Watching Broward


GRAND JURY REPORT: FANTASY OF THE TEN YEAR MASTER PLAN
According to the report: "The Board knew as early as 2003 that enrollment was projected to flatten out by the time the new plant survey was due. In 2002 the Board had commissioned a private consultant to create a Long Range Facility Master Plan covering the years 2003-2013. It was provided in April of 2003 at a cost of $1.1 million was then promptly shelved and ignored according to high level district employees. The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear. In hindsight the consultant's numbers were much closer to the mark then the District's. The Grand Jury's final report is out and there's the quandary." "The worst part of all this is that despite their mania to build to overcapacity, they still weren't able to put a dent into the critically overcrowded schools in the western portion of the county. As far back as 2003 the disparity in capacity between east and west Broward was apparent. The 2002 Report warned "A boundary shift is necessary to take advantage of eastern schools' excess capacity. This might prove to be very controversial." So they had a "mania to build to overcapacity but they still weren't able to put a dent in critically overcroweded schools..." Two very conflicting ideas wrapped up in one statement. That's not quite the way it happened. But what else can you expect from a report chock full of misinformation? Let's set the record straight. The Ten Year Master plan was to commence in 2005, not in the middle of the year it was released. That's ludicrous. Actually, April is quite near the end of the school year. It takes real time to outline, approve and then fund projects even in the supposed "mania" world. The report's statement of not being able to make a dent in the overcapacity in western schools is utter nonsense. Only the city of Weston remained in any semblence of that condition, specifically Cypress Bay High School with a population of 5,400 in 2006 which at the time was about 2,000 over capacity. Today, Cypress Bay is around 4,200 and the only real problem remaining is the District 6 middle schools which combined are over by about 16 - 1,800 students or by about the population of one middle school. The truth is that western high schools are no longer critically over capacity, nor are elementary schools, nor even most middle schools. The report is not just wrong, it's intentionally misleading. The great master plan, to which the report refers, itself was totally flawed and incomplete, yet by some act of magic or omission, there's no mention of this. I wonder why? The contract deliverables called for each of the cities in the county to be contacted and interviewed for their input on schools within their borders along with population growth projections. Only one problem: The findings and recommendations issued that April were released as a final document, but the consultant never bothered to either contact or interview a number of the cities. A clear violation of the Master Plan contract. I guess the staff members that were interviewed forgot to mention that little snippet of fact. Many of the Master Plan's maintenance and upgrade plans were counted more than once in the projected expenditure totals while other critical needs were ignored. District Board members discovered the innacuracies when reviewing those "Master Plans" covering their own schools. The first of this plethora of mistakes was brought out by District 3's Judie Budnick during one of the workshops, only to be followed by member after member finding duplications and omissions in the plans for their own schools. I guess those who were "interviewed" forgot to mention that, too. The report goes on to state that "The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear." We didn't summarily ignore the report, it flew in the face of the established data. "In hindsight the consultant's numbers were much closer to the mark then the District's." They're kidding, right? The Grand Jury would have the reader swallow a fantasy that the consultant actually predicted a drop in the student population? That's not the case at all. The consultant predicted an increase in student population. The consultant projected that there would be 18 - 20 thousand additional students over the ten year period while the immediate numbers showed an 18 thousand rise in student population over the previous three years. The Grand Jury's conclusion is a feat of magic worthy of David Copperfield himself. The master plan was shelved not only because it flew in the face of what was then current enrollment statistics, but also because of its failure to; 1) complete the contract deliverables, and; 2) deeply flawed recommendations on maintenance for existing schools. The plan in fact was so badly flawed that it was "downgraded" by Frank Till to the status of a "framework." That the Board wound up paying $1.1 million for a flawed "framework" is what the Grand Jury and State's Attorney should have been investigating. Till then appointed a committee of high school principals to review and fix the master plan. That effort was agreed to by the Board, but like other staff directives was never followed through. Rather than using boundary shifts as a method of relieving overcrowding in the west, the district chose to use Magnet schools instead. Magnet schools did not work well enough to solve the problem and wasted millions of dollars in transportation. When it came to my attention, the program cost $11 million with an additional $8 million for transportation. That, in itself, is institutional insanity. To this day I remain opposed to Magnet programs. But the Grand Jury report uses the Ten Year Master Plan of which it obviously knows absolutely nothing about along with a misleading "mania" statement as a "gotcha?" Did they even bother to examine the Master Plan? Or did they just entertain testimony from facilites staff and managers that couldn't find their own asses with two hands and a flashlight? Did they listen to the workshop and board meeting tapes? Somehow, I think not. Amazing. There's more coming...

