Review this and other Scenarios currently under consideration by the Futures Task Force (FTF):
Scenario #5, where elementary grades would remain in place on either end of the district and a new 7-12 facility would be built in Crystal. Happily the Committee had the sense to table it. It really is utterly absurd.
The Committee did comment, though:
- Few benefits involved
- Would “appease” some stakeholders, but would not address current and future constraints.
- Too draining on the budget or too much loss for each individual community
- No cost savings
“Few” benefits? The FTF does not say what those are, but I see “none”. ..and who on Earth would be “appeased” by an asinine idea like this? I don’t know what “stake” they are “holding”, but “appeasement”? How about a first-class seat in a handbasket? No; all seriousness aside, I recognize that I may be missing something here, so, please readers, enlighten me if you can?
That this would be “too draining on the budget”, and the “drain” would pull money away from kids, as construction projects; new facilities do, is a given. But “too much loss for each individual community”? Most of the other scenarios pull more children even farther away from their communities than this does; the losses are greater, so why does the concern of the FTF for this very serious issue disappear under them? Once in a while, I ask a question I don’t already know the answer to — this is not one of those times….
In case you were wondering (and I don’t blame you) about the value in discussing Scenario #5 at all is the mindset of a committee that would propose such a thing, and even believe that it could garner even a modicum of support from “stakeholders seeking appeasement”.
Overall, this decision is going to come down to values. WHO benefits, and on WHOM do the “challenges” fall? Our readers have made themselves clear that benefits MUST go to kids and taxpayers, and challenges must fall on adults, namely administration.
We will see how the FTF weighs its decision.