If the MSCR were to be moved from Hoyt, how would Hoyt be used?
13 thoughts on “What happens to Hoyt?”
I am also confused. I have heard the plan would be to either sell it or lease it. Why not use this as an overflow for the elementary schools? This hasn’t come up at all and I don’t understand why. A few years ago, it was okay for Hamilton 6th graders to be outposted to the school, why not bus kids to this school? (Say a Hoyt/Leopold combination, or as another elementary school instead of build yet another school which will be sold down the road as schools were in the 70’s.
Actually, Hoyt school has been extensively discussed by the long range planning task force. For details see http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/longrange.
A quick answer to your question: The MMSD argues that Hoyt school capacity, about 230 kids, is too small to be operated in a financially viable manner (regardless of size, school needs a principal, library and librarian, music and art teacher, and various regulatory requirements). Some have questioned whether this is in fact the case, but this is what MMSD maintains.
(by the way, last spring, prior to the referendum, MMSD did post an option for a Hoyt-Shorewood pair that later got taken off the table.)
This would be a perfect match with Leopold I would think. Leopold has 2 principals, extra special teachers, etc. If enough students where taken from Leopold, then a principal, extra teachers and specials could be donated from them and not adding many teachers. Yes, a library would need to be set up and librarian hired, but this seems like a very inexpensive way to help alleviate some of the population on the West side. I just don’t get why this isn’t a viable alternative?
The small size/economic viability is a dodge. MMSD operates magnet schools that don’t utilize half of their building’s capacity. What is true about Hoyt, however, is that it isn’t ADA compliant and would cost a fair amount to bring it into compliance.
If Hoyt is not ADA compliant, why is it now being used for NEON, “an MMSD alternative for middle school-age students with an emotional/behavioral disability (EBD) who have not been successful in a full-day program at their home school despite numerous and varied interventions . . .?”
Wright Middle School was built fairly recently with a capacity no larger than Hoyt’s. Thus, the MMSD seems quite willing to build and operate new schools of this size,presumably on the grounds that small schools provide better learning environments for students. It’s also unbelievable as well that it would cost more money to bring Hoyt into compliance with ADA rules than to build a new school from scratch. If the MMSD desires the voters to ever approve the funding for a new elementary school, they need to start by telling the voters the truth. Hoyt, built in the 1960s, was already being closed in the 1970s based upon lies or bad planning. Please let’s get it right this time around.
Beats me Ed. That’s what the MMSD cites when asked about Hoyt School. Maybe because the layout is bi-level and they don’t have an elevator (or at least I’ve not noticed one there)? Someone should know. I don’t like the idea of a one-time sale of the bldg and real property. It won’t even fetch enough to balance next year’s budget!
While on the task force the answers were:
*too small
*needs many repairs
*not up to code
*not located where we need seats
*even a rumor “mold” problem
All these things are interesting as “code” means all the MSCR programs should not be legal, or the staff working there would not be working in a code approved building.
My theory continues to be too many ghosts. (maybe that explains the poor planning)
Many suggestions of a “magnet”, or, “charter” art school were made but since the task force was not allowed to propose such radical ideas, they fell to deaf ears.
I don’t know the specifics about Hoyt, but these are some possibilities that come to mind.
Regarding “code,” there is no contradiction. Schools can be safe facilities, but still not meet contemporary standards for ADA compliance and other construction codes. When older buildings are re-purposed, some renovations are almost always required. If the amount of renovation is significant enough (here’s where I wish I had the expertise of an architect or a school building inspector), the facility loses much of its grandfathering and needs to be brought up to 2006 standards.
And renovations can be very expensive, although it is rare that they eclipse the cost of a new building. There are many variables: HVAC, electrical/data, asbestos abatement, etc. I’d never try to predict how much it would cost to renovate an older school building like Hoyt as it would be uninformed speculation. An architectural/engineering study would be required.
I still don’t understand why they don’t seriously look at Hoyt and/or Dudgeon for overcrowding. The city and school district own these and they state they are not “up to code”. Should we go through each school to state why they are not “up to code”. Leopold had bad mold problems a few years ago, but it was not public to the parents (shortly after the Chavez situation). They also didn’t have an elevator until they added the addition and kids who where in wheelchairs had to go outside to get to lunch or special classes (depending on their grade). There has to be more to this story I feel. I am so frustrated that the district doesn’t disclose everything, yet wants people to empty their pocketbooks.
I could swear that the 2004-2005 Long Range Planning Committee was told that ALL buildings were up to code, or would be up to code, including ADA, as of last year or this year. I’d have to dig out the spreadsheets related to a maintenance referendum, but I have a dim memory that’s what we were told.
As a result, I was very surprised to hear that certain programs could not go to some buildings because the buildings weren’t ADA compliant. Perhaps the board needs to ask which buildings are/are not up to ADA regulations and, if not, what the timeline is.
