
Special Education Director, Dan Huber-Kantola said the committee has identified between $982,000 and $1,060,000. Human Resources Director Debbie Breckner also told the committee she was meeting with all the school principals to look for further personnel reductions in the next week or two, so the district can reach its goal of $1.19 million in savings.
“This is exciting,” said Marcy Small, a Wolf Creek mother who has advocated for the small elementary school to remain open. “I’m glad they gave us a year…We made it through this. Now I’m just worried about the school board’s decision.”Small fears some school board members will advocate the closure of a small school this year. “It really doesn’t matter what recommendations the Rightsizing Committee comes up with if the board decides to do what it wants,” she added.
Small and other Wolf Creek parents plan to pursue the idea of creating a K-8 charter school at Wolf Creek by the 2009-10 school year. They have been contacting businesses for donations of paint and labor to spruce the building up as well as grants for items like playground equipment.”We are not letting up on our efforts,” she said. “Whether Wolf Creek Elementary stays open or not, we’re going to push for a charter school.”
Williams school bell tolls in celebration-Daily Courier Feb 6, 2008
photo by Timothy Bullard/Daily CourierStory by Patti RichterThe clanging of the bell at Williams Elementary School Wedensday morning was a sign of victory for the more than 50 parents and community members who gathered to celebrate.But the bell’s toll also served as a warning of sorts for the community.Three Rivers School District’s Rightsizing Committee came up with its final recommendations Tuesday night, and closing a school for the 2008-09 school year was not on the list. Instead, the committee recommended the district hold off on merging schools until 2009-10 to give the communities time to make repairs and develop viable alternatives to closure.”No school is a good school to close,” said Scott Wilson, who organized Wednesday’s bell-ringing event. “It was a hard choice for the committee to make.”Wilson said Williams parents are organizing to find ways to get repairs completed and bring in more of the area’s homeschooled or private school students. Local contractors have already offered up to 250 hours of volunteer work and supplies. They also plan to investigate creating a public charter school at the Williams site.The school’s population should start to increase soon, he added, A community-run preschool has 22 students, and eight more on the waiting list. Add in 30 new babies in Williams this year alone, Wilson said, and the school will soon have more than 100 students.”Our common goal is to keep schools open,” he said. “We want to move forward with that.”As parents and community members visited and drank their morning coffee in front of the school, Ann Gunter was just happy to hear the news Williams Elementary was remaining open.”They are going to let us limp along for another year. That’s better than the alternative I guess,” she said. “I’m glad they are giving us a chance to find a way to keep it open.”Gunter, who volunteers her time to teach art at the school, felt the way the community cme together and fought to keep the school open played a role in the committee’s decision.”I think it gave those on the committee an opportunity to discuss keeping Williams open and know they had a lot of community backing,” she said.
