|
Facilities Master Plan/School Consolidation Update |
|
 The Committee conducted its fourth meeting on October 28 and accomplished the following tasks:
q The Committee conducted its fourth meeting on October 28 and accomplished the following tasks:
§ It elected two co-chairs, Richard Elias, parent representative from Conant Elementary, and Jeffrey Wagner, parent representative from Eastover Elementary.
§ Working with the facilitator, the co-chairs will plan upcoming meetings, lead the preparation of presentations and reports, and lead and support the committee’s efforts.
§ Listened to a presentation from the District on the benefits of two possible elementary and middle school configurations: K-4 and 5-8, and K-5 and 6-8.
§ Facilitated changes in the BHSD web-site to make it easier to input comments.
q The Committee completed its third community input meeting on October 28 at Bloomfield Hills Middle School. At the meeting, Richard and Jeffrey were introduced as committee co-chairs and they fielded many of the questions from the community on the consolidation process.
q The Committee has completed tabulation of the Community Input Surveys. The quantitative results follow.
q Going forward the Committee is accomplishing the following:
§ Analyzing input received on the BHSD web-site from the community.
§ Analyzing input received from the three community input workshops, both quantitative results and write in comments.
§ Planning a communications outreach.
§ Planning to have a representative present at all PTO meetings to respond to community questions and concerns.
§ Analyzing various grade configuration options, for presentation to the School Board on November 20.
Bloomfield Hills Schools
Pre-K – 8 Facilities Master Plan Community Input
Final Results of Community Input Surveys
216 Responses In Total
Part 1: Forced Ranking of Goals (in order of importance)
Score -- Recommended Goal
1.9 School configurations that enhance our instructional program.
2.6 School configurations that minimize displacement of students from their neighborhoods.
3.6 School configurations that are attractive and marketable to our current and future families.
4.5 School configurations that are surrounded by dense neighborhoods (walkable schools).
4.6 School configurations that further maximize operational cost saving.
4.9 School configurations that optimize building capacity.
5.4 School configurations with multi-use potential.
Part 2: Forced Ranking of Concerns (in order of importance)
Score -- Recommended Goal
2.6 Negative impact on education in the district.
2.9 Potential mistakes in closing schools (choosing the wrong configuration or being premature).
3.4 Negative impact on student and family relationships.
3.5 Negative impact on students and families due to the transition process of changing schools.
4.2 Negative impact on school staff (morale and loss of jobs.)
4.3 Negative impact on neighborhoods with closed schools.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 23 December 2008 )
|