CCSD and its School Board don't care about the lives of students, teachers, and staff!
How else to explain leaving so many students at risk for dying in an earthquake until this summer? [See Quake Fears to Shutter Schools?]
Why, that means we have to worry about this catastrophe for another four months.
It could happen any day, any hour, any minute!
Where is the Superintendent's common sense?
This is a lawsuit waiting to happen!
And we thought Toyota was bad!
Why hasn't Bill Lewis reported her stubbornness to the proper authorities?
Parents should pull their children out of these unsound schools immediately.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Which is more life threatening? Nancy McGinley and Bill Lewis say the threat of an earthquake is placing our children at greater risk than the school system failing to teach thousands of these students how to read. Or is it the elephant in the room they want us to ignore?
The greatest threat to the health, safety and quality of life to children, teachers and the rest of the community is not from an earthquake. It's CCSD's failure to provide an adequate education to most of the students we have entrusted to them. Bar none, the greatest threat to us all is the way Nancy McGinley, Bill Lewis and the CCSD elite continue to wreck our public schools.
If school board members don't get this, then they are equally to blame. Read the reports. The reports rarely say what McGinley or Lewis is saying. They are counting on the board and the public taking what they say without question.
It's not the buildings that are endangering the kids, stupid; it's what's not happening in the classrooms.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Reasonable parents and most residents of downtown would agree these city schools need updating. Many have asked CCSD address these issues for years, but to little or no avail.
Please don't tell us now this is a newly recognized emergency and the only choice is to tear them all down with only vague promises to replace these neighborhood schools. Seriously, would moving students to distant temporary classrooms or installing hundreds of trailers of questionable quality really wise and safer alternatives?
A much wiser and safer plan would be to phase in a well thought out schedule of school renovations for the downtown community. This could easily be accomplished over the course of 5-10 years with far less disruption, expense or risk to the people involved. If officials continue to push only one course of action that cultivates public fear, then we should question their motives for the timing of this report. Anyone who would insist on only the most extreme immediate reactions such as those proposed by district officials last week is open to charges of being irresponsible, if not just plain gullible. Officials suggest we can wait until summer to move these schools, then the threat is less than immediate. So we do have time to carefully consider developing the most reasonable course of action.
No one is against making these school buildings safer in the event of an earthquake like the one which was centered 25 miles away in Summerville 124 years ago. This isn't news, but the superintendent’s statements and timing is news. We have long known, such a quake is predicted to occur once every 500 years somewhere within a 150 mile radius of the last one. So why the sudden urgency, unless this is just a convenient ploy to gain support for a gold plated school bond issue in tough economic times? Even without considering the added risk factors to be placed on students by moving them, how much will the added transportation and used mobile classrooms cost taxpayers?
If this is truly about the safety of the students and not an attempt to stampede the public into a poorly considered and undefined bond referendum, then why have only a select few downtown schools been considered? If it is just a cynical way to gain support for another bond referendum, then this will join a long list of the superintendent’s other responses to “emergencies” like the now terminated Burke A+ program and the outsourced discipline school.
If this wasn't about tapping into the public's fear factor, why weren't dozens of other district buildings with similar structural issues included in this report?
I hear what district officials are saying, but don't you think we should get a second opinion before conducting this kind of radical surgery on our schools? I'm tempted to ask for an assessment of the entire system before stepping blindly into Dr. McGinley’s newest appeal to stir public passions about what may or may not be an emergency.
Didn't CCSD and its facilities director Bill Lewis hire an engineer to examine the stability of the Archer building in 2006? I think the District 20 group raised questions then about that building's soundness. This was after Mr. Lewis claimed Archer School was much safer than the old Sanders-Clyde building. I seem to recall Mr. Lewis hired an engineer to do a report that said the Archer building was totally safe for use as swing space for Sanders-Clyde while the new school was being built. Less than 3 years later, Mr. Lewis says the same Archer building is in eminent danger of collapse. It sounds like these engineering reports, by firms no doubt closely associated with Bill Lewis, are being driven more by CCSD's internal agenda than by concerns for student safety.
I know this sounds like chicken little but if there is an earthquake and there have been lots lately...Haiti, Chili...I would hate my child to be on the bottom floor of the Buist building. It is 3 story and going to come down. Memminger is 2 story. I do not know about the others but do you want to be the one responsible for those children?
3:28 poster--your attitude is exactly what McGinley and Lewis are counting on. Can we prevent every disaster? Of course not. Maybe tomorrow Iran will drop a nuclear bomb on Buist. It won't withstand that either. The real question is, from a disinterested engineer (one not paid by CCSD), how likely is it that the buildings will come down. Look around you. Are there any buildings in Charleston that predate 1886? Were they built to today's building codes? Of course not.
Bill Lewis runs the school district. If you didn't know that before, you do now. You capitalize on Haiti to push through a public bond referendum that will include significant monies for Mount Pleasant. Typical propaganda push.
Do try to separate out the issues though.
The building issue has nothing to do with the quality of education diatribe laid out above. That's simply a philippic for a one trick pony on here.
And Babbie, you're right.
