New SW High School

[austin-steve]

I know this is way too much forethought for government people to think of, but it seems the solution would be to build new schools with the following attributes:

1) Expandable/Contactable, flexible design built in.
We already see early signs of this as many new schools populate one grade at a time. Starting with 9th, then taking 4 years to fill into 12th, though the entire building is already there so this is horrible underutilization of the facility for those first years .

Future schools should have a "core" infrastructural alongside an expandable/contactable flex component, such that it can handle the population bulge, then 20 years later retract to a more permanent size. The use of portable buildings is already the default for this, but done so as more of a reaction than a pre-planned strategy. Demographers can do a pretty good job of estimating these things, even decades out.

2) Multi-Purpose use
If schools were build with future commercial re-purposing in mind, then, it would be much easier for districts to flex and flow with demographic changes. Many, if built with a small enough "core", could be sold to private schools that typically need capacity for only 1 or 2 classrooms of each grade. So instead of having old, worthless buildings on really expensive land, it could be "retired" and sold to a private or Charter School.

Or, if built from the start to be a future smaller "Academy", it could someday transition into a smaller "boutique" campus focusing on STEM, Arts. Vocational, etc.

Or, if the construction design was more of a "shell" design, where the entire innards of the buildings could be gutted and reshaped, the structure could be made into something else, like an assisted living, or administration/office or even mixed use with neighborhood shopping, etc. once its lifecycle is expired.

Anyway, it just doesn't seem that the current ISD model of building lots of single-purpose buildings on expensive land is very efficient, especially to decommissioning (and resistance to) of undercapacity, under-performing schools in core areas no longer populated by large families.

As is it, the growth areas are used to repopulate under-enrolled, under-performing schoools, which is a flawed strategy. Home buyers and renters want good schools. If you move the boundaries, the people will move and sell their devalued homes. 78745 will never again be an area teaming with families. The houses are too small and the schools are not sought after. Trying to force families to get remapped from Bowie to Crockett, for example, ain't gonna fly.

Steve

[Trainwreck20]

I am not an architect or architectural engineer, but I am not sure that an expanding/contracting design would save money. There would be a lot of up front cost, as well as potential degradation in the construction quality over time. Such a design would likely require multiple buildings (as opposed to one or maybe two) to form the campus, and that adds cost, as well.

As an anecdote, statisticians have long since 'proven' that a football team should 'go for' it on fourth down much, much more often than they do. The risk/reward analysis, when based on the position on the field, offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency of the opponent, and several other firm factors (disregarding intangibles, such as the stress it puts on a defense) show that there are many currently non-traditional situations when a team should use all four downs. They would give up some points some of the time, but make more points (significantly more) more of the time. Why don't coaches go for it? They know and many understand the premise, but are forced by the fans to stay traditional - a fan will not acknowledge when a game is won by such a calculated risk, but they will never forget when one is lost due to the risk.

Changing the school system is similar - there are likely many, many people out there that have some excellent, fact-based methods for teaching more effectively, whether it be in the class room or in how the schools are designed; however, the powers that be are forced to confine themselves to tried-and-true, especially when it comes to physical structures that cost a LOT or money and are pretty much irreversible once built. Teaching methods can be changed (relatively) easily, but not so a campus. A failed (even if it is just perceived as failed) design is an unacceptable risk.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I am not an architect or architectural engineer, but I am not sure that an expanding/contracting design would save money. ...

I disagree. The military sets up and takes down small town-sized semi-permanent encampments in a matter of weeks, complete with power generation and water treatment onsite. The technology exists.

In something like the one shown below, the central building would be the "core" hub, and the "spoke" buildings are added and substracted as needed.

We pay way to much for public education. Especially for the top heavy administration and the mis-utilized facilities. The less primitive our schools become, the worse the education it seems. How many of us went to classes in an un-airconditioned bungalow? I did.

But you're probably right about the "stuck" mindset. But we can't afford, as tax payers and a society, to not start thinking smarter.

