Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-25-2002 - 1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 03-25-2002
>
Agenda - 03-25-2002 - 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2017 8:17:48 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:37:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/25/2002
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020325
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3. What cost duplications might be associated with having two smaller new <br /> high schools rather than one larger new high school? <br /> Until the programs are better defined, it is difficult to identify all of the duplications. <br /> Clearly,there are some duplications if two comprehensive, stand-alone schools are <br /> built (e.g. kitchen, cafeteria, athletic fields, media center, etc.). However, the extra <br /> amount of space for core facilities certainly isn't double the amount because the size of <br /> each of these spaces would be smaller at each small high school. Also, we intend to <br /> think creatively about some of these areas, such as the cafeteria and media center. <br /> Perhaps a smaller high school does not need such large, dedicated spaces. <br /> 4. What options have been examined, and either accepted or dismissed, as <br /> a result of the collaboration initiative between OCS and CHCCS related <br /> to school space and programming? <br /> See February 1, 2002 memo to the Chair of the BOCC on the status of the collaboration <br /> committee. <br /> 5. Should requests for any new high school space be considered in <br /> isolation from the perspective of only the one requesting school system, <br /> or evaluated in the context of the need of both school systems.and the <br /> overall Orange County community? <br /> At this time there are two legally constituted school districts in Orange County and there <br /> have been no proposals formally made that would require the merger of the two <br /> districts. Consequently, the two districts should be perceived as separate entities with <br /> the responsibility to serve all eligible students within their respective jurisdictions. <br /> Both districts have indicated a willingness to collaborate when opportunities make this <br /> advantageous. A survey will be conducted this spring to determine students' interest in <br /> attending programs in the neighboring school district. This will give us a better idea of <br /> the potential impact of students being allowed or encouraged to attend schools in the <br /> other district. It is neither fair not legal for either school district to compel students to <br /> attend a school in a district that does not serve its residents. <br /> 6. Should adopted school construction standards be revisited and possibly <br /> amended to recognize models other than the 1,000 student and 1,500 <br /> student models in the current standards? <br /> Yes, if the CHCCS Board of Education approves a plan with a capacity less than 1,000 <br /> students, it would be reasonable to develop standards for a school of this size. It <br /> should be understood,however, that the school's program may dictate a facility that <br /> varies from these standards. The BOE would expect to request Commissioner approval <br /> for variations and would make every effort to stay within the budget called for by the <br /> standards. <br /> 7. What interpretations should be placed on recent high school student <br /> membership and projection figures? Do they represent "trends" or <br /> "blips". How does one discern the difference and conduct facility <br /> planning accordingly? <br /> High school membership is easier to project than membership in elementary schools <br /> because patterns already have been established in the early grades. Our projections are <br /> based on the assumption that past rates of in-migration will continue. The high school <br /> projections definitely reflect trends,not blips. Admittedly, trends can change to some <br /> extent. That is one of the advantages of the smaller high school model. The chances of <br /> over-building are minimal because they are built in smaller units. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.