MAY BOND & LEVY

well if changing the image of the schools only takes 55mill than what will it cost to change the image of the city? the city big wigs have put the screws to the schools and to the taxpayer and to the citys infrastructure, doin the buddy plan, hide and seek, shell game, ain't got no money for how long now? this hurt IMO they put on the schools will have a lasting affect for many more years, this image of the city that most outsiders now see it, is what it is, crime is a major reason you won't see many moving to, 10 year olds robbing UDF, 38 years old man with holes in both arms running from cops jumping in KFC's dumpster 3 meth houses in a month, must be a big demand in middletown for this brain killer!! alot of girls and guys are getting busted with the holes in their arms, so that explains all the crime going on in middletown, this HUD problem that the city has caused, when they sent that letter, they ain't playing with MR. A... .not saying all that needs hud are bad people because they are not.. now to the roads, sidewalks, sewers, water lines that the city has failed to maintain for how long now? can't blame the taxpayer for saying NO enough is enough..and for those that moved out.. i had a good  couple weeks ago, the city of middletown tax dept sent my 82 be 83 in july year old mother, that has been gone from middletown for a little over 4 years now, saying she owes for back income taxes for the last 4 years, what a waste of paper, sorry middletown tax dept, your Scratch- N- sniffin will get ya nothing..  for those that wanna know my mother was born in middletown in 1930, i was born in middletown in 1955 my dad spent 44 years at armco/ AK.  im now a retired Heavy Equipment Operator, so if middletown ever thinks about making the downtown into a lake, give me a call...

Just curious, with all classes being moved out of the Manchester Tech building to the High School, is this building also on the chopping block to be demolished?  If so what is going to be built on that site?

Chris Fiora wrote: Enough, The Manchester building is on the chopping block to be demolished.  No building is currently planned for that site.

Mr. Fiora:

Your comment goes against the theme that you and Ms.Andrew have been presenting in these discussions as to reasons for levy money. To date, as a reason for your newest levy request, you and Ms. Andrew have said that some buildings were old and have to come down. Old Middletown High (Vail-Middletown Middle School), Roosevelt Jr. High, Sherman, Wilson, Taft, the old admin. building on Girard, Wade E. Miller Gym, etc. all going or gone now. Manchester Jr. High is a newer school in the district and was built in the 70's when Manchester Rd. was just two lanes I believe. It is as new as the current high school built in 1970. If you want to keep Middletown High and renevate it, why tear down Manchester? If you folks ever get this school district on the right track again, and you start seeing an increase in enrollmant, you may have wished you had kept it, being in such close proximity to the high school. Could be the answer to potential overflow and additional classroom space in the future if needed. What will happen with the Lifeskills/alternative to regular high school program if the Manchester complex is torn down?

Or, is the plan to level Manchester (and the current high school later) to create more land for a larger high school at the same site with yet another levy in the future?

To tell us that the older buildings must go, then turn around and tell us a building built in the 70's (and not that old by any standard) must go too, lacks credibility in your facilities planning. If Manchester is to be torn down, what is the fate of Verity down on S. Briele? It is relatively new by school building standards, isn't it? When will it stop Mr. Fiora? What will finally stop the school board's thirst for demolition and the building of new?.......and, more importantly....when will we start seeing significant results that will open our eyes with regard to your new buildings and what you have done to date?

Vet,

I believe the plan was to build a new HS on the Verity site and remodel the current HS to be the Middle school. If I remember correctly, the state requires 80-90 acres for a new HS to be built. Middletown does not have such a site that I am aware of Once the new middle school is built. I would guess that HS becomes to old to be of any use Middletown will be back in the same quandary as they are now unless they Annex another large piece of land.

Bob Cust
(aka Pacman)

so--why wouldn't we build a new high school on the Verity site, and use the existing hs as a middle school?

Mr. Fiora,

As a member of the Facilities committee who attended every meeting, please allow me to expand on your answer to the very best of my recollection.

You are correct that location was an important fact in the decision to keep the high school where it is, very near MUM.  Many Middies take classes at MUM and the proximity facilitates this academic-enhancing facet of the educational process. Given that academics is what this is what this is supposed to be all about, allowing the courses at MUM to be more seamlessly folded into the students’ high school schedules seemed to be an important consideration.

