Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Monrovia School Link ~ Number 159 ~ March 7, 2006
Update: The school board will vote on whether to put the bond measure on the June ballot at a special 5:30 p.m. meeting this Wednesday, March 8, not at the regular 7 p.m. meeting. Also, I want to clarify my "art" comment from last issue.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
BOND MEETING ~ The 5:30 p.m. meeting has just one action item, a vote on whether to authorize "a facilities bond election on June 6, 2006, and establishing the specifications of the election order." There will be an opportunity for the public to speak as well, so show up if you have a comment.
BAD BRAD ~ Judging from some responses I've been getting, I apparently did not express myself very well in the last newsletter when I said that the science building being built in 1927 doesn't impress me and that $37 million is a lot to spend on art.
Let me try again.
What I was trying to do was to figure out the best way to persuade the public that this bond is worth voting for. I tried to do that by figuring out what would be the best way to persuade me, and my thinking is this:
I think Monrovia voters are going to want a lot more detail about what EXACTLY is wrong with the current science building. Telling people it was built in 1927 is interesting and suggestive, but there are a lot of old buildings that are just fine. What is it EXACTLY that we can't easily do in the old science building? What is it EXACTLY that we could do better with a new science building? Show people EXACTLY how students' education will be improved by the new facility.
And when I said that $37 million is a lot to spend for art, I was commenting on remarks I've heard that the new science building would be "beautiful." I meant to suggest that the beauty of the new buildings (which I equated to art) is not the main point. Improving education is the main point.
So what I'm suggesting is that the district not focus on 1927 or on the new buildings being beautiful, but rather that it focus on all the specific ways the old building is hindering education and all the specific ways the new building would enhance it.
I've also had a couple messages suggesting I tour the high school science building and compare it with the new science classrooms at Clifton and Santa Fe. That's a good idea. But again, I'm trying to think of the best way to sell this to the public, and most people aren't going to take a tour of the schools. You have to take the message to them, and my contention is that the more specific proofs you can offer that the old building is a mess and the new building will be a blessing, the better.
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com
Update: The school board will vote on whether to put the bond measure on the June ballot at a special 5:30 p.m. meeting this Wednesday, March 8, not at the regular 7 p.m. meeting. Also, I want to clarify my "art" comment from last issue.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
BOND MEETING ~ The 5:30 p.m. meeting has just one action item, a vote on whether to authorize "a facilities bond election on June 6, 2006, and establishing the specifications of the election order." There will be an opportunity for the public to speak as well, so show up if you have a comment.
BAD BRAD ~ Judging from some responses I've been getting, I apparently did not express myself very well in the last newsletter when I said that the science building being built in 1927 doesn't impress me and that $37 million is a lot to spend on art.
Let me try again.
What I was trying to do was to figure out the best way to persuade the public that this bond is worth voting for. I tried to do that by figuring out what would be the best way to persuade me, and my thinking is this:
I think Monrovia voters are going to want a lot more detail about what EXACTLY is wrong with the current science building. Telling people it was built in 1927 is interesting and suggestive, but there are a lot of old buildings that are just fine. What is it EXACTLY that we can't easily do in the old science building? What is it EXACTLY that we could do better with a new science building? Show people EXACTLY how students' education will be improved by the new facility.
And when I said that $37 million is a lot to spend for art, I was commenting on remarks I've heard that the new science building would be "beautiful." I meant to suggest that the beauty of the new buildings (which I equated to art) is not the main point. Improving education is the main point.
So what I'm suggesting is that the district not focus on 1927 or on the new buildings being beautiful, but rather that it focus on all the specific ways the old building is hindering education and all the specific ways the new building would enhance it.
I've also had a couple messages suggesting I tour the high school science building and compare it with the new science classrooms at Clifton and Santa Fe. That's a good idea. But again, I'm trying to think of the best way to sell this to the public, and most people aren't going to take a tour of the schools. You have to take the message to them, and my contention is that the more specific proofs you can offer that the old building is a mess and the new building will be a blessing, the better.
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com
Comments:
Post a Comment