[Trainwreck20]

The military sets up and takes down small town-sized semi-permanent encampments in a matter of weeks, complete with power generation and water treatment onsite. The technology exists.

...but using the military as an example of fiscal efficiency? .

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

...but using the military as an example of fiscal efficiency? .

No, as an example of logistical/infrastructure possibility. Education and Military have different missions. I expect more waste in the military.

Both of my kids went to school K-8 in rehabbed second hand wooden buildings that were purchased and moved onto the land that became the Austin Waldorf School in Oak Hill. I was on the board of trustees there for three years and we ran a very tight ship, very low budget, watching every cost, down to the penny. Parent volunteerism was needed and expected, and necessary to help defray costs, but also imparitive in establishing the community involvement now missing from so many educational environments.

There were no computers (still are not through grade 8), no frills. Just kids in classrooms learning from dedicated teachers unhampered by bureaucratic handcuffs. Memorization was not required to do well. Understanding and comprehension was the focus. There were no "grades", was minimal testing, but the work was rigorous and hard.

Upon entering Westlake high, each child was "over-prepared" in English, language, art, math and science. This despite a decade of learning in ""substandard" facilities and not being formally tested and "measured" along the way.

I expect the new SW High will be very expensive, "state of the art", uncreative, same old design and archetecture. It will offer the same standard education we've come to accept as parents and voters. It will be a student mill designed primarily to score the best ratings on standardized tests, and prepare students to do well on tests, so they have a better chance of getting into college.

And if it does score high on testing/ranking, buyers will want to buy houses in the attendance zone and values will rise.

Steve

[Trainwreck20]

Oh, not really arguing with you, just saying the that 'versatile' school may well cost more, not less. I know it is possible.

The actual physical structure of a building can play a part in education to a minor extent, I suppose, but as you pointed out, teaching methods do much, much more than the building. As such, a 'same old design and architecture' building, while expensive, may still be cheaper than trying to forge a new model for the building. I am much more inclined to worry about how the system teaches the students rather than the building that they do it in.

I am just now 're-entering' the public schools system (I have a kindergartener now) after an almost 30 year absence. She attends Mills Elementary and has some minor special needs. I have so far been very impressed with the methodology that they use in the classroom and their willingness to vary it to accommodate our daughter, as well as the open communications with the teachers/administration. HS is a long time down the road, though, at the moment .

[austin-steve]

This just in from the Community Impact newspaper. I'm pasting a snippet from the full article.

Trustees discuss proposed projects' cost

...Trustee Lori Moya sought clarification on how the budget was calculated.

“When we talk about the new south high school, feasibility and design only, it's $8 million. Feasibility for what? I mean, we know we're going to do one,” she said.

She added the proposed budget seemed to be based on an estimate for construction of a new facility, though the decision on whether to build a new school or renovate an existing facility has not been made.

“I'm not in favor of brand-new construction of a comprehensive high school,” she said. “What I would like to see for South Austin is something completely different.”

Torres explained the bond package budget is based on an estimate of the highest possible expenditure.

Interesting. The AISD Board of Trustees had a power shift last election, which I haven't followed too closely, but it's good to see someone asking questions instead of rubber stamping these really expensive new high schools.

Steve

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

This just in from the Community Impact newspaper. I'm pasting a snippet from the full article.



Interesting. The AISD Board of Trustees had a power shift last election, which I haven't followed too closely, but it's good to see someone asking questions instead of rubber stamping these really expensive new high schools.

Steve

Looks like they will need some BIG money from SOMEwhere !!!

This article is from the Statesman regarding the same sex school discussion:
The 24-member school planning team, formed in December 2011, recommended the district locate the school at the district’s Alternative Learning Center, the former Anderson High School in East Austin.
The site would require $20 million in renovations and would require voter approval of bonds in a 2013 election, which would push the open date to the fall of 2014. It has also caused hesitation in some board members.

Sounds like somebody has a cousin in the 'school renovation' business.