The letter TODAY newspaper had no room to print last week:
I'd like to chime in on the Clark/Griesman debate about books and computers. To recap, the Clark position is "books are out of date before they can even be printed" while the Griesman claim is "Basic text books are never out of date." Clark's rebuttal cites 50 years of recent history and Griesman has not yet had a rebuttal published.
I trust Clark does not mean to assert the Lancaster ISD actually permits classes to be taught using 50-year-old textbooks. It is perhaps useful to remind readers that the state of Texas reviews all textbooks for all subjects on a six-year cycle to ensure, among other things, that Brown V. Board of Education and Gore v. Bush Supreme Court cases (of 50 and merely 6 years ago) are covered. State-approved textbooks are bought by the state, not from local funds. However local schools may buy non-approved textbooks and still recover 70% of the purchase price from state funding. So, there is no reason the local district should be using out-of-date books. (Or, as two different angry parents asserted to the LISD board of trustees on 2 Oct 2006, there's no good reason for students at our brand new high school to be 5 weeks into their AP math courses with NO TEXTBOOKS AVAILABLE AT ALL. )
By contrast the state does not reimburse the district any percentage of the costs of computers purchased in lieu of textbooks. The 18 July 2006 ruling by Attorney General Greg Abbott clarifies:
" A textbook does not include computer hardware and other equipment, because such hardware and other equipment is separately defined as "technological equipment" in section 31.002. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 31.002(1), (3)-(4) (Vernon 2006). "
The Clark suggestion that laptops are better than textbooks therefore implies that the laptops are SO MUCH better than textbooks that our district can forego state funding. She seems to suggest our taxpayers should ignore the "free money" from the legislature and instead borrow money, to be repaid locally, to supply laptops in lieu of books to our students. Griesman's point, however, is that over the 14 years our students are in the system, (pre-K thru 12) those laptops must be replaced at least 3 and possibly as many as five times. If the I&S tax rate (our "credit limit") is capped out in the first phase of the bond package, there will be no money available to be borrowed in a few years when the laptops under discussion must be replaced. The current proposal is a "one time offer."
It's also worth citing, again, the news from the LISD 2 Oct Board of Trustees The board considered purchase of "virtual library cards" for all students via the internet service "QUESTIA". The service certainly looks excellent for social studies materials -- covering Martin Luther King, for instance. However, the sales representative presenting the program to the board frankly admitted that "there's not much in our offerings for math and science teachers and students." So much for the high-school's AP math problems. I suspect each of those students now struggling to master this difficult subject without any book whatever, would welcome a set of even Clark's fifty-year-old pre-calculus textbooks.
Finally, a comparison. Suppose that as part of the 1985 LISD bond package the board had purchased for each classroom either a then-current set of encyclopedia, for about $3000 apiece, or had spent that same sum for each classroom to have a then-current IBM-XT -- monochrome monitor, dual floppy drives, no modem or speakers, and a dot-matrix printer. Which would more likely still be in use today -- now that our 1985 debt is paid off?
I commend the Today papers for sponsoring this debate and hope more citizens will participate between now and November.
Jeff Melcher
Lancaster
---
This turned out to be a forlorn hope. The public gets Griesman, Clark and me. Pity the President of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, three-year-resident of Lancaster, former State representative (of DeSoto) and at present manager of public relations for Gallagher Construction Mangagement services Mr Fred Orr (get the facts, get ALL the facts) couldn't contribute a paragraph or two extolling the various virtues of the man he calls "arguably" the finest superintendent in the state.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
GEDANKENEXPERIMENT
The gendankenexperiment , or “thought experiment” is a term of science popularly associated with Albert Einstein’s notions of relativity. This, even though Ernst Mach was the first writer to use the term in popular science writing, and he himself picked up the term from Georg Lichtenberg from a century earlier. But as a concept rather than a term, the idea of imagining fantasy worlds in which to test situations goes back much farther. Germans dreaming of railway trains which move at the speed of light and infinite chains draped across frictionless corners all owe much to the Greek philosophers imagining how prisoners might interpret the shifting shadows cast upon their cave walls by the free creatures passing outside. Could the rational mind, from viewing only the hints of shadows, infer the reality? Is our ability to infer from scant clues innate, or learned. Plato's cave was among the first laboratory of the Gedankenexperiment. And ever since, we ask ourselves: how WOULD familiar things be different, if the world around us were fantastically different?
