Snellville.Talk

By LB

July 27, 2006 07:20 AM | Link to this

I personally don’t like the trailers because it detracts from the looks of the campus. It is inconvenient to restroom facilities for students and teachers. It is easier for students to be late to class due to the short time between classes and having to leave the main building to get to the trailer.

I’m glad to see many of them go away. However, I thought the lottery was supposed to help to keep trailers from happening. What’s up with the lottery and where is the education money actually going? It doesn’t seem like it’s going to help keep students from having to go to school in a trailer. Did I misunderstand the lottery money? Please correct me if I am wrong.

By Dennis

July 27, 2006 07:24 AM | Link to this

You touched on the best reason to have portable classrooms in your 7th paragraph. Classrooms are not over-crowded. Also there is no shortage of teachers.

Give me a trailer any time instead of a classroom with so many students that the teacher cannot give them any personal attention.

By Staci

July 27, 2006 07:40 AM | Link to this

I have a concern with the overall size of the portables specifically when too many students and desks are placed in them and mobility gets limited. But, that is also the case with classrooms located in the school building. Basically, we just need more schools and smaller class sizes.

By Jim

July 27, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this

Portable classrooms in Gwinnett County are single wide trailers. The narrowest of the trailer creates a problem for instruction.

The writing board and screen for overhead projector are along the long wall that also has the two doors. Teachers usually have a podium that is placed near the middle of that wall.

When a trailer is filled with desks and they are filled with students, some students have to sit where it is difficult to see the writing board on the wall or the information that is projected on the screen.

Trailers also have an additional discipline problem that regular classrooms do not have. Unless a teacher has tremendous peripheral vision, there isn’t any way a teacher can keep an eye on the entire class when holding a discussion form the middle of the trailer.

Most schools assign classrooms and instructional levels by seniority. Therefore, most experienced teachers are in the building and they are the ones most likely to teach gifted and AP classes.

This means that the least experienced teachers usually end up in trailers and these teachers often end up with the most difficult classes to maintain discipline.

There are solutions to these problems but unfortunately they seldom are used.

According to state guidelines, Gifted and AP classes cannot exceed 21 students. This requirement is seven students less than the state mandated size for regular classes. Many Special Education classes are even smaller.

Portable classrooms have instructional challenges but if subjects with the fewest students were assigned to them, many of these difficulties would be eliminated.

Currently, it is not possible to rid Gwinnett County of portable classrooms but it is possible to manage this situation in a manner to improve instruction and student success.

By fk

July 27, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

My son will start his sophomore year in high school. His high school has portable classrooms as did his elementary school. 1/3 thru middle school, he changed schools. The first school had portable classrooms as well, the second did not. Although the second school was brand new, and the staff wonderful, he missed getting outside during the day. He and all of his friends like the idea of walking outside to get to class. Many times, he chooses to walk outside rather than to fight the crowds in the hallways.

The high school I attended had portable classrooms. We hoped to get a class in the portables. Like my son, my friends and I welcomed the change of scenery and enjoyed getting outside every so briefly a few times a day. I do recall that those classes held in the “portables” held much livelier classroom discussions…perhaps those few minutes of passing thru the fresh air woke us up.

By Alisa

July 27, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

A student should be able to learn in and physical setting as along and the teacher is reaching the student. I can remember sitting outside as a youngster during reading class. There was a writing necessary and the teacher has us truly engaged. The appearance of the campus should have no impact on the instruction going on inside of the portable classroom.

By mnt

July 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

The real impact of having portables in schools in not (usually) in the classes held in the portables themselves, but in the fact that the school is overcrowded and therefore the infrastructure is stressed. If you have a school built for 1800 students and there are 2400+ students at that school, it’s too crowded everywhere -the hallways, the cafeteria, the media center, the gym, etc. It’s usually even worse with crowded middle and high schools, because those students aren’t escorted by their teachers from class to class, so the crowding leads to more problems as students are jostling in the halls, trying to get into lockers etc. Also, you have to give more “passing” time between classes when students have to trek out to the “back forty” to get to their portables for class, which takes away from instructional time.

