Portables for our overcrowded schools

Didn

6 Comments so far

  1. Maria (unregistered) on September 14th, 2004 @ 1:15 pm

    I know what you mean Zee. I don’t have children, but I do see the portables everywhere at the schools. I remember them from when I was in school, and they shake like hell during a small thunderstorm, much less what we’ve been through lately! :(


  2. zee (unregistered) on September 14th, 2004 @ 2:24 pm

    True, and that’s just one of the many things that worries me, the weather here. They do have a plan for bad weather, where they bring all the kids into the lunch room area. But still, they’e so far away…


  3. Dawn (unregistered) on September 15th, 2004 @ 8:09 pm

    Well you’ll love this one. I’m in west orange county and my daughter opened the new relief school (Citrus Elem) 4 years ago in Ocoee. As of last year (she was in 5th grade) they were 1200+ students for a 850 max occupancy school.

    So this year they opened Metro West Elem to be a relief school for the relief school….

    When we went to register my kindergartener for this year, I had to take the DEED to my house to prove I lived in the district for that school. We are 4 year veterans and personally know the principal, and still we had to prove it.

    We are growing too fast for our schools sake. And our children are paying the price.


  4. Steve (unregistered) on September 20th, 2004 @ 12:35 am

    When you vote to reduce class sizes, of course the students are going to be put into portables; there’s nowhere else for them to go. Such an amendment would be suitable for an area that isn’t experiencing rampant growth and already has a good school system in place, but Florida’s poor schools have a lot of work to do before spending money on such an initiative. It’s a shame voters are so ignorant. Jeb tried to tell everyone but they don’t listen.


  5. Chari (unregistered) on September 20th, 2004 @ 3:29 pm

    What’s silly is allowing the Florida state constitution to be amended so easily. That aside, calling folks ignorant doesn’t offer a resolution to a problem that existed before and still exists now. The amendment is in place and we have to deal with it.

    Curbing the rampant growth a bit [how? I have no idea] while possibly increasing impact fees for construction of multi-family [apartments] dwellings could help with the crunch. Putting the additional revenue from the additional impact fees directly into school construction might be an idea. The additional fees could be partially passed on to the renters in their rent payments. We can’t expect single family home owners to shoulder the costs for apartment dwellers’ kids forever.

    Shingle Creek Elementary, out near the Mall of Milennia, has had several apartment complexes pop up in the last two years. And they’re still building more. The school has portables out the ying-yang and needs more. The cafeteria can’t hold enough kids during normal lunch hours, so lunches are starting at 10:00am in the morning to accomodate the crush of children. They’ve more than doubled the number of kids there since 2002.

    The increasing number of kids is the problem, not the mandated size of the classes.


  6. zee (unregistered) on September 22nd, 2004 @ 10:04 am

    You know, the number of children increases so rapidly, not even the portables will suffice. Since after the hurricanes, both my children received 3 new students to each of their classes. At this rate, by the end of this semester we will have our usual large class size, sending the entire situation back to square one.

    If we are willing to grow and build new communities, we should be just as ready to build new schools.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.