Sal Corda certainly knows how to make a splash. Too bad he hasn’t figured out that if he had had a responsible finance director all these years, he might actually be able to put a budget cut recommendation that adds up. Alas, Corda returns to the game that he likes to play. Scare the students, the parents and anyone within a mile of a BOE budget hearing. His proposal to close a $2 million dollar budget gap is to recommend closing the Norwalk High School Pool. Hey, why not close the High School parking lots too! You can get even more students out decrying the cuts. $200k is about half of what its costs the BOE to operate temporary classrooms at Jefferson. $200k is about a year of Corda’s salary. $200k is about what the BOE has spent on computers that will be obsolete next year.
What Corda isn’t telling you is that in the end, whether the money is spent by the BOE or the City of Norwalk, it’s still the taxpayer of Norwalk’s money. So the argument that Parks and Recs runs programs at Norwalk High School is a lot of hot air. The CIty of Norwalk pays for and maintains all of the BOE’s parks and recreational areas. You know, things like playgrounds. But in Corda’s world, playgrounds are irrelevant. Snow removal in the winter, not his problem. Fences and fields, he doesn’t care. You kinda get the idea that Corda, way back in the last century, worked his way through grade school as a kid who never went out for recess.
If Corda paid any attention to latin, surely he took classical studies as some part of his educational experience, he’d be familiar with Sit mens sana in corpore sano. Will anyone on the elected BOE do anything about the budget? In all of the news stories generated on this issue, not a peep. Why is that? They are supposed to be representing the community’s voice, and are instead silent. Might was well replace them with actual students from the system. Then perhaps we could see some real dialog about education coming out of the BOE.
Closing the pool will not save $200.000. It might save about $30,000. Corda could reasonably argue some of that should come from some other dept. budget, like parks, but it all comes out of taxes. The 200K number is a made up number and includes laying off a phys-ed teacher and some made-up numbers that Corda estimates as the value of custodians who do some pool maintenance. He is trying to get folks riled up against budget cuts by threatening to cut popular programs. He does this every year.
The funny thing about his proposed cuts is that he only cuts his PR director, Human Relations Director and Exec. Asst. to part-time when he would have saved much more by entirely eliminating the Exec. Asst. and the Human Relations Director (keep the staff to investigate, but assign the review to either HR or the Asst. Supt.).
He also refuses to move beyond acknowledging that his inefficient management style costs lots of money– from over $400,000 for outside legal services and $300,000 for OT.
But, I guess as long as we have the same majority on the BOE advising Supt. Corda, we can expect more of the same.
Why is $200,000 such a huge number when he talks about the pool but such a reasonable number when he talks about portables, his salary and other items?
Better forecasting, better planning, a better global plan for Norwalk Public Schools with a financial planner in the mix would alleviate many of these problems. And doesn’t anyone realize that the man leading the charge here is trying to get through one more year and then in all likelihood it becomes someone elses problem?
Why isn’t the pool at NHS a profit center with all the other groups using it? Why take away something that is used for so many groups in Norwalk. Hasn’t anyone heard the many benefits to the students in Norwalk (at NHS and across the district).
Why did the BOE agree to put all the money into the pool with the new chemical system, the new heating system, the new windows, if they were just going to close it down? Poor planning? No forward thinking? How could that be?
So take away the pool at NHS, place the $200,000 portables at Naramake so the city can’t build a new field there (no cost to the BOE) so the NHS students have to continue to walk to unsafe fields to practice and play. Why do we have to make sure that Naramake students keep a separate art and music room when other schools don’t have them. Why can’t Naramake students use inside classrooms without windows when other school use them. What makes it outrageous to think that Naramake students should be able to handle that when others already do? What makes it unreasonable to think that Colmbus can’t function without full time aides when other schools function without them? Why are some schools entitled and others aren’t?
Keep spending more money at schools that have more already – don’t look for ways to make sure that all our elementary schools have equity in what they get.
Can’t we get someone with some sense of equality for all Norwalk Schools to come in and make sense of this all? Do we need to continue to give only to those who always get what they want? Norwalk Tax Payers Wake UP! Start asking questions and make sure that everyone at every school is treated equally and fairly. Stop special treatment for just a few! Let’s start demanding that the best choices are made for the greatest number of students across the district. Let’s run the district like a business and hold people accountable and have them do their jobs.
#3, which Norwalk schools have inside classrooms where the same group of children are in the room for 6 or more hours per day? Would really like to know so I can go visit.
