The Growler went to Monday's community meeting on the proposed redevelopment of Jefferson-Houston expecting at last to hear some solid economic and technical evidence about why it was necessary to build a new school rather than remodel the old one, and to be presented data to bolster ACPS's argument that new construction would improve pupil achievement.
Instead, the Growler and other attendees spent two hours listening to recruitment pitches from Principal Kim Graves, emotional testimonials from a handful of parents who have opted in, and a lecture on the IB-PYP curriculum that was more hectoring than informational — all of which the School Board seems to think were adequate substitutes for hard data to clinch the financial and structural case for a new building.
At no time did ACPS explain why the building couldn't be renovated rather than rebuilt from scratch, despite being told over the weekend in an E-mail from school board member Helen Morris that a "solid answer" to this question would be forthcoming.
In fact, there was no formal presentation at all (does no one on Beauregard Street know PowerPoint or Excel?) and it took questions from the Growler and others in the audience to elicit the only nuggets of hard information that attendees could take away, such as Deputy Superintendent Margaret Byess's revelation that the new school would be built to accommodate 650 students. As far as the Growler knows, that's the first time the potential capacity of a new Jefferson-Houston School has been disclosed. It was not offered up but dragged out.
Ridiculous.
When asked about test results, Ms. Graves said she is no fan of No Child Left Behind but that she expects Jefferson-Houston to make AYP next year. When asked to explain why JH students used to do well in open plan classrooms in the late 1990s and then experienced a steep falling off in scores over the past 10 years, Ms. Graves (who has now been on board five years) attributed it to principal turnover rather than the 1999 redistricting. She also conceded that students could learn well "in a garage" and that facilities weren't the only factor in student achievement.
The meeting reached its nadir when Ms. Graves asked everyone to reflect on their own happy childhood memories of elementary school and share them with the audience. The silence that followed was deafening. She is a lovely, warm person who obviously cares about her pupils, but gush and education-speak are not substitutes for facts.
Neighbors clearly remain skeptical. Questions asked by young parents or prospective parents indicate there is uneasiness about the K-8 plan for Jefferson-Houston, and few except Ms. Graves are convinced that having the school headquarters co-located on the site will be an enhancement. One of the most pointed questions of the evening was posed by an attendee who asked Ms. Graves for her definition of success, saying that if millions were going to be spent on a new school he wanted to know what kind of return he was getting on his investment.
A lot of people just listened, but asked demanded answers later on the sidewalk. One was a North Old Town parent, who was disturbed by the meeting and wanted to know the real story of the school and its lackluster performance. Two lifelong African-American residents revealed to the Growler that they remain completely suspicious of school officials, particularly since they remember ACPS headquarters abandoning City-owned property and relocating several times over the years. Why move it again, and why relocate it to this neighborhood?
The more the ACPS zig and zags, avoiding simple answers or abruptly floating new arguments to bolster the case for a new school, the greater the community's suspicions. Let's review ACPS officials' track records.
School officials have pleaded repeatedly that they had no plans, but they went to the Council work session June 22 to request the immediate drafting of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in preparation for the public-private partnership. That certainly constitutes a plan.
After that debacle, ACPS leaders began insinuating the building is falling apart, so a new building is urgently needed. However, we now have the EMG study which revealed the school is not tumbling down but needs routine maintenance and some systems replacements over the next twenty years.
On Monday we're told that a new building is essential to creating a better learning environment for children, but in the next breath leaders admit that a new facility will not automatically guarantee improved test scores.
And this just in: it turns out Jefferson-Houston does have a small science lab (albeit without a sink) while George Mason students are taught science from a cart. Enjoy that irony readers.
Given the past behavior of school officials and the latest evasions, can we even be sure of their sincerity when saying that the high density private development is off the table or that the public-private partnership is dead? Were the Growler's eyes playing tricks or was that Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth at the back of the room, and was he there as a neighbor or prophet of density? Is it a coincidence that six years ago while still in New Jersey, ACPS Superintendent Morton Sherman was an invited speaker at a smart growth conference?
