Guest Post--Comment on Previous Posts
The guest post here was written as a comment on the previous post titled confusingly "Comments on Previous Post." The original post that triggered these comments was "Local Option Budget."
Guest Post:
I was surprised to read in the handout that "PCHS representatives favor using the current learning center (former auditorium) for the High School Learning Center", and "That other possible locations considered for the learning center are space restrictive or inconveniently located.". That wasn't my impression from interactions with PCHS staff. And now I hear you mention the same. I feel confused by that.
I am highlighting one of your paragraphs, with the intent of endorsing it fully: The "auditorium function seems to me to have very limited usefulness for the school. It could actually result in some inconvenience for the school, given the likelihood that school personnel would likely become de facto custodians of the space, and that some non-school events would be planned during the school year." You said it well. No one on staff has a vision to become the de facto custodians.
I also agree with the other commenter who said it is fair to consider the merits of a large facility to host other events. I too would plead to look at these things as two separate issues (and buildings -- in separate locations if it comes to that)! I am increasingly uncomfortable with combining the two. It seems to me that the first question to be answered is, “Where will the high school learning center be?” If the high school ends up using the current "gym" as their learning center, we almost have to do (build) something for indoor play space. If, however, we could accommodate the learning center in the way/location I thought was discussed previously and found acceptable to PCHS, then the old “gym” is available to renovate for indoor play. That would significantly increase the indoor play space and I for one would be highly pleased with what that would offer. There is a nice sized slab on the outside for basketball and volleyball. Also, from what I understand, raising the ceiling in the old “gym” would accommodate some volleyball/basketball inside too, howbeit not in grandeur fashion. I'm not convinced yet that there needs to be a gym built for school . . .
While some play space is necessary, I think we would all agree it is not THE primary purpose/goal in choosing to have our own school. We certainly don't see ourselves as going the route of public schools who spend huge bucks to make play area/sports a priority. So I end up calling the “play area need” a peripheral need. And I don't understand how spending so much for an aspect not of primary importance fits the Pilgrim Christian School stated mission. It seems to me it could even (especially depending what we end up with) be counter-productive to the goal of shaping hearts and lives for the Kingdom. At the same time I ponder the fact that how we as a community work together with each adding his portion to the pot of ideas and then submitting to each other in love may have an equal or greater impact than the final decision on building – elaborate, sufficient, two or one or none -- would have.
One thing I questioned was the slight implication that we could continue to do (grade school) programs at the church. The way the grade school operates, doing their programs at a location other than the school facility would be highly inconvenient. BUT, I hurry to add, I fail to see why we couldn't very easily continue doing programs as we do now -- two presentations in an auditorium accommodating 400 people would surely be very sufficient. That's clearly more space than we have now. And inviting people to watch the dress rehearsal (as we have done for years, and doubling it as counting for a program presentation) from my perspective is no problem. Truly.
Betty Yoder
*****************
At Betty's invitation, I am adding a comment on the last paragraph. I acknowledge that the transportation of students is a far greater challenge for grade schoolers than high schoolers, because grade schoolers can't drive, and we don't have school buses. So I can easily see why practicing for presentations in a different facility would be somewhat complicated for them. Betty thought through more carefully than I did how having the old gym as the auditorium could work perfectly for grade school purposes. I completely agree. I'm guessing she would also agree that any auditorium location within easy walking distance for the students would not present any transporting-students complications.
*******************
On Betty's information about the outdoor slab--I didn't remember this detail. But of course . . . ! That's all the basketball/volleyball space that Pleasantview Academy has ever had since the old gym was made into a learning center. Ponder that: a public school made do (for how many years?) with only an outdoor slab. I wonder how that was possible.
One statement in the handout that seems unwarranted is this statement following an "if" clause about using the old gym as a learning center: "we will need to use smaller rooms for indoor exercise or build a new auditorium that can double as an indoor play area." Those two options are far from the only two options, and I'm disappointed that it was presented that way. Indoor play area does not automatically mean the same thing as auditorium. A bare bones $65,000 covered play structure would more than adequately meet the need for play space, but it would not be an auditorium.
On raising the ceiling in the gym to make some playing of basketball and volleyball possible--I remember hearing that too from someone who had toured the building, but the handout did not reflect that. Yet, this statement appeared (about the ceiling in the old gym): ". . . we believe the ceiling can be raised a number of feet for greater clearance (although not to its original 16' height because of the installation of heating and air conditioning ducts.) I'm not sure what "a number of feet" means, but surely more than 2'. (I had not taken note of these height details in the handout earlier.) If the ceiling height could be 14 ft. everywhere and 16 ft. in the main part of the room, I would see that as being workable for basketball at least. If the duct work is around the edges and in the corners--or if it could be rerouted to run there, the ball should never be flying high in those places anyway.
A crucial understanding in this "ceiling height" discussion is that lowering the ceiling to 10 ft. for Pleasantview Academy's learning center likely had far more to do with creating an efficient heating and cooling space, and creating a cozier learning environment than it had to do with being necessary because of the presence of duct work--although that entered in, to some degree at least.
Guest Post:
I was surprised to read in the handout that "PCHS representatives favor using the current learning center (former auditorium) for the High School Learning Center", and "That other possible locations considered for the learning center are space restrictive or inconveniently located.". That wasn't my impression from interactions with PCHS staff. And now I hear you mention the same. I feel confused by that.