No kids anywhere in Norwalk are in the same room for 6 hours, with or without windows, by the time you account for lunch, recess, art, music, gym and so on. Depending on which classes are taken,a majority of the day can be in rooms without windows in the high school and some middle schools. Some of the older elementary schools have no windows for certain classes.
Countless studies indicate that children’s learning is directly influenced by their environment. Being in an interior classroom is difficult for young children as there is a tremendous benefit to sunlight and windows. Although the young children at Naramake might not be confined to a windowless room for 8 continuous hours each day (they would have a brief recess every day and a lunch period every day), spending the majority of the day in a windowless classroom would not be a good educational practice. Young elementary school children do not do well in windowless environments- particularly when that windowless environment is their permanent, day-in-and-day-out classroom. Also, because you would be taking the music room away, the children would have that special in their windowless classroom.
Although some high school and middle school classrooms may be in interior spaces (having not surveyed every Norwalk school, I can’t vouche for the accuracy of some earlier poster’s assumptions), the children there are only in those spaces for very limited periods (typically less than one hour), which is a far cry from the amount of time that an elementary student spends in her classroom in a day. So, any comparison is simply intended to distort the obvious and material differences between both learning environments.
Secondly, we at Naramake have presented a great alternative location for a turf field. It would take part of the softball field, part of the Naramake playground area and part of the high school parking lot nearest Naramake– if the field is so important to high school students, then they will gladly sacrifice some of their parking, right? Also, while we are on the topic of the turf field, let’s appreciate that there was a study undertaken to assess the quality and required maintenance of Norwalk’s athletic fields (this study cost about $30,000). The results were then reviewed by the high scho0l athletic director and the parks director who determined that, if a turf field was to be built adjacent to the high school, then it should be built at Naramake (after all, given the poor planning of the recent high school addition, there is little unused open space abutting the high school now). These were not the recommendations of educational planners– in fact, the company that was hired to draw the initial layout of this proposed turf field had never come to Naramake to investigate how the exterior of the space was used. Furthermore, there was never any analysis undertaken of the impact that a field less than 20′ from our classroom windows would have.
Finally, it is ludicrous at best to suggest that a portable classroom, which would be temporary, could somehow impede this quixotic dream of a turf field being built. There is no money budgeted for it– any construction plans would be, at best, three years away, when Naramake would hopefully be done with its need for the portable. Given that a pad already exists with utilities, and that this location is the safest for the young children who will need to come and go into the school several times each day, it seems callous to suggest that Naramake’s children should suffer now to keep space available for a potential future plan that is fatally flawed, unfunded and would doubtful achieve site plan review approval (given the opposition from the neighbors to it).
There should be an earnest and honest debate about the extent to which the City can fund much-needed improvements to our playing fields. And, there should be consideration given to increasing the athletic field options for high school students. However, the debate should not involve the extent to which there is an acceptable level of interference in Naramake’s children’s learning environments or a less safe alternative to a modular classroom placement– because, when those suggestions are made (repeatedly), it appears to us that there is no willingness to investigate reasonable alternatives.
Dear No 5,
There will be several days when children at Naramake will be in the inside room for 5.45 hours – this excludes the 30 minutes they have for lunch and recess. They will no longer leave the room for art or music. Gym is two 30 minute periods during a six day rotation. This is not going to be an optimal situation for this group.
In middle school and high school students move about, no? The teacher stays in the same room.
There are “windowless” rooms in other elementary schools. Several rooms are “interior” based on the construction of the building with a horizontal slat that does not open well, if at all. There is certainly no outside view and no ventilation. June and September days can be brutal in these rooms because there is no air conditioning in the buildings. Now, are we talking portables in this thread? The portables are regulated by air conditioning, no? Ask the Rowayton teachers who use them. They find them clean and very comfortable. Besides, there is no radon or asbestos to compromise health issues.
#9 is right. Other elementary students, without articulate empowered advocates like Mr. Colorassi, will be spending their days next year in hot, windowless rooms. At least one wasn’t ever designed for classroom use – it is a former library utility room.
Which school? Same students in classroom over 5 hours, or are groups of children moved in and out? Again, I want this info so I can visit.
As someone who is new to this site and really had no idea we had a windowless classroom problem here in Norwalk, I must ask… Why can’t they hire someone to come in and cut windows out of the wall? Can’t be that costly.
#12: In some cases, these rooms are in the interior of the school, and so there is no wall that has daylight on its other side. With the exception of NHS, there really are not that many windowless classrooms.
