Report Inappropriate Comments

NickJohansson:

1) The committee, like just about any kind of study committee I can think of, was comprised of administrators, teachers, parents - in other words, stakeholders with a variety of backgrounds. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

2) I don't know why, but I suspect it had more to do with people leaving than a purposeful paring of "dissenters" (which I assume is your implication).

3) Those pictures aren't from Warwick, are they? Yes, vacant buildings do get vandalized. So do occupied ones. That has more to do with the type of community and policing being done than the fact that they are empty. The schools, even the closed ones, are in neighborhoods where people are concerned and will notice things (and so will the police). No one wants a blighted school in their neighborhood and, for the most part, Warwick has done a decent job of preventing the sort of vandalism found on Google. This leads to.....

4) The City of Warwick actually owns the school buildings-not the school department--but the school dep't is responsible for maintenance/upkeep. However, when a school closes it is turned back over to the City to maintain and, ultimately, to sell or dispose of. This is nothing new. Several elementary schools were closed in the 80's and have been converted to offices or a women's shelter (the old Conimicut Elementary). More recently, they have been utilized for other educational/school admin purposes (Drum Rock/John Greene). The most recent grievous example was Potowomut, but that is apparently on track to be torn down and replaced with a fire dept. by the City of Warwick. In other words, the buildings don't stay vacant or unwatched.

5) This was one of MANY factors that went into the decision-making process, but I agree that it isn't that big of a deal.

6) As I pointed out in my comments on a previous story (http://warwickonline.com/stories/On-a-roll-to-save-Vets-High-,86833?category_id=4&town_id=1&sub_type=stories) , simply put, the Warwick Teachers contract won't allow for 35 kids in a classroom ("class size shall not exceed 28 on a weighted basis" (p.23, Section 12-6.4 (A) of Warwick Teachers contract - http://www.warwickschools.org/PDF_Files/WTUContract2012-2014.pdf). The max is 28 and the desired goal is 25. That includes weighted numbers, by the way, so the actual bodies in classrooms could still be far less.

7) That quote is directly linked to his previous statement about having more kids in a school provides more opportunities for more and different AP (or regular) class offerings as well as more "dynamic" classroom discussions. There are two points embedded in this comment. 1) Right now, it's difficult to justify a class for 5 or 6 kids who may be interested in AP Basket Weaving but with more kids there may now be 10 or 12 interested and the class can be offered. 2) For those AP classes offered (say, AP History) with only 5 or 6 kids currently, more kids will lead to more dynamic discussions. Yes, the student/teacher ratio my jump to 15:1 (and no more than 28:1!), but my guess is that most teachers can still probably handle that. This is not a bad thing.

8) I completely agree with you on this point! And maybe some of the savings that are captured from closing old buildings like Aldrich/Gorton can be used to start up Jr. High sports programs and better fund current student activities. That is the real goal here and it is up to the public to ensure that the money saved really does go back to the kids (not adults)!

9) Maybe that will happen, but I suspect many parents are wary of little Jack or Jill being in the same building as HS seniors.

10) Yes, thanks!

From: Parents explain selection of Vets

Please explain the inappropriate content below.