This coming Tuesday, May 2, the school board will hold a community meeting to get public input on how to design the site plan for the renovations to Horace Mann Elementary School. The meeting will go from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. at Mann. The meeting agenda is here.
The attachment to the agenda shows several possible scenarios, which are not intended to be exclusive of other potential ideas. The most recent scenarios, developed after the board’s joint session with the Iowa City City Council, are “H-1” and “H-2.” At last night’s meeting, a community member presented an interesting alternative, labeled “Option Z” (shown above; click to enlarge). It’s possible that the agenda could be further supplemented before Tuesday’s meeting.
Discussions so far have focused on (1) how placement of the new addition will affect outdoor play spaces, and (2) how to deal with space for parking and parent drop-off. One possible area for discussion is whether there are ways to think outside the box about how to accommodate parking needs without unnecessarily burdening outdoor play areas and the neighboring park (which has served informally as a kind of extension of the Mann play areas).
Comments welcome!
UPDATE: Some have asked about gym size comparisons with other schools. Here is a chart showing current and planned gym sizes.
16 comments:
Chris, in your opinion does the administration really believe that they have a good chance of the bond passing? The reason I ask is that while I think most people are in favor of new schools, additions and upgrades, a good amount of the FMP consists of wants and not actual needs. I have friends and family that work in the district and speaking with them and others in the community the majority that I have talked to are in favor of the supporting the needs of the school district but say that they will not vote for the bond. The main reasons I have heard for not supporting the bond is mistrusting the administration with such a large sum and having too many projects that aren't really needed associated with it. I have heard that passing a bond of this magnitude would be a difficult task even if it was highly supported by the community. I do not think that this is a favorable bond based only on my interactions with community members. It appears that the administration is putting everything into this bond passing so I would think that they must feel very confident that it will pass. On the contrary if the bond doesn't pass I think that we will be in a very difficult situation exacerbated by this administration's failure to plan. Can you comment on the administration's confidence level that the bond will pass?
The bond is already huge. How much do the proposals cost and is the district adding classroom space or art and music rooms that can be used as classroom space even if not being called classroom space?
How will Horace Mann's attendance boundaries change? Won't the school lose some students?
Thank you.
H-2 and option Z seem like nice options. I like how Option Z has a courtyard feel to it, and frees up more space for play. I wonder if the addition in H-2 could be moved north, and then maybe there is a smaller parking lot and parking around the park as well like option z has. I love the parent drop off on Fairchild in H-2. That is really nice.
These later plans seem to be a LOT more cost effective than the first ones I saw proposed.
From what I have seen with the boundaries changing, Mann is gaining Hoover kids and so the numbers are staying the same with room to grow. If the addition includes a new library, the current library can be converted back into two classrooms like it originally was.
Would the gym be the same GIANT size as some of the schools? I do wonder if that is necessary, unless there is an agreement with the city to use the space?
It seems like so much work and money to save such a old little sized school.
Why don't they just close Mann and keep Hoover open, since Hoover has lots of playground space and is newer.
Why is the community so desperate to save this school?
Probably for the same reasons people want to save Hoover. It is part of their community.
Also, newer doesn't always mean better...Lots of short cuts and bad product and design in newer builds.
"Option Z" looks both sensible and sensitive to the nuances of the Horace Mann neighborhood. We should be designing and building for greater density and harmonious design within our existing older neighborhoods in Iowa City. As a non-parent, neighborhood resident, I am not in favor of space being cleared for more parking lots. This is the most thoughtful plan I see presented.
Of course we want to save our neighborhood school! The schools are the soul of our neighborhoods, and unless you want to ship your kids out to a cornfield and sell off the vitality of your neighborhood wholesale, you would want to do the same. "Dinky" is a MAJOR plus in my book. Living around your classmates, walking to and from school, an intimate learning environment -- these are the pillars of a good education. It is all tied together. That is why we want to keep Horace Mann. I'm not interested in supporting the most "efficient" system. I'm interested in supporting and investing in the best for my kids and my community.
There is no conflict between keeping Hoover open and keeping Horace Mann open. Both are important anchors of their neighborhoods and great places for elementary schools. Residents of each neighborhood should recognize their situation in the other.
Anonymous (8:52 pm) -- The gym would be larger than those at some schools, even when the bond-funded projects are completed, but not as large as the gyms at schools where the municipalities chipped in to build "community gyms." Here is a chart showing current and planned gym sizes.
Tony -- I can't comment on anyone else's confidence that the bond will pass. (Some of my thoughts about it are here.) I have certainly heard views like yours expressed by many people, but of course that's anecdotal evidence.
Is there currently any estimated property acquisition money for the Mann project included in the FMP plan? If not, where would the money for any required property acquisition come from? Do we know if any of the property owners are willing or wanting to sell at this time? Would they be able to acquire with eminent domain if desired? It seems like they are asking us for a lot of money without really putting the pencil to the paper and figuring out the costs first. Will they have all of this figured out and plans drawn up before the bond voting date? Do any other FMP projects on the bond require property acquisition that is not currently accounted for?
When I bought a house, I had a budget. Why is the school administration building up the expectations of the Northside neighborhood for Horace Mann without a budget? Is Murley buying votes or if Horace Mann costs a lot, will the district take money from Shimek or Lincoln? Is there any guarantee the superintendent will follow through on the Horace Mann or Lincoln and Shimek promises?
The bond started out at $120 million and now is $192 million. The board president Lynch says another bond is coming after that.
It looks like the district is just buying votes with art rooms for art lovers and music rooms for music lovers and gyms for sports lovers. Have all of those existing music, art computer rooms been accounting for in available capacity?
Thanks Chris. Appreciate your service.
The proposed spending for the bond is just irresponsible. In the past several years we are told that there is no money and that we have to make major difficult cuts for discretionary busing, foreign language programs, music programs, sports programs, staffing reduction and other things. But when it comes to closing old schools to build new unnecessary ones, adding large art and music additions, and spending millions for Chromebooks, all of the sudden money is no object. How about we get back some of the things that were cut from the budget and spend our money wisely on things that are needed. Why don't we take a step back and try to focus on the things that are important here, mainly educating our children.
Anonymous (11:31 am): I'm not saying that this entirely rebuts your larger point, but it's important to know that we cannot legally take the money that is available to us for construction projects or technology and spend it on busing, programming, or staffing. They are from two different funds and state law literally prevents us from doing that. However, I do think it's a fair question whether we will have the state funding that will enable to us to staff the number of classrooms we are planning to build.
Let's focus on whether the superintendent is spending the money we have wisely. There are new positions in the central office that did not go through the board filled by the former principals of Wickham and Southeast. He hired a new director of special education yet the former director has a newly created position. There might even be more of these positions we don't know about. Three expensive positions at $100,000 plus each plus benefits is $400,000 or so that could have gone into music or art or something else.
Extra technology paid for by different funding isn't free. The district will have staff to support it, send teachers to training, buy software, etc.
The district also hires more consultants than it used to. Can't this work be done in-house?
Post a Comment