#10– No elementary student should be consigned to a windowless space as his/her primary classroom. A window is not asking for too much for a child– and every parent should feel entitled to demand a quality educational environment for their children.
Unfortunately, relatively few members of the Board of Education regularly visit all of Norwalk’s schools, so parents need to be dogged in fighting for their kids and highlighting the true needs that confront our children.
I think we Naramake parents have shown that reasoned arguments can sometimes prevail over politics as usual.
And, I certainly believe that the pool parents are doing an admirable job highlighting the many needs for a public pool in Norwalk. With luck, this budget season will convince more and more people to get involved in the process.
Whether the room was designed as a classroom or not, windowless rooms are a very bad idea. Look at any newly-built or rebuilt school, and you will see a lot of glass that lets in abundant light. It makes a difference. BMHS used to be very dark and dingy, but since its reconstruction, it is anything but that.
Okay. It’s bad to have windowless rooms. What concerns me far more is having proper ventilation and temperature control because both can have serious impact on health of teacher and student.
Look around next fall and you will find both.
Lest anyone doubt the volumes of studies on the negative impact on windowless classrooms on young kids, here is a brief summary:
A recent analysis of “daylighting” in schools (the process of lighting classrooms by use of natural light) by the U.S. Department of Energy supported the theory that having natural light in classrooms improves academic performance. A 2003 report by the California Energy Commission (Technical Report P500-03-082-A-7) corroborates those findings. In the California study, which encompassed several different school districts, the researchers found that students in classrooms with the most natural light, when compared to those in the classrooms with the least amount of natural light, enjoyed a “central tendency of a 21% improvement in student learning”. In one of the California school districts that had both windowless and daylit classrooms, profound differences were observed in both math and reading tests, with those students afforded natural light in their classrooms progressing “20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year”. In the California study, the researchers also looked at studies of windowless classrooms in less sunny climates and concluded that differences between windowed and windowless classrooms would be even more profound in colder or rainier areas. A Swedish study of 8-year-old elementary school students also found that the absence of natural light in a classroom was a factor in increased behavioral problems in those windowless spaces and concluded that windowless classrooms should be avoided [Kuller, R. & Lindsten, C., “Health and Behavior of Children in Classrooms with and without Windows”, Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992), 12, 305-317].
The question, then, isn’t whether converting an interior space is a bad idea, but which member of the Board of Education would want her (or his) child or grandchild taught in such a space. And, if it’s a space they wouldn’t want their own family taught in for hours every day, then I’ll be damned if I’ll let them inflict it upon the kids of Naramake, or any other elementary school for that matter.
I find this entire situation unacceptable. Especially since a BOE member attended our PTO meeting a few months ago and told us that the budget was approved for TWO trailers, not one. How things change. So much for our Lighthouse Award – the best elementary school in Norwalk and this is what we get.
I find this entire situation unacceptable. Especially since a BOE member attended our PTO meeting a few months ago and told us that the budget was approved for TWO trailers, not one. How things change. So much for our Lighthouse Award – the best elementary school in Norwalk and this is what we get.
#17 – Mr. Colarossi: Kudos to you if you stand behind your words. Take a survey of which elementary schools will have non-standard classrooms next September. It certainly won’t be the first time.
“In one of the California school districts that had both windowless and daylit classrooms, profound differences were observed in both math and reading tests, with those students afforded natural light in their classrooms progressing “20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests in one year.”
I’m not sure what this means. If one group progressed faster, but both groups progressed equally in the end, it isn’t that big a deal. Also, the critical mind has to ask if the teachers and the students in both groups were equally strong in aptitude, preparation and motivation.
But this is Norwalk. This is the difference between a school with powerful White parents, versus one with minority parents. Naramake will win.
#21- Nice try attempting to minimize facts and tossing in a red herring to distort the debate.
First, the studies (which you could find online as I did) were over large enough student populations to take into account differences in teaching methods.
Secondly, the point of all the studies is that kids do much better academically and behaviorally when they have natural light in their classrooms.
Third, I don’t care who the children are who are being consigned to inferior educational spaces, the effect is the same so our outrage as parents should be the same.
Fourth, your reference to a “school with powerful White parents, versus one with minority parents” is a complete non sequitor. Naramake’s parents fight for all of our children– when we fought for our principal, we fought for the best principal for all of our children.
Now when we are now fighting for the same temporary classroom that other crowded elementary schools have been given, we are not trying to take anything away from any other school. In fact, I gave at least four different budget cut scenarios at the last BOE meeting that would fund the modular classroom for Naramake.
