The SLPS Administrative Facilities Committee has been discussing the possibility of school consolidations as a means of better utilization of school funds. Gundlach, Lyon, Mark Twain, Meramec, Mitchell, Shenandoah, Simmons, Blow and Wilkinson Early Childhood center have all been recommended.
The consolidations would be:
Mitchell Elementary to Hamilton Elementary could save an anticipated 418,132 dollars. Approximately, 256 students would be moved to Hamilton.
Gundlach Elementary to Ford, Lexington, and Laclede Elementaries could potentially save 475,000 dollars and would reassign about 217 students.
Shenandoah Elementary to Wyman Elementary would relocate 136 students and save 368,908 dollars.
Mark Twain Elementary to Walbridge Elementary is anticipated to save 458,831 dollars and move 211 students to better facilities.
Meramec Elementary to Monroe and Frobel Elementaries would relocate 211 pupils and possibly save 423,893 dollars.
Blow Middle to Long, Fanning, and L’Ouverture Middles would move 209 students.
All of the above schools’ programs will not change, but the students would benefit from a new curriculum and staff from both schools partnering together. There would be a variety of extra curricular activities to be involved in and additional community involvement.
Simmons Elementary to other magnet schools or Ashland, Hickey, Cote Brilliante, and Farragut Elementaries would save an anticipated amount of 585,134 dollars and would relocate 221 students.
Lyon Elementary to Blow Middle would move 153 students to Blow Middle. One of the focuses in this move would be the neighborhood. The new building would provide increase development in an air conditioned facility. Also, there would be access to public facilities in the community, such as public libraries, parks, and preschool programs.
Wilkinson Early Childhood to Roe Elementary would put 214 students in an air conditioned building that has more space on the inside and out. In addition to the students moving, they would have access to two playgrounds.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
The following came from a recent Post-Dispatch article written by Steve Giegerich. I thought it was very good. (I hope the Post doesn’t mind me doing this):
Martin Blank, the executive director of the Coalition for Community Schools in Washington, contends that St. Louis, like many urban (and sometimes rural) areas, often pull the plug without exploring the alternatives.
A building needn’t operate at two-thirds capacity, Blank argues, when part of that space can be used — in some cases with a lease agreement that can partially offset operating costs — by non-profit community organizations. A non-profit occupying a portion of an operational building, Blank said, has the added benefit of allowing the district to transform the remainder of the structure into a “small school,” a concept that met with success in urban education.
His list of possible uses includes YMCA programs and libraries. Placing a senior citizen center in schools, Blank said, are especially beneficial because it lends itself to interaction between a neighborhood’s youngest and oldest residents.
“For our most vulnerable kids, smaller places are better. People know who they are and they can stay better connected to their community,” he said.
Deanna Anderson, the chief operations officer overseeing the downsizing of the city schools, said Blank’s position has value.
“Moving to multi-use facilities is something we have to consider for our future,” said Anderson. “A school these days is more than a school. It might have just been a school in the 19th Century or the 20th Century, but this is the 21st Century and things have changed.”
But not enough, right now in St. Louis, for the district to back away from its plan to close eight schools.
My question is “Why aren’t we considering it NOW?” It doesn’t appear we will even HAVE a future if we wait any longer. Typical SLPS, don’t explore creative solutions, just keep following failed policies. I would even suggest private housing would be possible in some of the buildings.
Please STOP throwing out options simply because we are too chicken (backwards?) to even explore them.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
What I wonder is, along the same lines that weathered fool speaks of, why couldn’t space be rented out to another school? A small private or charter school on one floor, a smaller more community-centered public school on the other floor(s). More children warehoused in huge school environments isn’t going to help. Building smaller neighborhood school communities would have a much better chance.