Someone (I cannot recall who, possibly Principal Cotter, Superintendent Rasmussen or one of the consultants) presented a strong case regarding the importance of an auditorium.  An auditorium is an expensive item, and under the rules of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, as part of a new school it would have to be built entirely with local funds and would not be eligible to be part of our matching funds. However, under these rules an existing auditorium would be allowed to be retained as part of an existing school being remodeled.  The current high school has an excellent auditorium, although it does need some refurbishing which must be done with local funds.

One small clarification to your post:  Of the ten (I think it was ten) original options considered, this was the second least expensive option.  During voting to pare the long list down to a short list of three for presentation to the Board, the least expensive option (by a couple of million dollars, as I recall) was eliminated, thereby making this the least expensive option presented to the Board.

Two side notes:

To the best of my memory (which I admit is sometimes faulty), the Manchester building was not to be demolished as part of the option the Facilities Committee recommended.

Also, I cannot recall any mention or discussion ever of a wrestling field house, or of renovating either Barnitz Stadium or the Glenn “Tiger” Ellison Football Complex.

James:

Good point!!!  There is an existing gym at the current high school, and the plan (as considered and recommended by the Facilities Committee) included the addition of a second “competition” gym to replace Wade E. Miller gym.

I admit I wasn’t privy to the discussions with the Board of Education, but with TWO gymnasiums, it certainly appears to make the addition of a dedicated wrestling field house an unaffordable luxury in what should be a time of austerity.

James:

All,

According to the states latest records Middletown has only 75 student out of 1800 +or- taking advantage of the pseo program. Is this information correct?

If this is true, it seems to be a minor reason for leaving the HS at it's current location.

jsmith2011 wrote: Don't you think one of the reasons the school board is pushing this levy through is because of the Common Curriculum changes that are taking place? We already know the school district under achieves and the board knows the taxpayers feel the schools should do better. The school district is going to do a lot worse in the ratings...the material is going to be harder, the tests will be harder, the students will be expected to actually write a paragraph instead of multiple choice. They need to get this levy through and passed before all of that information comes out because Middletown City Schools ratings are going to go down....way down not up. They are making changes, adding what they can (wrestling etc.) because there will be no chance in hell anyone will ever vote for a school levy after the new ratings are available.

Then, if no chance in the future of attaining "SATISFACTORY" from years of "CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT", then, hopefully, no chance of a levy passing. What is the purpose of spending the money on improving the performance if the district is going to be mired for another decade in the continuous improvement mud pit? It has already been proven, with money spent from the last levies approved, that this district can't pull itself up to satisfactory. Levy approvals aren't the answer to correcting this district's inefficiencies. Why give them more money to remain the same? Let the state take over and make the necessary changes.

Pacman wrote: VietVet wrote: What is the purpose of spending the money on improving the performance if the district is going to be mired for another decade in the continuous improvement mud pit?. Vet, You have this supposed Steve price mantra stuck in your head. We are not paying for performance. We are building new schools and updating old ones, to maintain a level playing field and bring our city into the 21st century. Pacman

WHAT???? WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR PERFORMANCE??? YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? HOW ELSE ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE WHETHER OUR CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS WORTH THE MONEY OR NOT? GOTTA BE PERFORMANCE BASED. WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU GIVE THIS DISTRICT MORE MONEY TO WASTE IF THEY ARE SHOWING NO EYE-OPENING RESULTS WITH THE MONEY ALREADY GIVEN TO THEM, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ALL THE TIME THAT HAS PASSED TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER. THEY HAVE HAD MORE THAN AMPLE TIME TO IMPROVE. OTHER DISTRICTS HAVE THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE.

PAC, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TELL YOUR STOCKBROKER TO SELL A POOR PERFORMING STOCK IN YOUR PORTFOLIO, WOULDN'T YOU? ANYONE WOULD IF THEY KEPT PLOWING MONEY INTO A LOSER OF A STOCK AND TAKING A FINANCIAL HIT MONTH AFTER MONTH. SAME GOES FOR THE SCHOOLS. IF THEY DON'T PERFORM, THEY GET NO REWARD. THIS GOES BEYOND WHAT PRICE SAID WHEN HE TRIED TO SELL US THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOND LEVY. THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE.

YOU HAVE A HIGH DEF TV AT HOME, RIGHT? IF IT DIDN'T LAST AND GAVE YOU POOR PERFORMANCE, WOULD YOU BUY ANOTHER OF THE SAME BRAND? OF COURSE NOT. WHY WOULD YOU KEEP TRYING TO HELP A COMPANY THAT PUT OUT A CRAPPY PRODUCT? SAME GOES FOR THE SCHOOLS. CRAPPY PRODUCT= NO SUPPORT.