You see, “Anonymous #21″, Naramake parents take a stand– we have the strength of our convictions and are willing to take the time to fight for our children (just like parents all over Norwalk).
Naramake isn’t the best school in Norwalk just has more white and middle class kids which make their scores look better. Naramake gets portables and 1,500 kids next door at Norwalk High see their chance at a sports field disappear.
Mr. Colarossi:
#21 doesn’t distort the debate; the topic raised is the root of the debate; Norwalk has racial isolation that no one dares touch, and too few even discuss. I went to the state website to see how Naramake’s minority students fare on the CMT, and I learned that there are so few minority students in each grade that the state doesn’t even report their progress. That is disturbing in a district that has an enrollment that is “majority minority.”
For the record, I didn’t say that the studies to which you referred were flawed; I merely asked a question about them so I could better understand them. I will be happy to review the studies if you post the link here – just so we are looking at the same data.
My comment stands. The powerful White parents will get their way.
#23- Your point about a sports field has absolutely no merit.
First, there are other locations between the Naramake and High School sites where a turf field could be located– the high school students will have to give up some parking and Naramake will give up some playground space. Putting a turf field immediately abutting Naramke is a bad plan that, if it had been adequately reviewed by people with educational design expertise who took into consideration Naramake’s needs, the plan your group presented would have never seen the light of day.
Second, your group has never reviewed any of the data that reveals how damaging your plan would be for the educational environment of Naramake.
Third, stop implying to the public that a portable classroom will be in place forever– they are not designed to be permanent and will not permanently impede your ill-advised, poorly conceived and unfunded quixotic fantasy of a turf field.
Fourth, why won’t your group consider the option of giving up some parking or of investigating if the cost of acquiring other property (which might be cheaper than all the design changes your plan would require) might make your plan feasible. Your group has evidenced no interest in working with us, despite our attempts to work on some sort of a compromise.
#24- Notwithstanding the racial twist that you seem intent on putting on a fundamental matter of assuring that all children have decent, safe and educationally-sound learning spaces, I have attached a link to one of the studies. Of course, I remain uterly perplexed as to why a school’s racial composition should deter the Board of Education from assuring that all children learn in the appropriate environment.
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/training/pec/daylight/Daylighting_Schools_Sum.pdf
“Of course, I remain uterly perplexed as to why a school’s racial composition should deter the Board of Education from assuring that all children learn in the appropriate environment.”
Mr. Colarossi,
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that separate but equal is a fallacy.
#26- Thanks for the update on constitutional law. I must have missed that while at the University of Virginia School of Law and serving as Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Law & Politics.
You see, that’s been my point all along– when posters like you want to try to introduce some racial overtone to a debate about whether kids at Naramake should be consigned to try to learn in windowless classrooms, I respond by emphasizing that ALL children deserve proper facilities. I remind that children of all races adn creeds will be in that awful classroom. Our outrage as parents shouldn’t stop with the debate about a portable at Naramake- rather it should be part of a general sense of umbrage we all take when children throughout Norwalk of all races and creeds (including my own who are from Central Asia) are denied the full educational opportunities our budget should provide but doesn’t because the Board of Education has traditionally favored administrative needs over student needs. You see, their misguided priorities negatively impact all children. But please, rather than expend your energy discussing those issues and how little the Board of Education has done to truly help at-risk families, continue to throw rocks at a small school in a corner of Norwalk.
I would love to debate with you how Norwalk needs to close the achievement gap and how we can do it cost-effectively. Feel free to email me (colarossi@post.Harvard.edu).
Why are we swiping at parent groups that are fighting for what is best for their kids? Let’s applaud the Naramake folks, as well as the pool parents and Columbus group!
If the Board of Ed is forced to account for all their decisions, if Supt. Corda is made to explain all of his budget choices, if parents can put faces on the cuts (or lack of funding for needed items), then we all benefit because education improves.
I never intended my remarks as a criticism of anything that the Naramake parents are doing. If I were a parent at that school, I would be doing the same. My remarks about racial isolation have everything to do with the school system and its failures.
Mr. Colarossi and I seem to be crossing swords, which was not my intention. He and I agree far more than we disagree.