Cue the Rod Serling “Twilight Zone” music. Now, imagine, if you will a world very similar to our own, in which the Lancaster school district failed to persuade voters to pass a $93 million bond referendum in May. But this world is also very different. For in this GedankenExperimentWelt, the alternative-LISD board of trustees came back to its voters in September with a new smaller bond proposal. Instead of more than twice the amount just rejected, our imaginary board is holding a referendum on a bond less than half that previously proposed. Suppose, for a moment, we were discussing a $40 or $45 million dollar referendum.
What projects would be included? What would be omitted? What would our district do with a mere $45 million – barely over one fifth the amount begged in our reality?
Three elementary schools of $12 million would only require $36 million of the $45. Perhaps, in that alternate world, costs have increased even faster than in our own, and $12 Million would not buy a 660 seat school. So suppose these new proposed schools were forced to cut size – perhaps as small as 500 seats each. So, 1500 additional students could be educated in the GedankenExperimentWelt’s LISD.
These schools would, of course, require land to build upon. Perhaps the fantasy board would buy as many as four sites, planning ahead for additional schools in the future. Four elementary sites of 10 to 15 acres each might be expensive – as much as $15,000, even $16,000 per acre. That would commit another $1 million from the GedankenExperimentWelt Bond.
The athletes would still want a new bus or two to go back and forth for their games. The security troops would still want shiny new cop cars. The janitors and groundskeepers would still want new pickup trucks and their supervisors would, naturally, require new sedans to drive back and forth from school to school overseeing the work force. Suppose the fantasy board set aside another $2.5 million for vehicles.
This package has not yet totaled $40 million. Perhaps we can spare another million, then, for contingencies – if the price of a vehicle goes up; or a landowner holds out for a higher price for his site, or if steel prices ACTUALLY increase …
And still that fantasyland board has money left over. Perhaps a million could be spent in demonstrating how much better children learn if they carry laptops everywhere they go Perhaps another million in miscellaneous and unspecified “technology” – toys for the techies. And still, a million or so dollars might be left over for other pilot programs and demonstrations of competence – to gain the voter’s trust and to earn the respect of critics.
And what would those GedankenExperimentWelt critics be doing, while the district was out canvassing for votes on the $45 Million bond? Passing out flyers? Barraging the newspapers with letters to the editor? Digging for data – ANY data – to explain why the district needed so MUCH money; and wondering how much of the money would be wasted?
Blogging?
Or would the skeptics and critics of that fantasyland simply and quietly sit back and let the election happen? Would skeptics, perhaps, simply wait to see the administration succeed, or fail, on the projects and planned outlined? After all, even if that $45 Million fantasy bond passed, the fantasy district would have preserved for itself financial “cap room” – a reserve, a cushion, a fall back position, if necessary, for a new board, (if necessary) and a new superintendent ( as likely) to clean up the mess of any potential failure. If the risk of failure were not so high; if the cost of the experiment were not so great, why would the skeptics and critics bother to fight such an election?
Personally, I think it fascinating to consider how a smaller bond with more modest projects might have fared in this November’s election. Pity we’ll never get the chance to find out, in this world-based reality.
The gendankenexperiment , or “thought experiment” is a term of science popularly associated with Albert Einstein’s notions of relativity. This, even though Ernst Mach was the first writer to use the term in popular science writing, and he himself picked up the term from Georg Lichtenberg from a century earlier. But as a concept rather than a term, the idea of imagining fantasy worlds in which to test situations goes back much farther. Germans dreaming of railway trains which move at the speed of light and infinite chains draped across frictionless corners all owe much to the Greek philosophers imagining how prisoners might interpret the shifting shadows cast upon their cave walls by the free creatures passing outside. Could the rational mind, from viewing only the hints of shadows, infer the reality? Is our ability to infer from scant clues innate, or learned. Plato's cave was among the first laboratory of the Gedankenexperiment. And ever since, we ask ourselves: how WOULD familiar things be different, if the world around us were fantastically different?