I taught at Patrick Henry a decade ago, when many children were bussed all over the city to Henry. Parents of bussed children almost never showed up for programs, conferences, or just to run into the teacher after school–the only parental relationships I maintained were with folks who lived within walking distance. They were the best chance at building a school community. Bussing all these kids away from their neighborhood schools cannot do anything but weaken an already strained relationship between teachers and parents.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:07 am
What is the exact total the district will save or spend to do such a large project. Also how will it benefit the district in the long run.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Regarding schools operating at low capacity–Wilkinson currently is in a small building with 10 classrooms, and has 2 sitting empty. Roe has twenty classrooms. Wilkinson is fitted for small children (tiny bathrooms, low water fountains, preschool rooms with bathrooms in them for the inevitable “accident” 4 year olds may have. Roe has none of this. If we move the kids to Roe, the building will be half empty and lots of money will be spent making it suitable for an early childhood environment.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
FYI
Ms. Wessling points out another problem that is often not considered seriously enough when we consider (rubber stamp?) school closings…the facilities are lacking. I am not blaming anyone…(especially not sodexho and those who signed with sodexho) Like I said, I’m not blaming anyone for the consistent lack of soap and paper towels. (Nothing has changed…or gotten better, folks)
Keep your schools and class sizes small…it is your ONLY chance for success in the SLPS right now.
jim
February 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Small schools and small class sizes does not guarantee success. In order for any school to succeed a school must have a staff willing to go the extra mile to teach. I mean people you’d feel a warmth in your stomach knowing that you were about to get a SERIOUS education. There is a chance you may have 10 kids a class yet you have a lazy instructor who gives out book work definitions and sits at his desk checking his e-mail all period(I’ve had that experience before). Also we need to have students with a motivation to learn. Motivstors and REAL teachers are the key to helping students. Though I admit smaller school sizes and classes could play a factor but what’s the use if ya don’t have the talent to support it.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Lee,
Our class sizes are out of control. 23 in my class. 8 of them have serious mental issues…I mean CRAZY (crack baby, issues) Another 8 are plain mentally disabled…super low IQs..the whole works. It gets worse every year. Are you a teacher? If not, you don’t know the TRUTH so STFU.
A small class size WOULD guatrantee better results. Try me…PLEASE! Where is your f’ing common sense?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
p.s. 10 kids in a class? Give me a break. Give me 10 kids and I GUARANTEE they will learn. You aren’t living in the reality of the SLPS. Quit blaming the teachers who are put into impossible situations or put yourself there.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Dear Jim, First off nothing is guaranteed. The patriots winning the super bowl after going 16-0 was a “guarantee”. look what happened to that “guarantee”
Size is not the key factor in making a good learning environment. You can have 25 kids in a class and they all can past with “B” or better averages and learn loads of information. You also can have ten kids in a class who learn nothing. The key to making a good learning environment is ambition.
Smaller class sizes may help but it is not a “guarantee. 1 child in a class of ten may want to learn yet because of the other children’s behavior he/she may be denied an education. Then like my previous arguement theres could be ten willing to be educated bright students, yet they have a lazy instructor. Maybe an instructor who believes “its such an impossible situation” like you said. A person who doesn’t try yet still collects his or her paycheck at the end of the week.
Also social problems will occur regardless of how many people are in your class. That is impossible to prevent so that should not have been mentioned.
Are you a teacher? I’m not but are you?
GIVE ME A BREAK. You can’t honestly tell me or anyone else that something so small is guaranteed. I learn well in classes of thirty. I learn well in classes of 13. Its teaching and ambition that secure education. Don’t blame on something so small. I could understand if there were no books or desk and all that junk but the supplies are there we just need to know how to emprovise. I believe thats all that needs to be said on that subject. I’ll ignore the unnessary comments and be professional. My good SLPS teachers thought me better
February 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Yes, Lee, Jim is a teacher, one of our hardworking SLPS teachers. I can’t believe you think kids can learn just fine in a full class, but if we took the desks away well, then, of course they couldn’t learn! I would much rather listen to a seasoned teacher tell us what he thinks would help the kids than to someone who has never tried to teach in an SLPS classroom. I too can learn in a class of thirty, but then again my parents provided a stable environment where school was valued and my mother was there to greet me every day after school at the door, ready to make dinner while I did my homework.