Memminger High School was built in the 1850's when there was no building code to follow...only common sense. The school had 4 floors and was constructed of unreinforced masonry. It not only withstood the earthquake, it continued to house over 1,000 students until it was finally torn down in the early 1950's and replaced with the present Memminger Elementary School. No significant earthquake damage, folks.
Charleston High occupied the Radcliffe-King Mansion for its campus in 1886 and remained there until the 1920's. Designed to be a massive and elegant private home for a wealthy planter, it was built about 1801. It was three stories and all brick, too. No major damage there either. It was finally torn down in the 1930's to make way for the College of Charleston's Silcox Gym which still stands on George St.
Coincidentally, the replacement buildings on both sites were designed by Albert Simons, a very respected architect who wasn't known for shoddy work. He also designed and oversaw the construction of Memminger Auditorium, Archer and Rivers schools. I haven't heard anyone saying the Spoleto Festival's recently renovated auditorium and the College's intramural gym are unreasonably risky or certain to become death traps.
The fact is city school buildings in 1886 came through that earthquake with remarkably little damage. This would include the Old Citadel, then only 3 stories but fully occupied by the military college at the time. Don't forget the 5 story Charleston Orphan House which was in full use and occupied by hundreds of children at the time.
Just for argument's sake, guess how much more power on the Ricter Scale was packed into the jolt in Chile at 8.8 vs. the one at 7.5 in Haiti. The one in Chile was at least 500 times more powerful. If a similar comparison was made between the one in Chile and this hypothetical one at 5.0 in Charleston, the power would have been over 50,000 times greater.
I question the validity of what McGinley and Lewis are saying. Not that these buildings shouldn't be made more sound, but no engineer has said what these school bond pushers would have us believe. They have all but said tens of thousands of children will be pancakes next year without a new bond issue. I doubt any engineering report implied anything remotely like that.
Show us the reports and let us question the engineers. McGinley and Lewis don't need to be filtering this information for us when so much is at stake.
You can read the report on the CCSD website.
Thanks, Clisby. Unfortunately, the "report" CCSD has placed on their web site is just another one of their usual dog and pony shows. If you've ever seen their annual budgets on-line, you would know what I mean.
I don't think McGinley, Lewis or Bobby would know how to discuss anything without turning it into a Power Point display. There is no data there. With four engineering firms involved, what did this "report" cost us anyway? Or by hiring four firms to do the report, was that their way of eliminating the chance of getting a second opinion.
The report CCSD is selling lacks references for important comparisons, misuses specific data, uses photos not fully documented, including some that are carelessly mislabeled. Serious reports shouldn't have errors like this. It makes the report merely a survey that is far from complete. This isn't an engineer's seismic report. It's a show and tell project. Lewis and McGinley are misleading everyone by calling it a report. At best it's an overview designed to dazzle non-engineering types.
If I was grading an aspiring engineer who prepared a report like this as physics class assignment, I'd give the student a D minus, mainly for failing to properly identify critical supporting data.
The Summerville sink holes weren't properly identified and these don't relate to downtown Charleston. The photos from Haiti (only a few were identified at all) seem to have been included more for dramatic effect. If we're being led to believe this report is also about evolving building codes, those adopted and enforced, then why compare Charleston to Haiti? When it comes to a history of building code use, Haiti is the wrong example for a comparison.
Yes, you're correct - the report posted is a summary, not the three (four?) individual reports.
The reports from three engineering firms covering each of the six schools aren't finished yet. The presentation last week was put together by CCSD and was just a preview of the official reports which when finished will include proposals on how to fix specific problems in the schools the structural engineers were asked to examine.
Yes, there are quite a few other school buildings owned by CCSD which are equally at risk. Several dozen Charleston County school buildings could have been examined for structural deficiencies, including some built within the past ten years and others being used as swing space. Despite the obvious safety risks, Bill Lewis didn't present these school buildings to the board for consideration and he didn’t ask the engineers to look at anything other than the six downtown schools.
The engineers simply addressed the question of what might happen to these buildings if an earthquake of a certain magnitude were to occur. Their written reports will address their findings and outline the methods and costs to retrofit the buildings structurally in order to raise safety standards. How CCSD chooses to use that information is a different issue.
Even though Nancy McGinley has all but condemned these buildings as an eminent threat to life and limb, the engineers hired by CCSD have not said these buildings are unsafe. Quite the opposite, these buildings are safe barring an earthquake measuring relatively high on the Richter scale. The engineers will address how to overcome the structural limitations and to make the buildings safer should a serious event happen. Again, the only people who have gone off their chain and declared an emergency are Nancy McGinley and Bill Lewis.
As the engineers will ultimately say in the final reports to be submitted in the next week or two, there are logical methods for retrofitting these buildings. The reports will present the methods which make the most sense to them in terms of risk and costs.
It should be noted the state of Oregon is in the process of retrofitting some 1,300 schools and public safety buildings which are at risk of failing in a serious quake. Oregon is located on a much more active and potentially volatile fault line than is Charleston. That state has already spent $15 million to shore up two dozen schools and public safety facilities. The plan is to improve the structural integrity of all its public safety buildings by 2022. Oregon plans to complete a statewide retrofit of its schools by 2032.
There's a lesson here. I hope Charleston parents, taxpayers and voters are paying attention. Obviously, Dr. McGinley isn't learning anything from the Oregon example.
Post a Comment