Cue the Rod Serling “Twilight Zone” music. Now, imagine, if you will a world very similar to our own, in which the Lancaster school district failed to persuade voters to pass a $93 million bond referendum in May. But this world is also very different. For in this GedankenExperimentWelt, the alternative-LISD board of trustees came back to its voters in September with a new smaller bond proposal. Instead of more than twice the amount just rejected, our imaginary board is holding a referendum on a bond less than half that previously proposed. Suppose, for a moment, we were discussing a $40 or $45 million dollar referendum.
What projects would be included? What would be omitted? What would our district do with a mere $45 million – barely over one fifth the amount begged in our reality?
Three elementary schools of $12 million would only require $36 million of the $45. Perhaps, in that alternate world, costs have increased even faster than in our own, and $12 Million would not buy a 660 seat school. So suppose these new proposed schools were forced to cut size – perhaps as small as 500 seats each. So, 1500 additional students could be educated in the GedankenExperimentWelt’s LISD.
These schools would, of course, require land to build upon. Perhaps the fantasy board would buy as many as four sites, planning ahead for additional schools in the future. Four elementary sites of 10 to 15 acres each might be expensive – as much as $15,000, even $16,000 per acre. That would commit another $1 million from the GedankenExperimentWelt Bond.
The athletes would still want a new bus or two to go back and forth for their games. The security troops would still want shiny new cop cars. The janitors and groundskeepers would still want new pickup trucks and their supervisors would, naturally, require new sedans to drive back and forth from school to school overseeing the work force. Suppose the fantasy board set aside another $2.5 million for vehicles.
This package has not yet totaled $40 million. Perhaps we can spare another million, then, for contingencies – if the price of a vehicle goes up; or a landowner holds out for a higher price for his site, or if steel prices ACTUALLY increase …
And still that fantasyland board has money left over. Perhaps a million could be spent in demonstrating how much better children learn if they carry laptops everywhere they go Perhaps another million in miscellaneous and unspecified “technology” – toys for the techies. And still, a million or so dollars might be left over for other pilot programs and demonstrations of competence – to gain the voter’s trust and to earn the respect of critics.
And what would those GedankenExperimentWelt critics be doing, while the district was out canvassing for votes on the $45 Million bond? Passing out flyers? Barraging the newspapers with letters to the editor? Digging for data – ANY data – to explain why the district needed so MUCH money; and wondering how much of the money would be wasted?
Blogging?
Or would the skeptics and critics of that fantasyland simply and quietly sit back and let the election happen? Would skeptics, perhaps, simply wait to see the administration succeed, or fail, on the projects and planned outlined? After all, even if that $45 Million fantasy bond passed, the fantasy district would have preserved for itself financial “cap room” – a reserve, a cushion, a fall back position, if necessary, for a new board, (if necessary) and a new superintendent ( as likely) to clean up the mess of any potential failure. If the risk of failure were not so high; if the cost of the experiment were not so great, why would the skeptics and critics bother to fight such an election?
Personally, I think it fascinating to consider how a smaller bond with more modest projects might have fared in this November’s election. Pity we’ll never get the chance to find out, in this world-based reality.
Let's get back to the issues of local schools.
According to industry analysts the cost for building an elementary school, on average in the Dallas area, runs about $93 for each square foot. ($/sq.ft.)
What did ours cost?
It's difficult to know. This district doesn't disclose detailed construction statistics. But we can easily see Texas standards for school size and estimate, based on the student capacity, what size the buildings SHOULD
be.
Texas standards for elementary school classrooms call for 36 sq. ft per student for grades pre-K thru first and 30 sq ft per student in higher elementary grades. Assume the more generous allowance for all grades of the Houston Elementary and stipulate the 660 “seat” capacity for that building. Then HSE should have 23,760 square feet in classroom area. Add the computer lab, science lab and library requirements of 40, 50, and 3 sq ft per student. That adds 61,380 sq. ft to the building. Add a gym for about 5000 sq ft. Add space for janitors, storage and miscellaneous, about another 10%. Round up. The building by standard ought to be about 100,000 sq ft. The cost of the building was about $11 Million. That’s $110 per square foot, or about 17 dollars per sq ft. higher than average for this area.
Or, if you follow the links you'll see that LISD schools cost more, by about 17 dollars per sq ft., than is average for this area.
Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the figures from Gallagher regarding actual costs and actual square footage, and do the math. Publish. "Get the facts," as Ellen Clark says.
You may have to file an Open Records Request, following up with the Attorney General, to get those facts. But go ahead. Facts are good things to get.
But onward! The industry source cited also reports average construction costs around DFW for a high school run about $100 sq. foot. The standards for a high school are 28 sq ft per student in classrooms, 36 sq ft per student in computer labs, 50 sq ft per student in science labs, a 7500 sq foot gym, and 3 sq ft per student for libraries, (with a 2800 sq ft minimum) The new high school is claimed to have infrastructure for 2800 students and classroom space for 2200. Do the math. Then add in another 10% space allowance again for the mop closets, etc. Round up to some convenient figure. Say 325, 000 sq ft for the high school.
Now, to obtain the costs. How do we distinguish the costs of the academic facilities from the sports arena deal in Lancaster? I propose we start by looking at DISD’s Jesse Owens Athletic complex on Polk Avenue. (The Dallas ISD, unlike Lancaster ISD, actually publishes their costs and facility statistics.) The Owens sports complex, designed by HKS architectural group and constructed by Turner Construction company, seats 12,000 in the stadium and 7500 in the fieldhouse. In other words, it's bigger than Lancaster's. The costs of the Owens complex were $38.7 Million. If ours cost the same, (meaning LISD spent more on the stadium than the school, which they have so far been unwilling to admit) and since the overall LISD HS project cost $73 million; then our high school building itself cost $34.3 million. Round down. Do the math. $34 Million into 325,000 square foot is $104.6 dollars per square foot.
By this estimate our High School costs are 4 percent higher than average for our market. Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the facts.
Let me point out something else. If I AM wrong about the cost of the stadium -- if our new Tiger Stadium cost less than $38 million -- then the cost per square foot of our school building is even more exorbitant. But I'm estimating too much for the cost of the high school; then it follows that the district DID choose to spend more and place a higher priority on their athletic facilities than academics. (the stadium was built one year faster than the school, too.
Which error of mine puts the district's planning and priorities into anything resembling a positive light? That they spent too much? Or that they put sports first? I cheerfully admit one or another of my own errors. What does the district confess to?
According to industry analysts the cost for building an elementary school, on average in the Dallas area, runs about $93 for each square foot. ($/sq.ft.)
What did ours cost?
It's difficult to know. This district doesn't disclose detailed construction statistics. But we can easily see Texas standards for school size and estimate, based on the student capacity, what size the buildings SHOULD
be.
Texas standards for elementary school classrooms call for 36 sq. ft per student for grades pre-K thru first and 30 sq ft per student in higher elementary grades. Assume the more generous allowance for all grades of the Houston Elementary and stipulate the 660 “seat” capacity for that building. Then HSE should have 23,760 square feet in classroom area. Add the computer lab, science lab and library requirements of 40, 50, and 3 sq ft per student. That adds 61,380 sq. ft to the building. Add a gym for about 5000 sq ft. Add space for janitors, storage and miscellaneous, about another 10%. Round up. The building by standard ought to be about 100,000 sq ft. The cost of the building was about $11 Million. That’s $110 per square foot, or about 17 dollars per sq ft. higher than average for this area.
Or, if you follow the links you'll see that LISD schools cost more, by about 17 dollars per sq ft., than is average for this area.
Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the figures from Gallagher regarding actual costs and actual square footage, and do the math. Publish. "Get the facts," as Ellen Clark says.
You may have to file an Open Records Request, following up with the Attorney General, to get those facts. But go ahead. Facts are good things to get.
But onward! The industry source cited also reports average construction costs around DFW for a high school run about $100 sq. foot. The standards for a high school are 28 sq ft per student in classrooms, 36 sq ft per student in computer labs, 50 sq ft per student in science labs, a 7500 sq foot gym, and 3 sq ft per student for libraries, (with a 2800 sq ft minimum) The new high school is claimed to have infrastructure for 2800 students and classroom space for 2200. Do the math. Then add in another 10% space allowance again for the mop closets, etc. Round up to some convenient figure. Say 325, 000 sq ft for the high school.