Interesting points Mr. Calorossi makes regarding the turf field, but he might not be looking at the bigger picture. Any high school field likely needs to be contiguous to the high school due to the proximity of other schools. Any field being used away from the high school would result in high school drivers driving through other fields to get to their practice areas. I believe this has been an issue in the past with both Nathan Hale and Naramake. High school students will be driving through these school zones around the dismissal times of the lower grades, competing with walkers and parents picking up children. There is also a factor in other outside organizations that will lose access to fields. For example, if a turf field were to be placed at Nathan Hale, the high schools priorit use would severely restrict times available for Jr soccer and Jr lacrosse.
#30- You make a fair point. The alternate location would stretch from the rear of the current softball field to the Naramake swings and then over into the high school parking lot. This location provides contiguity to the high school but is does not place the field immediately against Naramake– there is still somewhat of a buffer.
Is the estimated cost of the alternative plan the same as the original plan?
The most recent information is that the portable would cost less than $60,000 to put into place at Naramake. The facts are clear that converting the windowless, interior music room to a full-time classroom would hinder learning of the children consigned there. And, the fact is that if the Naramake portable isn’t ordered this week, it will not be ready for the start of the school. Yet, this Board of Education still stalls, hinders and delays.
As for the quixotic turf field, the extent of the renovation work and new parking lot installation that the current mythical plan would entail is mind-boggling. The fact that it would hinder Naramake’s educational environmental appears to be a secondary issue to those (like some on the Board of Education and Central Administration) who want to balance the temporary placement of a needed portable classroom with the desire to appease a group that has not considered all alternatives.
The Norwalk turf field also has the blessing of Parks and Rec and all the coaches and sportsplayers at Norwalk High. There have been studies, this is the best alternative even though you don’t like it.
#34- You are simply letting opinion pass for fact (which is, at best, a charitable assessment of what purports to be your analysis of the turf field issue).
First, no one who prepared a single plan for this turf field ever came to Naramake to investigate how the school site was used.
Secondly, no one considered what would be the impact of having a field with lots of activity on it near the end of the school day for those kids whose classroom it was in front of.
Third, no one has evaluated the impact of the loss of view and how crowded the school will be.
Fourth, no one has anlayzed how the alteration of the school parking will impact the sense of community that Naramake enjoys, nor has your side assessed how traffic flow will be made worse.
Fifth, there was no evaluation in the Parks Director analysis of sites other than Naramake, the softball field on Strawberry Hill or the less costly use of Nathan Hale. And, at that, there was really only one configuration used for Naramake. You see, when the high school athletic director directs that an analysis be given of where a turf field could be built next to the high school, the options are really limited– to say that an answer given to that narrowly defined a question somehow denotes a “best” solution is simply wrong.
Finally, with all due respect to the coaches and high school student athletes whose opinions you site with such authority, how many of them have actually spoken with the neighbors who are universally opposed to the plan as they demonstrated last July at the Board of Education? How many of them will actually benefit from a second turf field? And how do those numbers compare to the harm that Naramake’s children will endure?
You see, you have a poorly-designed plan that was drawn with one set of criteria in mind– making a small group of parents happy at Norwalk High School. Now, no one is willing to consider that the field would have a negative impact on Naramake. And, as a result, no one on your side is willing to even remotely consider how the field could be repositioned to get it a little further from the Naramake building, but still abutting the high school area. I guess, when people like you post your distorted facts and refuse to speak with high school students about giving up some parking so that the field could be built with less of an impact on the little kids of Naramake, it tells me that Naramake’s parents and neighbors won’t be able to enjoy any sort of logical dialogue with you. Hopefully more rationale proponents of the turf field will be available to discuss a true compromise.
You see, we all have kids who will eventually be at the High School and hopefully involved in the school’s athletic programs. Expanding athletic options benefits them, so we, like you, want what’s best. Unlike you, however, we are willing to consider the impact expanding those options will have on others.
What is the argument against using land at NHMS? There are no busy roads to cross. I know it is a bit of a walk from NHS, but so is the band practice field near Westport Avenue, to say nothing of the baseball field at City Hall.
Guys, I’m not saying that this is good, but Norwalk is a city and land is limited. It is cost-prohibitive to purchase residential properties to expand the NHS campus, and there wouldn’t be any state reimbursement for it. Naramake’s campus isn’t that large that the school can afford to give up land. NHMS is a different story.
Steve my question about cost of the alternative was directed to the turf field. Will your alternative placement cost the taxpayers less money? NHMS is not a very good option. You will have high school drivers going through both Naramake and NHMS areas to get to the field after school during times the younger kids will be dismissed and competing for road space with parents picking up the younger children. Not an ideal situation.