I am highlighting one of your paragraphs, with the intent of endorsing it fully: The "auditorium function seems to me to have very limited usefulness for the school. It could actually result in some inconvenience for the school, given the likelihood that school personnel would likely become de facto custodians of the space, and that some non-school events would be planned during the school year." You said it well. No one on staff has a vision to become the de facto custodians.
I also agree with the other commenter who said it is fair to consider the merits of a large facility to host other events. I too would plead to look at these things as two separate issues (and buildings -- in separate locations if it comes to that)! I am increasingly uncomfortable with combining the two. It seems to me that the first question to be answered is, “Where will the high school learning center be?” If the high school ends up using the current "gym" as their learning center, we almost have to do (build) something for indoor play space. If, however, we could accommodate the learning center in the way/location I thought was discussed previously and found acceptable to PCHS, then the old “gym” is available to renovate for indoor play. That would significantly increase the indoor play space and I for one would be highly pleased with what that would offer. There is a nice sized slab on the outside for basketball and volleyball. Also, from what I understand, raising the ceiling in the old “gym” would accommodate some volleyball/basketball inside too, howbeit not in grandeur fashion. I'm not convinced yet that there needs to be a gym built for school . . .
While some play space is necessary, I think we would all agree it is not THE primary purpose/goal in choosing to have our own school. We certainly don't see ourselves as going the route of public schools who spend huge bucks to make play area/sports a priority. So I end up calling the “play area need” a peripheral need. And I don't understand how spending so much for an aspect not of primary importance fits the Pilgrim Christian School stated mission. It seems to me it could even (especially depending what we end up with) be counter-productive to the goal of shaping hearts and lives for the Kingdom. At the same time I ponder the fact that how we as a community work together with each adding his portion to the pot of ideas and then submitting to each other in love may have an equal or greater impact than the final decision on building – elaborate, sufficient, two or one or none -- would have.
One thing I questioned was the slight implication that we could continue to do (grade school) programs at the church. The way the grade school operates, doing their programs at a location other than the school facility would be highly inconvenient. BUT, I hurry to add, I fail to see why we couldn't very easily continue doing programs as we do now -- two presentations in an auditorium accommodating 400 people would surely be very sufficient. That's clearly more space than we have now. And inviting people to watch the dress rehearsal (as we have done for years, and doubling it as counting for a program presentation) from my perspective is no problem. Truly.
Betty Yoder
*****************
At Betty's invitation, I am adding a comment on the last paragraph. I acknowledge that the transportation of students is a far greater challenge for grade schoolers than high schoolers, because grade schoolers can't drive, and we don't have school buses. So I can easily see why practicing for presentations in a different facility would be somewhat complicated for them. Betty thought through more carefully than I did how having the old gym as the auditorium could work perfectly for grade school purposes. I completely agree. I'm guessing she would also agree that any auditorium location within easy walking distance for the students would not present any transporting-students complications.
*******************
On Betty's information about the outdoor slab--I didn't remember this detail. But of course . . . ! That's all the basketball/volleyball space that Pleasantview Academy has ever had since the old gym was made into a learning center. Ponder that: a public school made do (for how many years?) with only an outdoor slab. I wonder how that was possible.
One statement in the handout that seems unwarranted is this statement following an "if" clause about using the old gym as a learning center: "we will need to use smaller rooms for indoor exercise or build a new auditorium that can double as an indoor play area." Those two options are far from the only two options, and I'm disappointed that it was presented that way. Indoor play area does not automatically mean the same thing as auditorium. A bare bones $65,000 covered play structure would more than adequately meet the need for play space, but it would not be an auditorium.
On raising the ceiling in the gym to make some playing of basketball and volleyball possible--I remember hearing that too from someone who had toured the building, but the handout did not reflect that. Yet, this statement appeared (about the ceiling in the old gym): ". . . we believe the ceiling can be raised a number of feet for greater clearance (although not to its original 16' height because of the installation of heating and air conditioning ducts.) I'm not sure what "a number of feet" means, but surely more than 2'. (I had not taken note of these height details in the handout earlier.) If the ceiling height could be 14 ft. everywhere and 16 ft. in the main part of the room, I would see that as being workable for basketball at least. If the duct work is around the edges and in the corners--or if it could be rerouted to run there, the ball should never be flying high in those places anyway.
A crucial understanding in this "ceiling height" discussion is that lowering the ceiling to 10 ft. for Pleasantview Academy's learning center likely had far more to do with creating an efficient heating and cooling space, and creating a cozier learning environment than it had to do with being necessary because of the presence of duct work--although that entered in, to some degree at least.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
7:17 PM
1 Comments:
In the midst of discussions to identify clearly what our "school needs" and "community needs" are, many thoughts go through one's mind in a day's time. Some of necessity quickly depart through the nearest exit while others are welcomed to take up residence. Two thoughts I willingly host are: thoughts of gratitude to the members of the feasibility board who have waded deep waters and invested deeply of their time and energy in seeking answers for school needs. It would be a very difficult, and often thankless, job; I don't remember any of them campaigning for the position.
The second thought is one of desiring to offer my two bits with humility. While it is true I am not convinced we need (to build a new) gym for the school, I ask the Lord for a goodly measure of heavenly wisdom, the kind that is easy to be entreated and listens well to others who offer different perspectives. I keep thinking of Ernest Strubhar's comments on individuals pouring their varying portions into one common pot, stirring it together, and then as a body submitting to each other.
By
Betty, at 6/28/2014
Post a Comment
<< Home