The Growler definitely spotted ARHA board members Connie Ring and Leslie Hagan at the meeting. The neighborhood was advised again on Monday that Jefferson Village was off the table. Were Mr. Ring and Ms. Hagan there to keep an eye on ACPS (as former school board members themselves) or is the Village really still in the mix somewhere?
And what about architect Lee Quill, who was present but only answered a few questions near the end of the meeting?
Stay tuned for the next community meeting will be held on Monday, October 25. Maybe we'll learn that a new school will halt childhood obesity, stimulate job creation and hold the Taliban in check.
27 comments:
650 students? And where do they expect these students to come from?
Did it ever occur to any of the ACPS board members that the Braddock East/Braddock Road planning sessions rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and those farcical episodes play a big role in the truth/believability of what we are hearing?
Hold the PHONE! 650 kids? In whose dreams and on what planet that is gonna happen? Add that to the list of questions never to be answered.
"650 kids? In whose dreams and on what planet that is gonna happen"
They probably believe new development will somehow bring this many kids into the school. Maybe we should ask Schwartz :)
Hey Stewart:
Where is the development?
What guarantees the new residents will send their kids to JH?
As to why I attended the meetings about the new Jefferson Houston plan, I attended not as an ARHA commissioner but as someone interested in the education of Alexandria's children (Yes, I was a School Board member for 8 years)but also as someone interested in what is happening to our neighborhoods, having lived here for 34 years.
While it is true that the building is not falling down, look at this another way: if you owned a 9 -10 year old mid-size car with 150,000+ miles on it and it needed repairs in excess of 3 to 4 times its Blue Book value, what would you do? Repair it. I don't think so. There is simply nothing that can be done to Jefferson Houston to repair its basic configuration which is terrible. Putting aside the academic needs of children, just look at the physical plant. It is an appalling waste of tax payers' money to attempt repairs. It is a classic example of throwing good money after bad. There is no point in revisiting the history of why JH was built in pod configuration, we must deal with today's realities. JH does not work as a learning environment.
But, putting aside the fact that this is a school building, there is another consideration. In addition to being "schools", these are public buildings that, after school hours, provide public space for any number of other activities for the public. In this capacity, the schools even earn money for the system by charing rental fees for some organizations and usages; other local organizations are often not charged fees. These buildings provide meeting room for civic/neighborhood associations, some churches meet in them, musical and theater groups perform there, arts and crafts groups meet in them and people go there to vote, and in many places in this City, schools provide the only open Green space" around where preschool age children can safely play and adults can enjoy being in open spaces. In its current state, Jefferson Houston lacks many of those amenities which can reach out and include the needs of the non-school neighborhood. A new school building alone would enhance the quality of life of all neighboring citizens, not just children, as well as enhancing the value of the neighborhood.
This is why I support a new school for Jefferson Houston. The original plan seems to me, as a private citizen interested in education and the quality of life of our City neighborhoods, to be a disaster. It is too dense, puts far too many non-school related persons in far too close proximity to children and takes away land that has always been designated as public open space and hands it over to developers. Although the School Board now assures us that the original plan is "off the table" I cannot say that I would even support an administration building there. There are other options which I would hope the Board would explore.
Finally, regardless of individual feelings about Jefferson Houston, remember this: the school system has control of this land only so long as a school stands there. If there were to be no school there, the ownership of the land (exclusive of the ARHA property) would revert to the City. Consider what that could mean to all of you in the neighborhood and to the neighborhood itself.
The Growler thanks Ms. Hagan for her thoughtful comments. She has a unique perspective both as a past School Board member and as a current ARHA commissioner.
Who to believe: the 2009 EMG report of J-H's good overall condition along with the 2007 white paper including the remodeling option, or the current insistence from a handful of officials that the school must be ditched and rebuilt?
The first two reports came with the primary agenda of evaluating the facts and informing the pbulic. The current insistence, which has received promises of future explanation in lieu of facts to bolster its assertion, comes with a looming agenda of high-density development that mainly seems to benefit interested developers and architects. So it's between objective facts or a otucome driven to fit an agenda having little to do with educaiton and nothing to do with what's best for two neighborhoods and their main community asset. I think we know who to believe.
