Thank you for your presentation. There is more that needs to be said. It is not clear to me if the board is deliberately misinforming voters or just incompetent. Either way, there is no way they should be trusted with this money. 1. The board refuses to acknowledge that the interest rate on the borrowings will reflect a large amount of debt, and the school board will have increased borrowing costs. Right now, Moodys states that the current rating is based on the district having a low level of debt. Have they spoken with bond counsel or a banker regarding what the interest rate is likely to be, for a bond offering of this size? Will this amount of debt affect the Town of Greenburgh bond rating? I don’t know what is worse, if they have not investigated, or don’t want to tell us.
2. They refuse to provide any appraisals, or even opinions from local realtors as to what Bailey and Highview could be sold for. Before we junk those schools, don’t you think they should do that? They note that the schools could be sold for more if rezoned. Will they be demanding the town allow a tall condo be built where Highview is, overshadowing existing homes. I see no one bidding for Bailey, other than the Town. The Dannon building is very attractive, and have there been any offers for it? Again, I don’t know is worse, have they investigated or just not told us?
3. There is NO evidence that consolidating schools will result in better educational outcomes. There is evidence that frequent school changes is not good, but the board could effectuate that by turning Bailey, Jackson and Highview into neighborhood K-6 schools. They refuse to consider that alternative, calling neighborhood schools divisive. They refuse to consider whether this alternative would be less expensive, refusing to consider that the cost of this project is a major issue.
4. The “evidence” they put forth that capital spending will increase housing values was based on a study of ONLY California schools, and the authors specifically note that because of peculiarities of laws in California involving taxes and school funding, it is only applicable to California.
5. They refuse to provide any appraisals, or even opinions from local realtors as to what Bailey and Highview could be sold for. Before we junk those schools, don’t you think they should do that? They note that the schools could be sold for more if rezoned. Will they be demanding the town allow a tall condo be built where Highview is, overshadowing existing homes. I see no one bidding for Bailey, other than the Town. The Dannon building is very attractive, and have there been any offers for it?
6. Any time a resident disagrees, the board calls the person divisive. It is either their way or the highway.
The latest blast from the Superintendent is trying to justify why the cost per student at GCSD is so high. Her justification is that GCSD has more special education students than comparable districts. But her argument does not give all the facts. She does not show the cost per special education student in GCSD versus other districts, so we do not how much of the cost differential is due the number of special ed students versus the cost per special education student. The other question is WHY GCSD has proportionately more special ed students? Are they less successful at mainstreaming students? One again, the district gives less than complete information. They give what is favorable to them, and not full information.
Thank you for your presentation. There is more that needs to be said. It is not clear to me if the board is deliberately misinforming voters or just incompetent. Either way, there is no way they should be trusted with this money.
ReplyDelete1. The board refuses to acknowledge that the interest rate on the borrowings will reflect a large amount of debt, and the school board will have increased borrowing costs. Right now, Moodys states that the current rating is based on the district having a low level of debt. Have they spoken with bond counsel or a banker regarding what the interest rate is likely to be, for a bond offering of this size? Will this amount of debt affect the Town of Greenburgh bond rating? I don’t know what is worse, if they have not investigated, or don’t want to tell us.
2. They refuse to provide any appraisals, or even opinions from local realtors as to what Bailey and Highview could be sold for. Before we junk those schools, don’t you think they should do that? They note that the schools could be sold for more if rezoned. Will they be demanding the town allow a tall condo be built where Highview is, overshadowing existing homes. I see no one bidding for Bailey, other than the Town. The Dannon building is very attractive, and have there been any offers for it? Again, I don’t know is worse, have they investigated or just not told us?
3. There is NO evidence that consolidating schools will result in better educational outcomes. There is evidence that frequent school changes is not good, but the board could effectuate that by turning Bailey, Jackson and Highview into neighborhood K-6 schools. They refuse to consider that alternative, calling neighborhood schools divisive. They refuse to consider whether this alternative would be less expensive, refusing to consider that the cost of this project is a major issue.
4. The “evidence” they put forth that capital spending will increase housing values was based on a study of ONLY California schools, and the authors specifically note that because of peculiarities of laws in California involving taxes and school funding, it is only applicable to California.
5. They refuse to provide any appraisals, or even opinions from local realtors as to what Bailey and Highview could be sold for. Before we junk those schools, don’t you think they should do that? They note that the schools could be sold for more if rezoned. Will they be demanding the town allow a tall condo be built where Highview is, overshadowing existing homes. I see no one bidding for Bailey, other than the Town. The Dannon building is very attractive, and have there been any offers for it?
6. Any time a resident disagrees, the board calls the person divisive. It is either their way or the highway.
The latest blast from the Superintendent is trying to justify why the cost per student at GCSD is so high. Her justification is that GCSD has more special education students than comparable districts. But her argument does not give all the facts. She does not show the cost per special education student in GCSD versus other districts, so we do not how much of the cost differential is due the number of special ed students versus the cost per special education student. The other question is WHY GCSD has proportionately more special ed students? Are they less successful at mainstreaming students? One again, the district gives less than complete information. They give what is favorable to them, and not full information.
ReplyDelete