Need, want, or braggadocio?
UPDATE 2: That there's funny
One man's take on the issue.
==========================
UPDATE 1:
It was pointed out to me that my dimensions for the football field were off. Ed Engler at the Laconia Daily Sun has pointed out that "a regulation football field is 360-ft. X 160-ft.. . .a total of 57,600 square feet. . .not counting the approaches to the field. . .a regulation soccer field is the same length, but at least 35-ft wider. . .ED". Thanks Ed!
So, for the math.
Football field - 57,600sq ft X $1.25/sq ft = $72,000
Soccer field - at 360 X 195 = 70.200. Still at $1.25/sq ft = $87,750.
And these prices do not, still, include the site prep work!
Please note that Gilford only has about 7,400 residents and around 1,350 students (in the total district!).
You know, I'd be all for this money being spent on a science lab, better computer software, more books for the school libraries, and tutoring. Fake grass? Not so much.
==========================
If one asks what parents and the general public would say is the primary mission of the local school system, it would be a fair guess that its mission is to educate our children. This is common sense. However, if I look at the NHEIAP (New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program) Summary Report for End of Grade 10 for May 2005 listing the results for Gilford, boy, I get puzzled.
Overall (if I am reading this correctly), only 55% of our students in Reading and 37% in Mathematics have reached the Proficient rating or better (as opposed to Basic or Novice status). Looking at these statistics, one has to wonder which of the major parts (students, parents, curriculum, or staff) is the major contributor to these low scores.
Yet, instead of seeing articles from the Gilford School Board about raising these scores, I read in the local papers that the Chairman of that Board has put forward the idea of putting in a “synthetic grass” field (think Astroturf) at the Middle / High school campus.
While I could not quote a figure for what this would cost the Town of Gilford, (Note: OnDeckSports.com is quoting AstroTurf at $1.25 / sq. foot. A football field [300ft X 75ft = 22,500 sq. ft] would be $28,125 just for the material). I'm fairly sure that it will not be a small sum of money to install (there would be a lot of site work involved to ensure proper pitch and drainage before the cost of the “grass” itself). Upkeep of the synthetic, just like real grass, will be an on-going cost.
I understand, and agree, that extra-curricular activities are important to a well rounded education . Sports is certainly a valuable component, as it does teach skills, other than physical ones, that are difficult to teach in a classroom However, is Gilford that much of a powerhouse in sports, or in need of such a field, that any amount of money spent on this endeavor would be a “worthwhile” endeavor? As opposed to providing additional funds for tutoring, as the scores might imply our students need?
Now add in the fact the the NCLB process has determined that Gilford High School is in the category of "a school in need of improvement", and one understand my concern. A school is not placed into this catagory based on the capability or condition of their sports teams and facilities.
Extra-curricular activities are just that – above and beyond the main mission of academics. So far, in terms of money spent and value seen (in terms of these standardized tests), I would repeat what I stated in an earlier Letter. Before asking for more funds to do more, show us improved test scores. With the amount per student we are spending, are we getting full academic value?
This is now cross-posted over at www.GilfordGrok.com