"In fact, there was no formal presentation at all (does no one on Beauregard Street know PowerPoint or Excel?)"
Are you saying that this might not have been a goodwill-driven, fact-filled experience designed to truly inform P-G and Upper King St. as well as another chance to gather input on any potential project that would not only be given proper weight but even be used to help the board find a better place for housing their education department?
Are you instead saying that this might in fact have been another snow job masquerading as a public info/input session that in fact is designed to mitigate and marginalize it as the real plan is formulated behind the scenes without any meaningful chance for the public to impact the process whatsoever?
Perish the thought... ;]
"They remember ACPS headquarters abandoning City-owned property and relocating several times over the years."
And there you have it. Get a developer a massive project for the purposes of housing the educrats, but maintain the ability to relocate them whenever ti's convenient. What's left behind is a high-demsity development that can then be leased to any use and built upon further with no regard to neighborhood impact. Buying any part of the sales job leaves us subject to the whims of developers and the city's business planners, all while our open space fades away.
Officials nix Public-private Jefferson-Houston school
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7 2010
By Derrick Perkins
School officials say paying for a new Jefferson-Houston school through a public-private partnership is off the table — for now.
http://www.alextimes.com/news/2010/oct/07/officials-nix-public-private-jefferson-h/
On the heels of the latest community meeting regarding the aging building, School Board Chairman Yvonne Folkerts said officials want to establish the need for a new school before discussing payment options.
“We want the community to focus on the needs for a new school versus how we’re going to pay for it,” she said Wednesday. “It is an interesting concept. Obviously, we still have a lot of questions, but we're taking it off the table because we don’t want it to be a focus right now.”
The board likely will add the project to the district's capital improvement plan sometime in December. From there, city and school officials will weigh the money available and decide on a payment strategy, Folkerts said.
Neighbors of the community school remain wary. School officials took flack from nearby residents throughout summer after floating the public-private option during a work session with the city council in June.
Citing increased density, traffic and a loss of green space, residents worry trading city-owned land for reconstruction money will destroy the historic neighborhood. Superintendent Morton Sherman attempted to tear up the public-private documents during the district’s first community meeting in September, symbolizing Alexandria City Public Schools’ commitment to restarting dialogue with the community.
Apologies and symbols are nice, but residents aren't convinced a deal with developers isn't in the cards, said neighbor Damon Colbert.
“We’re listening to them and taking a wait and see approach,” Colbert said. “I appreciate the fact they acknowledge that their initial approach was not the right approach. We are listening when they say the public-private partnership is off the table, but that remains to be seen.”
Colbert led efforts for community forums after the public-private plan stirred up the Jefferson-Houston neighborhood, though officials say they planned to hold public meetings as soon as the school year began.
After two meetings, Colbert wants to get down to the facts and figures. A meeting Monday was heavy on talk and short on hard numbers, he said.
Colbert says focusing on “immaterial” concerns, like the school’s curriculum and the role of public education in Alexandria, may sour some of his neighbors on the process.
“We are happy to be at the table, we're happy to have these meetings, but we’d like to start discussing the more material issues, because this is a time consuming effort,” he said. “Now I’m starting to hear my neighbors say, 'What was the point?'”
Still, school officials want to reiterate they’ve hit the reset button. Everyone needs to be on the same page before the district moves too far ahead – again, Folkerts said. She expects rough schematics for a new school will be available at the next meeting on October 25.
“My understanding of that community, that part of Alexandria, they are very active and very in tune with the needs for that part of town,” Folkerts said. “We need to respect that.”
Officials nix Public-private Jefferson-Houston school
School officials say paying for a new Jefferson-Houston school through a public-private partnership is off the table — for now.
http://www.alextimes.com/news/2010/oct/07/officials-nix-public-private-jefferson-h/
On the heels of the latest community meeting regarding the aging building, School Board Chairman Yvonne Folkerts said officials want to establish the need for a new school before discussing payment options.
