Can there be any doubt that MCPS needs Prescott School? And that the lease of Prescott to Missoula International School is costing the district even more money than the loss already projected by citizens? (The district continues to deny reality and say that this lease is a revenue producer.)
The recent building of a modular at Rattlesnake School is the icing on the cake when it comes to evidence that Prescott School is needed for our public school students. Of course, many citizens already knew that Prescott was needed, however, now the Trustees and administrators were finally faced with having to do something at Rattlesnake School to deal with the overcrowding due to increased enrollment.
In the packet of the Finance and Operations Committee Meeting of March 21, 2012, one can read that the school district estimated that modulars at Rattlesnake School and Lowell School would cost $120,000 and $180,000 each. "The estimated cost is $120,000 -$180,000 each."
Remember, that a math professor sent an email to the school district last July (2011) in which he estimated the loss of funds to the school district in just one year by leasing Prescott School to the Missoula International School was $500,000. To open Prescott School would cost the district approximately a fifth of the estimated loss caused by the lease for one year. Let's see .... psm (Prescott School Missoula) thinks it makes not only fiscal sense but it makes sense in so many other ways (think of many benefits of a neighborhood school) to open Prescott School when the lease is up in 2017. Until then, MCPS can hire paraeducators to deal with any overcrowding issues at Rattlesnake School as has been done in recent years according the Principal Seidensticker.
On the May 15th, 2012 Special Meeting Agenda there are figures from the entities that submitted a bid for the modular projects.
The low bid was $417,147(Serius Construction) and the high bid was $467,062 from Lower Construction. If you divide $417, 147 by 2 you get $208,574. In other words the district underestimated the modular costs by approximately $88,574 - $28,574. This is the difference between the district's estimate and the low bidder. This discrepancy would be even more stark if you consider the high bidder.
In 2003 when the district closed Prescott School district officials stated that the savings would be $116,000/year. The $116,000 figure may be slightly different today, however, it is quite clear that the re-opening of Prescott School is not cost prohibitive and is more desirable and beneficial for our students than building a modular, especially in the long run.
The $116,000 cost of operating Prescott in 2003 was in part due to hiring a part-time principal. When the school was re-opened after the school board election it was decided that the principal at Mount Jumbo School would share principal responsibilities with Prescott in order to save money. Therefore, the cost of opening Prescott School could now be even lower than the $116,000. Strangely, the principal, Cindy Christensen was re-hired after the re-opening. Additionally, the parents decided to help with the library to help save money. This position was also replaced.
What exactly would be recent figures of re-opening Prescott School? What did the $116,000 include back in 2003 in addition to the costs mentioned above? Could the costs be lower, or even much lower, than $116,000? The costs would mainly be for utilities and lower salaried employees, as teachers would re-locate from other schools. There are many factors that would need to be analyzed. We need these figures, open to all, so that we can do what is in the best interests of our children, and that is, according to Prescott School Missoula to re-open Prescott School.
A cost comparison, in other words, a cost/benefit analysis of all the options available to the district was not done when the district was discussing the over-crowding at Rattlesnake School as far as psm knows. To not study the costs in more detail which would include the costs of re-opening Prescott School was a breach of trust by our administrators and our Trustees. Once again, our Trustees are favoring a private school over our public school children.
No comments:
Post a Comment