Jump to content
Yampa Valley Medical Center pursues merger with UCHealth March 1, 2017
"In their letter, district superintendents said they were upset to hear that the Education Fund would consider using district funds to pay for the Partners program" I would appreciate if you would print the actual letter as I am surprised that these superintendents would call these "district funds." It is my understanding that municipalities are not allowed to use sales taxes to directly fund schools, hence the sales taxes raised go to the independent, non-profit Steamboat Springs Education Fund Board, whose stated mission (from their website) is as follows:
The Mission of the Steamboat Springs Education Fund is:
To enhance academic accomplishment in Routt Co. through student facing investments in staff, facilities, infrastructure, technology and curriculum, made available through our public schools.
There is nothing on their website that says they are spending district funds. If the fund board feels that the Partners grant is appropriate, then that is their prerogative.
I can certainly see the issue if requests from outside the school district are reviewed before ones from the school district, but again, the SSEF is in charge of their processes, not the school board, not the school districts and not the superintendents.
It is presumptuous and I believe illegal for the school district to believe that the half cent sales tax belongs to them and that money not granted to Partners would "go to the district."
Scott - one thing I am confused about at the current High School, if we are showing the population is under capacity, why are there teachers sharing rooms and having to live off a cart? To my knowledge, we didn't have that before this year.
Yes, the field house that was already proposed for the middle school and one that both the district and the community would greatly benefit from.
We already tried a bandage approach with rebuilding Soda Creek. The lot is too small and the rebuilt school is too small, which is why we are in the situation we are in. This C2 plan will serve the district for a long time, which is what we need. Plus the addition of new fields (perhaps even a fieldhouse) at the larger location are amenities that server beyond just the student population.
Congrats, Eric. Well deserved.
Too bad that when Soda Creek was rebuilt it was not built to accommodate the expected growth even though that would have meant having to move it out of Old Town as the site is not large enough for a larger school.
Sibling preference makes sense to support families having all their elementary kids in the same school, but after that going to lottery does not seem like the best solution as it opens the real possibility that students who live walking distance from Soda Creek will be sent to Strawberry Park, increasing the driving traffic to both schools.
Once sibling numbers are determined, why not just shrink the Soda boundaries until the appropriate number of K students is reached?
This way you don't have a student from down 131 going to Soda while a student who lives on 6th street has to drive or bus to Strawberry.
What happened to the offer from HCS for space for the district? Another solution here would be to have all the Kindergartners (from both Soda and Strawberry) attend K out at HCS. Those classrooms are smaller, but K classrooms can be smaller.
I hope the architect and school building committee can work quickly so this is temporary as Strawberry can't take too much overflow and these kids will all feed into the overcrowded Middle School in six years and then into the very full High School 3 years after that.
A K-8 in the west Steamboat area (Silver Spur / Heritage Park / Steamboat II) seems like a very good option.
Correlation vs causation. I believe that our resource officer is new since 2013. A new officer with perhaps a new directive from her superiors or from the school administration is as plausible a reason for the increased incidents as an actual increase in MJ use.
I understand the beefed up enforcement, and can see valid reasons for it.
But the 4.7M dog bites statistic is irresponsible in the press release and in this article. Putting a national statistic in a local article makes no sense. A quick google search shows that 4.7M dog bite number coming up over and over again in various years. I did find a reference to that number - "According to a survey conducted in 1994 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 2% of the U.S. population—about 4.7 million people—are bitten by a dog each year. " Not only did they quote a national statistic, but one from almost 20 years ago, so it is not particularly valid. Even with that, the vast majority of those bites (from 1994) resulted in no injury, "The vast majority of these bites (about 83%) don’t result in injury, and no medical treatment is sought. About 800,000 individuals, however, half of them children, seek medical treatment for dog bites."
To put that in perspective - "To compare accidental injuries treated in emergency rooms, a person is roughly 23 times more likely to be injured from a fall than from a dog bite, 12 times more likely to be injured by a car, 7 times more likely to be injured by a sharp object and 1.5 times more likely to be injured by a bicycle."
So, if we are going to beef up patrols in order to reduce injury, those patrols should be looking more for things that people can trip over on the trail than for loose dogs.
Shame on the city and then on the paper for using statistics incorrectly and as a scare tactic. Informed people in a position of power have a responsibility not to feed into "lies, damn lies and statistics"
All quotes in this post are from the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/dog-bite-prevention
Last login: Monday, January 30, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |