Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />$Ch00� <br />Page 2 <br />Jctober <br />� <br />t� <br />,� <br />� <br />VI—A <br />Board t�lembers <br />21, 1986 <br />Schools. Unfortunately, just as in the case of the School Reorganization <br />Study, the school district does not have the luxury ta spend greater �mounts <br />of time gathering questionably supportive docur�entation to arrive at decisions <br />which are needed TODAY or, perhaps a year or two years ago. <br />The Property/Facility Study Committee is comprised of professional educat�rs <br />�i th the techni cal expertise of professional educators - not r�emographers, <br />futuri s ts, ci ty planners, dev�lopi ng contractors, rea] tors, or soothsayers. <br />By the very nature of school district funding (pupil-based), the educators <br />comprising the Property/Facility Study Committee must adopt a conservative <br />approach in the development of a"best-case scenario" for pupil population <br />increase. Optimistic mis-assumptions yield over-staffing and under-�atilized <br />faci 1 i ties - both extraordi nari ly costly for the school di s tri ct and i ts <br />pragrams and virtually irrecoverable. Consequently, the Committee focused on <br />adopting a"facility game plan" Khich was based on known! conservatively <br />predictable, and cautious pupil population trends, geyond that, the Committee <br />memhers considered a"fall back position" on facilities if, indeed� <br />conservative assessment of future pupil population proved to be unjustifiably <br />pess3r�istic. <br />Clearly, the number of uncontrollable variables in carrying out s�ich a study <br />was a significant limitation for the Superiniendent af Schools and Committee <br />menbers. Cha�ges in housing patterns, c� .��es in pupil population, <br />willingness to divest the district of facilities, ability tm divest th� <br />district of facilities, possible fiuture program grow th, merits of select <br />program relocatio�, and many, many others make it extraordinarily difficult to <br />i�entify and defend a"foolproof facility plan" for the Roseville Area Schools <br />for the next decade. As such, the Committee and Superintendent s�ttlwd for a <br />plausible and defensible plan with reasonable latitude to acco�mnodate the <br />impact of unforeseen and unplanned intrusions by uncontrollable variables. <br />ASSUt4PTI0NS <br />The Rroperty/Facility Study Committee carried out its work with six <br />assumptions in mind: <br />D72 <br />The school district is and wil l�ontinue to be commi tted to the <br />provision of quality educational programs and services for ear1y <br />childhood, K-12, extended day, adult, recreation� aduit basic, and <br />Senior Citiaen program participants. �rograms will be maintained for <br />regular and special educaCion students; college/university� <br />post-secondary technical, job, military, and family-bound students; fine <br />arts. co-curricular, extracurricular, and club activities will be <br />furnished; prograins for retraining, the disenfranchised, and those who, <br />for some reason or another, previously fail to attain �, diploma will be <br />provi ded; programs wi 11 be offered for an elementary al ternati ve <br />education program, <br />2 <br />VI—A <br />