It’s easy to talk. Doing is another matter. Thanks to Jim and all the other SLPS teachers who are trying to do the best job you can.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Lee,
First, I apologize for the tone of my previous postings. (Sometimes they sound worse after you post them…and it was a LOOONNNGG Day.)
And thank you to anon at 5:01.
After 8 years in a pretty rough school I stand by my belief that small class sizes are the key to success. (Many more veteran teachers will tell you the same thing) Many of our students require additional one-on-one attention. That is impossible mathematically when the class size is too large. Many of our students are more disruptive. It is much easier to watch them closer with smaller class sizes. Many of our students have learning disabilities of one kind or another (due to a variety of factors). They require more intense types of instruction that cannot be given in large classes.
I have heard this argument that the problems in the SLPS are due to inept teachers and some of our previous administrators have perpetuated that. I will extend the same invitation to you that I extend to anyone sincerely interested in helping the students of the SLPS…spend ONE WEEK in a school. Stay all day and mingle with the students and staff. Then decide what would benefit them the most.
As far as my “guarantee” I stand by it. Give me a class of 10 students and I guarantee they will learn.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
I congragulate you Jim on your many years of service in the SLPS. I believe you are an adequate addition to the district and you mean well.
As anon sort of pointed out there is a problem much deeper than smaller class sizes. How can we guarantee a stable environment at home. We can’t. Many factors besides supplies, class sizes, and teacher’s will go into a child recieve a proper educaton. As a child and a student who observes teahcers and ask them what they see as the problem I’m fully aware (yet not personally)of what a teacher goes through. They may complain about large class sizes but that is not their first and most important factor.
Many teacher’s sit down and talk to feel its ambitions. The children don’t have a will to learn. they don’t care regardless of how much the teacher tries to motivate them to. There environment at home or out on the streets doesn’t endorse education.
Every principle doesn’t have the commanding power that Morgan Freeman in Lean On Me had. Every teacher who is faced with these kinds of children can’t help them Stand Up and Deliever or become a Freedom Writer. Sometimes that deep intense help may work but in most cases with a lack of support from the neighborhood or the student things just fall apart.
In conclusion as hard working as you probaly are Jim, It takes more than less kids in a class to guarantee an education.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Lee, the point is…with fewer kids a teacher CAN have the time it takes to motivate every student. Isn’t the latest catch phrase, “EVERY child can learn”? No child left behind?
March 6th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
To have any education arguement associated with the No Child Left behind act is a mistake all on its on. As 100 percent of America can tell the no child left behind act formed by government was the most unpromising act ever formed. It didn’t help education at all, because if it did this discussion six years after the act has been pasted would not be happening. The No child left behind act is a phrased used not for enhancing learning but to prevent those who lack the skills to move on do so any way. Flunking in most cases is a thing of the past. Why care about school if there is no consequence for failing. OOnce more my arguement on ambition is strenghten. Our own government instead of increasing education has really slowed and laughed at all at once.
How can we motivate a child who truly doesn’t give a damn. Its not a task any one person can do regardless of how few kids he has in his class. It will take the government, The society, peers, the parents, the culture, the school district, the teachers, and the students themselves to make a change. One factor won’t change the table as drastically has you claim.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Lee, you are certainly right about NCLB, but since we are stuck with it right now blaming the teachers who have to work within its bounds isn’t fair. There are plenty of REAL teachers (your caps from the previous post)who want to teach and motivate, but are put in positions where they can’t, and then they are being blamed for a situation they didn’t make and as professionals are not allowed to change. Let’s attack NCLB, not the teachers.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I agree. I wouldn’t call this really an attack against teachers. I’m just not very adament about the class sizes arguement. There are to many factors involved to claim that class sizes is the key to guaranteeing a good education. I also earlier admitted it MAY help but it is not a guarantee. The NCLB though is going to make any kind of progression difficult if we truly want students to take education serious.