#37- The high school groups are insisting that the field be contiguous to NHS. Therefore, the goal is to move the proposed turf field to the rear of Naramake so that it would occupy the space where the Naramake swings are and jut into a portion of that side NHS parking lot.
I think this option is cheaper for taxpayers for the following reasons: 1. No need to rebuild the Naramake parking lot and relocate a long driveway across the dramatic grade differences that exist in the rear of the school; 2. No expense in removing the ball wall and basketball court; 3. Easier lighting scheme because the second turf field would be shielded from the neighbors by Naramake; 4. No street work would be needed on King Street.
For these reasons, I believe that the costs would be reduced. Plus, the educational environment to the Naramake students is not impacted and safety is not compromised because the second field would be most accessible from the high school parking lot. Overall, assuming that the funding exists, this alternative location still provides the high school with the benefits they seek but doesn’t impose the sole cost on Naramake.
Just wondering, are you a landscape architect? Do you have price quotes?
I am just wondering, too. With all of the sacrifices the taxpayers and some city employees are making, is this field of such importance that it has to be done now? There are people losing their homes. There are people who have had to pull their children out of college. There are teaching positions that won’t exist in the fall.
A turf field during a different budget year would be reasonable, but not this year.
#39 and #40- I am not an architect, although my law practice has been involved in the construction industry, so I have a general sense of the cost comparisons involved. It’s not our project, so we have not expended the funds to get price quotes.
#40- I agree that this plan needs to be evaluated in light of the current budget realities and the impact that presently-proposed cuts will have long-term.
Our point at Naramake has been all along that we should start with a reasonable plan that does not put a field or bleachers wtihin 20 feet of a classroom window and that doesn’t impose a significant safety risk for pick-up and drop-off. Then, the community can have the debate over whether the benefits to the student athletes are justified by the cost of such a field.
I didn’t know that the field will be within 20 feet of a classroom window. That is not an educationally sound plan for Naramake students. Remember that the field will be used by NHS physical education students during the day, not only by teams after school, and so there is the potential for significant disruption of Naramake classes, especially because Naramake isn’t air conditioned, and teachers will leave windows open.
I was lukewarm to the concerns of Naramake parents early on, but now I have a far better understanding of the issues.
#42 you sound like a shill.
I don’t know how you mean that, #42, but I speak the truth as I know it.
#42- If there’s a shill in the room, we’d guess it’s #43. . . guess he has enough free time to post rather than getting the hockey jerseys for the kids who wanted to wear them to the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday to save their team.
Just out of curiousity, how many turf fields does BMHS have and how many grass fields do do their teams have access to as well????
BMHS has one artificial turf field, but how is that relevant? The debate isn’t over whether or not NHS will get another turf field. It is over where the field will be located.
#46- Why should millions be spent for your high school and nothing for the people on the other side of towne? Don’t the kids who go to BMHS from Roton and Ponus deserve the same athletics that your kids do? You people even have the pool– why should you get 2 turf fields and a pool? What’s fair about that?
I’m figuring 47 has never been to Norwalk High otherwise he would never had compared the 2 schools. Millions were spent on Brien McMahon the fields are big and new, they’ve even got real bleachers. All the fields are in the same spot. Not to mention that all the money was spent on Brien McMahon which is why Norwalk high is left begging. The fields at Norwalk High are a disgrace. Fair, Roton has a Planatarium, what does that have to do with this discussion? Norwalk High boys and girls are walking and driving up and down streets over here looking for a place to play. Sports scouts can’t come and watch as many Norwalk High players play because the scheduling is too screwy. That’s how some of these kids will get into college. This is a real problem. This isn’t just inconvenient. There are kids walking, talking wearing and carrying their athletic gear and crossing streets at the same time. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen if you ask me.
#48: I won’t dispute your argument, but I want to keep the record straight. The McMahon bleachers, with the exception of about three rows of bleachers next to the school’s cafeteria, are the bleachers that were there long before the school construction. The school’s one artificial turf field also predates the construction by years.
Construction resulted in the loss of one field (used for field hockey) and the relocation of another (softball). One other field was made more useful by filling in a low area of the campus with tons of fill that was removed for the construction of the addition. There still aren’t enough fields.
I don’t know which school is worse off, but neither has enough fields.
The cost of running the pool at NHS is , at best, a moving target. Latest HOUR storyof May 29th is now using the number $292,000 to “run & staff” the pool. I guess, now that Corda and company are looking at cost-sharing options, the number grew faster than the “one that got away”. When you don’t have real numbers making them up seems to work . Wonder what it will be next week.