Now, to obtain the costs. How do we distinguish the costs of the academic facilities from the sports arena deal in Lancaster? I propose we start by looking at DISD’s Jesse Owens Athletic complex on Polk Avenue. (The Dallas ISD, unlike Lancaster ISD, actually publishes their costs and facility statistics.) The Owens sports complex, designed by HKS architectural group and constructed by Turner Construction company, seats 12,000 in the stadium and 7500 in the fieldhouse. In other words, it's bigger than Lancaster's. The costs of the Owens complex were $38.7 Million. If ours cost the same, (meaning LISD spent more on the stadium than the school, which they have so far been unwilling to admit) and since the overall LISD HS project cost $73 million; then our high school building itself cost $34.3 million. Round down. Do the math. $34 Million into 325,000 square foot is $104.6 dollars per square foot.
By this estimate our High School costs are 4 percent higher than average for our market. Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the facts.
Let me point out something else. If I AM wrong about the cost of the stadium -- if our new Tiger Stadium cost less than $38 million -- then the cost per square foot of our school building is even more exorbitant. But I'm estimating too much for the cost of the high school; then it follows that the district DID choose to spend more and place a higher priority on their athletic facilities than academics. (the stadium was built one year faster than the school, too.
Which error of mine puts the district's planning and priorities into anything resembling a positive light? That they spent too much? Or that they put sports first? I cheerfully admit one or another of my own errors. What does the district confess to?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
For readers who would rather talk about Iraq than Lancaster:
When Dick Cheney convened a council of advisors on national energy policy that included Exxon for oil and ArcherDanielMidlands for ethanol/biodiesel, but excluded Armory Lovins' conservationist
"nega-watt" companies, critics howled. Correctly. Politicians should have a range of choices on the table to select from. Advice may be ignored -- after it's given. But excluding advisors is wrong, and critics were right to howl about it. So how come a local administration that only gets advice from one financial advisor gets a pass? In 2003 the LISD sought out not only financial opinions from RBC, but Bank of America and Nathan McClellan (who is also a non-Lancaster voter, but oh well.) More recently, however, the only voice allowed in council is Matt Boles's. What's changed since 2003? And can a journalist for a small weekly newspaper with a circulation of under two thousand can crack the Dick Cheney and Exxon problem, when the New York Times could not? Or is it possible that limited efforts and resources might be better directed into a local investigation?
When Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root undertake to build a school in Iraq under "cost plus" federal contracts -- which guarantee that H/KBR makes a profit however past schedule or however much
over budget that school construction projects run -- critics howl. Correctly. "Cost plus" contracts are an invitation to waste, abuse, and "scope creep". The mere mention of the name Halliburton is synonymous in some circles with financial hemorrhage. But federal "cost plus" contracts are legal, however unwise, and the only
recourse the public has to correct the problem is to rely on the press to bring the abuses to light, and for the contractors to react from embarrassment. Why, then, should a local construction company operating under Texas law of "agency" (as opposed to "at-risk") contract management be expected to be any more careful of public money than Halliburton? And why would a local journalist sneer at KBR and turn a blind eye to Gallagher? Think globally, sure. But act locally.
When Ahmed Chalabi of the “Iraqi National Congress” shared his visions of raising a liberation army of Iraqi refugees and leading it into battle like some 21st-century version ofCharles DeGaulle rescuing France – well, critics howled. Correctly. Only idiots believed in Chalabi’s delusion of turning his rag-tag over-aged, overweight, under-trained lackeys into a fighting force. And after the actual liberation, when Chalabi again pushed himself forward for a second bite at the apple, proposing himself as (by special appointment of the United States) the new President of the newly “democratic” Iraq, well, it was altogether right and appropriate to take a quick look back at how well his grandiose visions of the prior few years had actually turned out. Shouldn’t all such visionaries and dreamers, even those with degrees in architecture and design, be similarly scrutinized? Or should companies like Corgan, Inc, be ignored in the media, when they make their second grab at the apple, because their intentions are so admirable? Why should any critical thinker attempt to be consistent between the local and the international? Integrity, maybe?