And then get verifiable information. Administration thought that the East High School field house was ADA compliant even though the only handicap accessible doors were kept chained at all times and visitors needed to go up and down flights of stairs to reach the facility….Took some East parents to point that out, as I recall.
OK, there is a common misunderstanding going on here. It would be better if an architect or engineer with a school portfolio tackled it, because they have more expertise. The important thing to understand is that requirements apply differently to existing buildings, buildings being altered, and new construction.
Let’s take ADA as a case in point. In an existing school facility built before 1992, the requirement is that students, and other persons, with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in programs. In this regard, the program is viewed as a whole. Not all parts of the facility need to be accessible. For new construction, the design will be to provide access to all areas. If the alterations (renovations) to an existing building are significant, then new construction standards apply.
In other code areas the same principles apply. You can have safe, functioning wiring, but if you do an electrical/data upgrade, you are going to have to meet today’s code. What is meeting code in an existing building and what is meeting code in new construction differ in many respects.
All districts have an asbestos plan. In general, if the asbestos is contained and not friable, complete abatement is not required. Once you start to renovate, however, it is very difficult to keep the asbestos contained and complete abatement is usually necessary. And for several decades asbestos was used everywhere….floors, insulation, wallboard, adhesives.
Despite all of this, the upfront cost of renovating an existing building is almost always lower than constructing a new school. However, it can be a substantial proportion of the cost of new construction. If the percentage cost is high enough, the prudent course is to have a professional life-cycle cost assessment done that considers the initial cost and the cost of maintenance over 20, 30, 40, or 50 years and weigh that against the life-cycle cost assessment for a new building.
It comes down to a case by case basis. In the case of Hoyt, what changes are needed to allow it to function as a fully fledged school again? Then, are these alterations going to require significant renovation and what will those cost? Then, viewed in a life-cycle analysis, how does that cost compare to a new school?
I would add to Tim’s comments that the cost of renovation and abatement, and its cost relative to the cost of a new building, would have to be balanced with the fact that it could hold maybe 250 students, when the district is loathe to invest in a school that holds fewer than 350, and prefers 450 and above. After all, they wanted to build another school on to Leopold (but not a complete one), to bring to potentially over 1,000 elementary students at the same site, all using the same lunchroom (and gym?) and LMC resources. So much for the argument that they “recognize that smaller schools contribute to higher achievement” and better personal connection with the school.
I am also confused. I have heard the plan would be to either sell it or lease it. Why not use this as an overflow for the elementary schools? This hasn’t come up at all and I don’t understand why. A few years ago, it was okay for Hamilton 6th graders to be outposted to the school, why not bus kids to this school? (Say a Hoyt/Leopold combination, or as another elementary school instead of build yet another school which will be sold down the road as schools were in the 70’s.
Actually, Hoyt school has been extensively discussed by the long range planning task force. For details see http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/longrange.
A quick answer to your question: The MMSD argues that Hoyt school capacity, about 230 kids, is too small to be operated in a financially viable manner (regardless of size, school needs a principal, library and librarian, music and art teacher, and various regulatory requirements). Some have questioned whether this is in fact the case, but this is what MMSD maintains.
(by the way, last spring, prior to the referendum, MMSD did post an option for a Hoyt-Shorewood pair that later got taken off the table.)
This would be a perfect match with Leopold I would think. Leopold has 2 principals, extra special teachers, etc. If enough students where taken from Leopold, then a principal, extra teachers and specials could be donated from them and not adding many teachers. Yes, a library would need to be set up and librarian hired, but this seems like a very inexpensive way to help alleviate some of the population on the West side. I just don’t get why this isn’t a viable alternative?
The small size/economic viability is a dodge. MMSD operates magnet schools that don’t utilize half of their building’s capacity. What is true about Hoyt, however, is that it isn’t ADA compliant and would cost a fair amount to bring it into compliance.
If Hoyt is not ADA compliant, why is it now being used for NEON, “an MMSD alternative for middle school-age students with an emotional/behavioral disability (EBD) who have not been successful in a full-day program at their home school despite numerous and varied interventions . . .?”
Wright Middle School was built fairly recently with a capacity no larger than Hoyt’s. Thus, the MMSD seems quite willing to build and operate new schools of this size,presumably on the grounds that small schools provide better learning environments for students. It’s also unbelievable as well that it would cost more money to bring Hoyt into compliance with ADA rules than to build a new school from scratch. If the MMSD desires the voters to ever approve the funding for a new elementary school, they need to start by telling the voters the truth. Hoyt, built in the 1960s, was already being closed in the 1970s based upon lies or bad planning. Please let’s get it right this time around.
