The Garden City Telegram
Email this story | Add Your Comment
| Read (0) Comments
Building new, or going with two, preferred
Published 9/14/2007 in News : Education By Emily Behlmann
A rough vote of those who attended a special Board of Education meeting Thursday night mirrored what sub-committees that have been studying the issue recommended: Building a second high school or replacing the current one with a new, larger building are the favored options for easing overcrowding at Garden City High School and handling other facility inadequacies.
The 10 sub-committees of the GCHS Facility Study Group reported at the meeting on the 10 options the group devised for responding to GCHS' cramped quarters. The study group's goal in the next few weeks is to develop a recommendation to present to the board.
The only options sub-committees recommended for further study were building a new high school or splitting the current 1,961-population school into two schools.
When the USD 457 staff and citizens took a preliminary vote of the options by placing stickers on labels with their favorites, some other options each picked up some votes: building a ninth-grade center, moving ninth-graders back to the middle schools and having three middle schools, and splitting GCHS into a ninth/10th-grade and an 11th/12th-grade center.
"Take no action" also received two votes, though GCHS Associate Principal Janet Reed, leader of the sub-committee that looked at this idea, said it doesn't address any of the concerns the study group has been discussing, such as the modular classrooms that sit outside the school, the lack of enough classrooms to house all the teachers, and inadequacy of science labs, vocational classrooms, music rooms, gymnasiums, locker rooms and athletic practice fields.
Adding on to the existing facility, establishing year-round school, creating two shifts in the school day and consolidating with another school district received no votes.
GCHS Associate Principal Robert Kiblinger, representing the sub-committee that studied replacing the high school, said his group recommended the idea because "the many advantages outweigh the few disadvantages."
One of the advantages was the opportunity to construct more classrooms, which would eliminate the need for mobile classrooms and sharing of rooms among teachers.
The facility also could be designed to keep grade levels in separate areas to focus on specific programs, he said, and it would be built off-site, where construction wouldn't disrupt learning.
However, deciding upon that location could be controversial, he said, and Athletic Director Bill Weatherly has said he wants to continue using Memorial Stadium, at the current GCHS site, which would require travel to the field.
The other recommended choice, building a second high school, shared some of the same advantages, as it would be an opportunity to eliminate mobile classrooms and room-sharing, said Reed, leader of the sub-committee that studied the idea.
She said it also would result in smaller schools -- though they wouldn't have to be equal in size -- which the study group said was a priority because benefits of small or mid-sized schools are demonstrated in research.
However, a second high school could require some teachers to travel between the two, and there would be twice as much need for athletic travel and a greater demand for maintenance with an extra building, she said.
Both recommended options would require bond issues, study group members said, and in 1998 and 2000, voters turned down bonds for construction of a second high school, citing reasons including cost of the initial project, the expense of operating a second facility, and the effect splitting the high school would have on community unity and athletic competitiveness.
Specific cost estimates have not been developed, but the second high school proposed in 1998 would have cost about $45 million, or about $65 million in 2004, according to the sub-committee.
The group studying high school replacement didn't discuss costs, though group members said they would need a building with a capacity of at least 2,500 to account for possible future growth.
The board members who heard all 10 reports, Mike Utz and George Hopkins, did not vote using the stickers, and they declined to comment on which options they preferred.
Hopkins said he wants to "start over," instead of allowing personal biases and recollections of previous bond elections to influence his opinions.
"I want to put all that behind me until I see what this committee has done," he said.
Utz said he thinks the committee's recommendation, which will be further developed next week, will carry a lot of weight when the board holds an Oct. 27 retreat to discuss facility issues district-wide.
"The committee did the research, so the committee should help guide the board in its decision-making," he said.
However, he said, he would like to see more feedback from community members at the study group's meetings.
The group meets from 5 to 7 p.m. Thursday in the Courtyard of GCHS, 1412 N. Main St.
Found 0 comment(s)!
Twitter Updates