“We want the community to focus on the needs for a new school versus how we’re going to pay for it,” she said Wednesday. “It is an interesting concept. Obviously, we still have a lot of questions, but we're taking it off the table because we don’t want it to be a focus right now.”
The board likely will add the project to the district's capital improvement plan sometime in December. From there, city and school officials will weigh the money available and decide on a payment strategy, Folkerts said.
Neighbors of the community school remain wary. School officials took flack from nearby residents throughout summer after floating the public-private option during a work session with the city council in June.
Citing increased density, traffic and a loss of green space, residents worry trading city-owned land for reconstruction money will destroy the historic neighborhood. Superintendent Morton Sherman attempted to tear up the public-private documents during the district’s first community meeting in September, symbolizing Alexandria City Public Schools’ commitment to restarting dialogue with the community.
Apologies and symbols are nice, but residents aren't convinced a deal with developers isn't in the cards, said neighbor Damon Colbert.
“We’re listening to them and taking a wait and see approach,” Colbert said. “I appreciate the fact they acknowledge that their initial approach was not the right approach. We are listening when they say the public-private partnership is off the table, but that remains to be seen.”
Colbert led efforts for community forums after the public-private plan stirred up the Jefferson-Houston neighborhood, though officials say they planned to hold public meetings as soon as the school year began.
After two meetings, Colbert wants to get down to the facts and figures. A meeting Monday was heavy on talk and short on hard numbers, he said.
Colbert says focusing on “immaterial” concerns, like the school’s curriculum and the role of public education in Alexandria, may sour some of his neighbors on the process.
“We are happy to be at the table, we're happy to have these meetings, but we’d like to start discussing the more material issues, because this is a time consuming effort,” he said. “Now I’m starting to hear my neighbors say, 'What was the point?'”
Still, school officials want to reiterate they’ve hit the reset button. Everyone needs to be on the same page before the district moves too far ahead – again, Folkerts said. She expects rough schematics for a new school will be available at the next meeting on October 25.
“My understanding of that community, that part of Alexandria, they are very active and very in tune with the needs for that part of town,” Folkerts said. “We need to respect that.”
“My understanding of that community, that part of Alexandria, they are very active and very in tune with the needs for that part of town,” Folkerts said. “We need to respect that.”
Excellent work, neighbors. It's nice to have a victory, albeit possibly temporary. I was feeling so abused after the Braddock Road/Braddock East charade. Let's hope this is not just hot air.
“My understanding of that community, that part of Alexandria, they are very active and very in tune with the needs for that part of town,” Folkerts said. “We need to respect that.”
I get nervous when folks from other areas of town try to show how they understand us simple folk in Parker Gray. Because that understanding seems to be restricted to appeals to emotion - let us complain for a couple of meetings, then have us engage in Proustian reflections of our elementary school days. After that we will just roll over and watch the construction crews do their thing.
I also don't buy the used-car analogy. A car is a shrinking asset, a building is not. And while it would be nice to have space at the school for community use, don't we already have a rec center nearby and a community center attached to the school?
If ACPS wants the community to buy-in to building a new school, they should show us what it will cost in comparison to repairs, what the students and community will get for that investment. It is possible to get the community on board, but with facts and meaningful dialogue. Not with appeals to emotion.
TRF - buildings that cannot be brought up to current standards are shrinking assets, often worth only the ground they stand on. The School Board has already presented the costs for "renovation" vs a new building. Those numbers were presented at the first meeting. The community "assets" afforded by a new school building are far superior to those of the Durant Center and the new Rec center. This is not a "historic" property where preservation and renovation make sense; it is an old, out of date building that can never be brought up to current educational standards and will never have the capacity to handle the ever growing ACPS enrollment. Renovating the current building makes as much sense as standing outside and throwing money into an ever widening hole. In short, a complete waste of tax payer dollars.
"Let's hope this is not just hot air."
Be sure to exhale with air conditioner running. The communications consultant comes next.
"we're taking it off the table because we don’t want it to be a focus right now.”"
Th public private partnership is not dead it's on hold.
