January 23, 2006
To: Elementary Facilities Task Force Committee
From: Jane Wellehan
Re: Notes for EFTF meeting of January 11, 2006
The EFTF met on January 11, 2006. In attendance were Jason Toothaker (chair) MaryJo O’Connor, Michelle Hendrich, Kevin Mallory, Anita LaChance, Marysue Morrison, David Turner, Donna Carr, Ed Suslovic, Liz Holton, Chris Busby, Steven Scharf, Michelle Butterfield, and Jane Wellehan.
The group reviewed of the groups meeting with Jim Rier from the State, and the funding that the city of Portland has been allocated for a new/renovated Nathan Clifford. The group that met with Jim thought it had been a very productive meeting. All were reassured that a delayed timeline would not affect funding from the State.
;
We agreed to then get straight into the main focus of the meeting, which was to review the 6 proposed elementary school reconfigurations as compiled by Kevin Mallory. Kevin pointed out that none of the reconfigurations were good for transportation. We agreed to write down the pros & cons of each reconfiguration. The results are in the tables below.
|
Reconfiguration Plan #1: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on the old Baxter Site |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
School Size Low |
Transportation |
|
Site Size ample |
Takes Both Schools out of natural neighborhoods |
|
Keeps diversity ideal |
Equity issue not addressed |
|
Centrality – off busy street |
Incorporates only 88 students from Clifford, only benefiting a small portion of the Clifford population |
|
Doesn’t displace youth programs |
2 “disadvantaged” schools into more prosperous/private school neighborhood |
|
Can build new school while students stay in current school |
|
|
Reconfiguration Plan #2: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on Douglas Street |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
Location is central; good playing fields |
Would need to bus Presumpscot students across town (Tukey’s Bridge) |
|
Keeps 2/3 of Clifford students and nearly all of Presumpscot students together |
Bus trip length for some students very long |
|
School Size |
Loss of open space at Douglas Field |
|
Can build new school while students stay in current school |
Leaves District 4 without an elementary school |
|
|
School Size |
|
Reconfiguration Plan #3: Close Clifford Close Hall Build a new elementary school on the Hall site |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
Important to have a school in this area (densely populated, geographically isolated) |
Incorporates only 69 students from Clifford; new building mostly Hall |
|
Building issues at Hall (ie leaky roof, etc) would be addressed |
Leaves Reiche as (still) an economically challenged population |
|
Equity Issue a place (???) |
|
|
Reconfiguration Plan #4: Close Clifford Close Presumpscot Build a new elementary school on the Presumpscot site |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
School Size |
Incorporates only 12 students from Clifford; new building mostly Presumpscot (248), Lyseth (126) |
|
Keeps Presumpscot neighborhood school intact |
Congestion in area |
|
Reduces Lyseth to a more ideal student population |
Industrial area an issue |
|
Presumpscot has a growing population (3.5% from 2000 to 20005; new housing developments in area) |
Leaves Reiche as (still) an economically challenged population |
|
|
Limits flexibility in long term planning |
|
Reconfiguration Plan #5: Close Clifford Close Longfellow Build a new elementary school on the Douglas St. site |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
School Size |
|
|
Many walkers; 2 abutting communities |
Lose “campus” opportunity w/ DHS and LMS |
|
Location is central; good playing fields |
Lose a centrally located School |
|
Increase for Longfellow in Economic Diversity |
Decrease for Clifford in Economic Diversity |
|
Can build new school while students stay in current school |
Leaves Reiche as (still) an economically challenged population |
|
Reconfiguration Plan #6: Close Clifford Close Reiche Build a new elementary school on the Douglas St. site |
|
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
Addresses lack of economic diversity at Reiche School |
School Size – large enrollment (+500) |
|
Transportation access better (than what?) |
School/Community services no longer on same site for Reiche students |
|
Location is central; good playing fields |
Large numbers of students taking bus |
|
Economic prudence for bundles (Reiche is next major renovation) |
Transportation to/from after school activities would be more difficult for former walkers at Reiche |
|
Current Reiche School facility could still be utilized after school gone |
Leaves Presumpscot with a very small student population |
|
West End private school parents may send their kids to a new school |
|
|
Addresses needs of Reiche students for a better physical learning environment (ie walls) |
|
|
Keeps both Clifford and Reiche school populations largely intact |
|
|
Can build new school while students stay in current school |
|
|
Based on Long-term planning, would most easily facilitate future consolidation in District |
|
The meeting adjourned at about 6 pm, with the next meeting set as January 25th, 4 pm at Paths room 320, followed by another meeting scheduled for February 8th, same time and place.
Note: There are 2 items on the tables that I couldn’t quite decipher, highlighted in blue. Perhaps we can take a minute to decipher these at our meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Wellehan