Millionaire master of journalists Eason Jordan revealed, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, that his CNN investigators had learned of terrifying and horrid acts by the regime that they had never published. Publication, Jordan explained, would have resulted in CNN being kicked out of Iraq, and possibly their sources, guides, interpreters and
friends being jailed, tortured, or killed. Critics howled. They called Jordan a hypocrite, an accomplice to terror, a traitor, an elitist sycophant who’d rather keep a seat at a murderer’s banquet than expose truth… Few of those critics acknowledged that Eason was certainly correct in his claim that confronting Saddam Hussein would have put innocent lives in imminent danger.
On the other hand, very few progressive journalists of the William Allen White variety actually face death for speaking (or writing) truth to what -- in Emporia, Kansas or Lancaster, Texas -- attempts to pass for power. When such a local scandal becomes known, and goes unpublished – well, there are other reasons than a lack of patriotism.
When Dick Cheney convened a council of advisors on national energy policy that included Exxon for oil and ArcherDanielMidlands for ethanol/biodiesel, but excluded Armory Lovins' conservationist
"nega-watt" companies, critics howled. Correctly. Politicians should have a range of choices on the table to select from. Advice may be ignored -- after it's given. But excluding advisors is wrong, and critics were right to howl about it. So how come a local administration that only gets advice from one financial advisor gets a pass? In 2003 the LISD sought out not only financial opinions from RBC, but Bank of America and Nathan McClellan (who is also a non-Lancaster voter, but oh well.) More recently, however, the only voice allowed in council is Matt Boles's. What's changed since 2003? And can a journalist for a small weekly newspaper with a circulation of under two thousand can crack the Dick Cheney and Exxon problem, when the New York Times could not? Or is it possible that limited efforts and resources might be better directed into a local investigation?
When Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root undertake to build a school in Iraq under "cost plus" federal contracts -- which guarantee that H/KBR makes a profit however past schedule or however much
over budget that school construction projects run -- critics howl. Correctly. "Cost plus" contracts are an invitation to waste, abuse, and "scope creep". The mere mention of the name Halliburton is synonymous in some circles with financial hemorrhage. But federal "cost plus" contracts are legal, however unwise, and the only
recourse the public has to correct the problem is to rely on the press to bring the abuses to light, and for the contractors to react from embarrassment. Why, then, should a local construction company operating under Texas law of "agency" (as opposed to "at-risk") contract management be expected to be any more careful of public money than Halliburton? And why would a local journalist sneer at KBR and turn a blind eye to Gallagher? Think globally, sure. But act locally.
When Ahmed Chalabi of the “Iraqi National Congress” shared his visions of raising a liberation army of Iraqi refugees and leading it into battle like some 21st-century version ofCharles DeGaulle rescuing France – well, critics howled. Correctly. Only idiots believed in Chalabi’s delusion of turning his rag-tag over-aged, overweight, under-trained lackeys into a fighting force. And after the actual liberation, when Chalabi again pushed himself forward for a second bite at the apple, proposing himself as (by special appointment of the United States) the new President of the newly “democratic” Iraq, well, it was altogether right and appropriate to take a quick look back at how well his grandiose visions of the prior few years had actually turned out. Shouldn’t all such visionaries and dreamers, even those with degrees in architecture and design, be similarly scrutinized? Or should companies like Corgan, Inc, be ignored in the media, when they make their second grab at the apple, because their intentions are so admirable? Why should any critical thinker attempt to be consistent between the local and the international? Integrity, maybe?
Millionaire master of journalists Eason Jordan revealed, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, that his CNN investigators had learned of terrifying and horrid acts by the regime that they had never published. Publication, Jordan explained, would have resulted in CNN being kicked out of Iraq, and possibly their sources, guides, interpreters and
friends being jailed, tortured, or killed. Critics howled. They called Jordan a hypocrite, an accomplice to terror, a traitor, an elitist sycophant who’d rather keep a seat at a murderer’s banquet than expose truth… Few of those critics acknowledged that Eason was certainly correct in his claim that confronting Saddam Hussein would have put innocent lives in imminent danger.
On the other hand, very few progressive journalists of the William Allen White variety actually face death for speaking (or writing) truth to what -- in Emporia, Kansas or Lancaster, Texas -- attempts to pass for power. When such a local scandal becomes known, and goes unpublished – well, there are other reasons than a lack of patriotism.