Beats me Ed. That’s what the MMSD cites when asked about Hoyt School. Maybe because the layout is bi-level and they don’t have an elevator (or at least I’ve not noticed one there)? Someone should know. I don’t like the idea of a one-time sale of the bldg and real property. It won’t even fetch enough to balance next year’s budget!
While on the task force the answers were:
*too small
*needs many repairs
*not up to code
*not located where we need seats
*even a rumor “mold” problem
All these things are interesting as “code” means all the MSCR programs should not be legal, or the staff working there would not be working in a code approved building.
My theory continues to be too many ghosts. (maybe that explains the poor planning)
Many suggestions of a “magnet”, or, “charter” art school were made but since the task force was not allowed to propose such radical ideas, they fell to deaf ears.
I don’t know the specifics about Hoyt, but these are some possibilities that come to mind.
Regarding “code,” there is no contradiction. Schools can be safe facilities, but still not meet contemporary standards for ADA compliance and other construction codes. When older buildings are re-purposed, some renovations are almost always required. If the amount of renovation is significant enough (here’s where I wish I had the expertise of an architect or a school building inspector), the facility loses much of its grandfathering and needs to be brought up to 2006 standards.
And renovations can be very expensive, although it is rare that they eclipse the cost of a new building. There are many variables: HVAC, electrical/data, asbestos abatement, etc. I’d never try to predict how much it would cost to renovate an older school building like Hoyt as it would be uninformed speculation. An architectural/engineering study would be required.
I still don’t understand why they don’t seriously look at Hoyt and/or Dudgeon for overcrowding. The city and school district own these and they state they are not “up to code”. Should we go through each school to state why they are not “up to code”. Leopold had bad mold problems a few years ago, but it was not public to the parents (shortly after the Chavez situation). They also didn’t have an elevator until they added the addition and kids who where in wheelchairs had to go outside to get to lunch or special classes (depending on their grade). There has to be more to this story I feel. I am so frustrated that the district doesn’t disclose everything, yet wants people to empty their pocketbooks.
I could swear that the 2004-2005 Long Range Planning Committee was told that ALL buildings were up to code, or would be up to code, including ADA, as of last year or this year. I’d have to dig out the spreadsheets related to a maintenance referendum, but I have a dim memory that’s what we were told.
As a result, I was very surprised to hear that certain programs could not go to some buildings because the buildings weren’t ADA compliant. Perhaps the board needs to ask which buildings are/are not up to ADA regulations and, if not, what the timeline is.
And then get verifiable information. Administration thought that the East High School field house was ADA compliant even though the only handicap accessible doors were kept chained at all times and visitors needed to go up and down flights of stairs to reach the facility….Took some East parents to point that out, as I recall.
OK, there is a common misunderstanding going on here. It would be better if an architect or engineer with a school portfolio tackled it, because they have more expertise. The important thing to understand is that requirements apply differently to existing buildings, buildings being altered, and new construction.
Let’s take ADA as a case in point. In an existing school facility built before 1992, the requirement is that students, and other persons, with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in programs. In this regard, the program is viewed as a whole. Not all parts of the facility need to be accessible. For new construction, the design will be to provide access to all areas. If the alterations (renovations) to an existing building are significant, then new construction standards apply.
In other code areas the same principles apply. You can have safe, functioning wiring, but if you do an electrical/data upgrade, you are going to have to meet today’s code. What is meeting code in an existing building and what is meeting code in new construction differ in many respects.
All districts have an asbestos plan. In general, if the asbestos is contained and not friable, complete abatement is not required. Once you start to renovate, however, it is very difficult to keep the asbestos contained and complete abatement is usually necessary. And for several decades asbestos was used everywhere….floors, insulation, wallboard, adhesives.
Despite all of this, the upfront cost of renovating an existing building is almost always lower than constructing a new school. However, it can be a substantial proportion of the cost of new construction. If the percentage cost is high enough, the prudent course is to have a professional life-cycle cost assessment done that considers the initial cost and the cost of maintenance over 20, 30, 40, or 50 years and weigh that against the life-cycle cost assessment for a new building.
It comes down to a case by case basis. In the case of Hoyt, what changes are needed to allow it to function as a fully fledged school again? Then, are these alterations going to require significant renovation and what will those cost? Then, viewed in a life-cycle analysis, how does that cost compare to a new school?
I would add to Tim’s comments that the cost of renovation and abatement, and its cost relative to the cost of a new building, would have to be balanced with the fact that it could hold maybe 250 students, when the district is loathe to invest in a school that holds fewer than 350, and prefers 450 and above. After all, they wanted to build another school on to Leopold (but not a complete one), to bring to potentially over 1,000 elementary students at the same site, all using the same lunchroom (and gym?) and LMC resources. So much for the argument that they “recognize that smaller schools contribute to higher achievement” and better personal connection with the school.