"what the students and community will get for that investment."
trf is right! Parents who now have their children in school elsewhere need to know what we are getting for the investment. The alleged education plan is poorly stated, AYP was not achieved, the Gazette implies a communications consultant is now on board probably to excuse the fact that all plans espoused to date are seat of the pants. Sherman is in over his head and Morris hopefully feels now the pain. What a bureaucratic disaster they are!
"the Gazette implies a communications consultant is now on board probably to excuse the fact that all plans espoused to date are seat of the pants."
Hmmm! and Schwartz was spotted in the audience? Quill the shill? Jackie big mouth? It sounds like a setup not unlike the Braddock Road Braddock East Plans. Stage managed events intended to mask the facts and protect the city's status quo. The status quo would be fine if in fact the city's schools ranked well. George Mason now ranks because in 1999 it and others rejected the public housing children as previously assigned. If the city had demonstrated an ability to integrate as per Brown, I might feel less hostile. My children are happy where they are -far from the maddening JH crowd. Whoever referenced Tucker is spot on. A man of his caliber and sacrifice would never accept an
80+% black poorly performing elementary school in his old neighborhood. A contained notion of k-8. It symbolizes everything the man fought against. The central district continues to resist their fair share yet we are the parents most criticized for not accepting Sherman's outrageous plan.
Mrs. Hagen,
I was struck by this comment:
"if you owned a 9 -10 year old mid-size car with 150,000+ miles on it and it needed repairs in excess of 3 to 4 times its Blue Book value, what would you do? Repair it. I don't think so."
So can you answer why the ARHA board and leadership persists in "repairing" its own stock of housing?
It seems a little like "the pot calling the kettle back" to lecture folks about repair versus rebuild. I guess you dont see the irony in comparing JH to Samuel Madden Uptown, Hopkins Tancil, or Adkins.
If you had a 60 year old car with 10,000,000 miles on it, would you just sit there and do nothing?
Or if your car was breaking down (Adkins) would you claim you arent doing anything for 10-15 years and "repair" it?
"A new school building alone would enhance the quality of life of all neighboring citizens, not just children, as well as enhancing the value of the neighborhood."
And Mrs. Hagen, would not the complete redevelopment of the public housing projects enhance the quality of life for public housing residents and surrounding neighbors, including children, and enhance the value of the overall neighborhood?
Building a nice school building is great, but many of these kids still have to traipse home from school and spend their evenings and weekends in ARHA-managed projects that dont exactly strike me as the kinds of places which have a high quality of life.
"Building a nice school building is great, but many of these kids still have to traipse home from school and spend their evenings and weekends in ARHA-managed projects that dont exactly strike me as the kinds of places which have a high quality of life."
Don't ask for a response from ARHA...they will just blame the City Council..or George W. Bush
"Or if your car was breaking down (Adkins) would you claim you arent doing anything for 10-15 years and "repair" it?"
No you would just claim there is nothing wrong with the car as the engine and wheels fall off.
"No you would just claim there is nothing wrong with the car as the engine and wheels fall off."
Love that analogy!
The story on the front page of today's Post supports the notion that what's needed is a redistricting, not a new school:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407051.html
Today's Wash Post article about the impact consolidated poverty has on education was amazing.
There isn't a jurisdiction in the Washington metro area that could more easily address those issues than Alexandria.
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a school board less likely to react appropriately.
Here's the flier for the latest ACPS spin class:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14324933/501344711/name/J-H+flier+English+%26+Spanish+-+Oct+25+mtg.pdf
Check out the docket for the City Council Meeting on October 26. http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/dsr/fy11dock.nsf/536ee1fcf306fd108525704b0064fc94/56e336243c7976c0852577c10048ec80?OpenDocument Item 20 addresses Capital Project Allocations and Planned Expenditures. The recommendation is in the document at this link: http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/fy11/102610rm/di20.pdf
In short, they are seeking about $4.5 million in Capital Improvement Project funds for the schoos, none of which relates to Jefferson Houston. Isn't this proof that the allegedly torn up public private partnership proposal lives on?
Post a Comment