GRAND JURY REPORT: FANTASY OF THE TEN YEAR MASTER PLAN

According to the report:

"The Board knew as early as 2003 that enrollment was projected to flatten out by the time the new plant survey was due. In 2002 the Board had commissioned a private consultant to create a Long Range Facility Master Plan covering the years 2003-2013. It was provided in April of 2003 at a cost of $1.1 million was then promptly shelved and ignored according to high level district employees. The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear. In hindsight the consultant's numbers were much closer to the mark then the District's. The Grand Jury's final report is out and there's the quandary."

"The worst part of all this is that despite their mania to build to overcapacity, they still weren't able to put a dent into the critically overcrowded schools in the western portion of the county. As far back as 2003 the disparity in capacity between east and west Broward was apparent. The 2002 Report warned "A boundary shift is necessary to take advantage of eastern schools' excess capacity. This might prove to be very controversial."

So they had a "mania to build to overcapacity but they still weren't able to put a dent in critically overcroweded schools..."

Two very conflicting ideas wrapped up in one statement.

That's not quite the way it happened.

But what else can you expect from a report chock full of misinformation?

Let's set the record straight.

The Ten Year Master plan was to commence in 2005, not in the middle of the year it was released.

That's ludicrous.

Actually, April is quite near the end of the school year.

It takes real time to outline, approve and then fund projects even in the supposed "mania" world.

The report's statement of not being able to make a dent in the overcapacity in western schools is utter nonsense.

Only the city of Weston remained in any semblence of that condition, specifically Cypress Bay High School with a population of 5,400 in 2006 which at the time was about 2,000 over capacity.

Today, Cypress Bay is around 4,200 and the only real problem remaining is the District 6 middle schools which combined are over by about 16 - 1,800 students or by about the population of one middle school.

The truth is that western high schools are no longer critically over capacity, nor are elementary schools, nor even most middle schools.

The report is not just wrong, it's intentionally misleading.

The great master plan, to which the report refers, itself was totally flawed and incomplete, yet by some act of magic or omission, there's no mention of this.

I wonder why?

The contract deliverables called for each of the cities in the county to be contacted and interviewed for their input on schools within their borders along with population growth projections.

Only one problem:

The findings and recommendations issued that April were released as a final document, but the consultant never bothered to either contact or interview a number of the cities.

A clear violation of the Master Plan contract.

I guess the staff members that were interviewed forgot to mention that little snippet of fact.

Many of the Master Plan's maintenance and upgrade plans were counted more than once in the projected expenditure totals while other critical needs were ignored.

District Board members discovered the innacuracies when reviewing those "Master Plans" covering their own schools.

The first of this plethora of mistakes was brought out by District 3's Judie Budnick during one of the workshops, only to be followed by member after member finding duplications and omissions in the plans for their own schools.

I guess those who were "interviewed" forgot to mention that, too.

The report goes on to state that "The problem was the consultant predicted enrollment numbers well below what the District was projecting and well below what the Board wanted to hear."

We didn't summarily ignore the report, it flew in the face of the established data.

"In hindsight the consultant's numbers were much closer to the mark then the District's."

They're kidding, right?

The Grand Jury would have the reader swallow a fantasy that the consultant actually predicted a drop in the student population?

That's not the case at all.

The consultant predicted an increase in student population.

The consultant projected that there would be 18 - 20 thousand additional students over the ten year period while the immediate numbers showed an 18 thousand rise in student population over the previous three years.

The Grand Jury's conclusion is a feat of magic worthy of David Copperfield himself.

The master plan was shelved not only because it flew in the face of what was then current enrollment statistics, but also because of its failure to;

1) complete the contract deliverables, and;

2) deeply flawed recommendations on maintenance for existing schools.

The plan in fact was so badly flawed that it was "downgraded" by Frank Till to the status of a "framework."

That the Board wound up paying $1.1 million for a flawed "framework" is what the Grand Jury and State's Attorney should have been investigating.

Till then appointed a committee of high school principals to review and fix the master plan.

That effort was agreed to by the Board, but like other staff directives was never followed through.

Rather than using boundary shifts as a method of relieving overcrowding in the west, the district chose to use Magnet schools instead.

Magnet schools did not work well enough to solve the problem and wasted millions of dollars in transportation.

When it came to my attention, the program cost $11 million with an additional $8 million for transportation.

That, in itself, is institutional insanity.

To this day I remain opposed to Magnet programs.

But the Grand Jury report uses the Ten Year Master Plan of which it obviously knows absolutely nothing about along with a misleading "mania" statement as a "gotcha?"

Did they even bother to examine the Master Plan?

Or did they just entertain testimony from facilites staff and managers that couldn't find their own asses with two hands and a flashlight?

Did they listen to the workshop and board meeting tapes?

Somehow, I think not.

Amazing.

There's more coming...