As far as portables usually being reserved for the new teachers and/or the lower level classes, that has not been my experience. In fact, at our middle school, the gifted classes were the first classes in portables, and at high school, the portable population tends to be overflow from the subject area in closest proximity (with AP Stats and Calc in the portables outside the math wing, for example). Some teachers ask to be in portables, in fact, as they have access to their rooms outside school hours (and they control the temp!)

By Bill

July 27, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

You people are missing the biggest problem with these trailer classrooms. They are inherently dangerous. They are full of unhealty mold from poor circulation, fumes from formaldehide and other environmentally dangerous construction products causing higher than average respiratory inflamation. Your kids are actually being poisoned. Not to mention very poor lighting.

By Pam

July 27, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Portable buildings mean that the school is overcrowded, yes. It also means that other services in the school is overcrowded that portables can’t help: library and cafeteria services. Some kids eat in their classrooms and some (because of the overcrowding) eat lunch IN the cafeterias at 10:15-10:30 am! I’m against portables because they mean that more than classrooms are crowded.

By Angel

July 27, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

I attended school in rural central Alabama during the late sixties and into the seventies - my elementary, middle, and high schools had “portable classrooms” - a PC term for a “trailer”. As a kid, I thought they were wonderful! Not only were they newer and cleaner than the school buildings themselves, but they were often the only classrooms that had air conditioning! Kids bragged about having a class with A/C and were the envy of those that didn’t have an air conditioned classroom.

I wasn’t “impaired” or otherwise harmed by sitting in a trailer for a couple of hours a day. I went on to obtain undergraduate and graduate degrees and work in a highly technical and well-respected profession.

As an adult, though with no children in the local school system, I just don’t understand what all the hoopla is about concerning classroom trailers. So what? I believe parents are instilling in their children the bias that it’s “lower class” to have to sit in a (gasp!!) trailer. How about teaching your children to respect the efforts that are made to ensure they have facilities in which to be educated?

Give the schools and administrators a break - even those at the new schools which are opening and have trailers in place. I’m sure when that school was on the drawing board, it was sized to meet the expected demands. Also, I’m sure everyone will agree (at least in Gwinnett County), that the explosive growth that’s occured in just the 7 years I’ve lived here, has outstripped everyone’s expectations.

Perhaps if voters had focused on NOT electing individuals willing to, in effect, “turn the county over to the developers”, schools wouldn’t be so overcrowded that trailers were necessary.

By Jan

July 27, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

I never had to have a class in a trailer, but my sister did, in 1969 AT South Gwinnett and one day - it turned over!!! Fell off it’s support!!! They ARE dangerous and ugly and crowded and I am opposed to them - it is such a shame to see lines of these mobile classrooms at any school, but when they are sitting right next to a BRAND new school, well that is just pitiful!!!! WHAT is the cure??? The last comment about OVERdevelopment just might be it- don’t you think???

By Mom Of 2

July 27, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Both of my kids had classes in trailers. It didn’t hinder their education one bit. They both graduated with honors. It’s the students themselves that dictate whether they will or will not learn, regardless of their location. If a child is determined to goof off, not pay attention and not show respect to the teacher, then they will never learn, either in a trailer OR a classroom.

By Susan

July 27, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

I’m sure the turning over of that trailer was the exception rather than the rule. I, personally, have NEVER heard of a classroom trailer overturning. If they have proper inspections during the year, there should be no problems with them. The only time I would worry is if/when a tornado is headed straight for one of them…and if it is, it’s not only the trailer that will be gone with the wind, but the school as well.

By Here We Go Again

July 27, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Education is what each student makes of it. It could be held in a mansion, a shack or an open field. If a child WANTS to learn, he/she will learn. There has to be a desire on the child’s part to take full advantage of the educational system, whether they like the venue or not.

By James

July 27, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

To be honest, I would have rather had class in a trailer in the bus lane rather than have had to walk up to the fourth floor of our new building at Duluth. However, the trailers were not without problems (i.e. the heating or air conditioning was likely to malfunction, the steps got icy in the winter, the bells and intercom only worked intermittently). Really, I learned just as well in trailers as in real classrooms and don’t feel I was scarred in any way.

By JustMe

July 27, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

There is so much “misinformation” it is sad.

First… there really is a teacher shortage. Of course, it you solely look at all teacher applications vs. open positions, it is understandable why you would think otherwise. However, the shortages are in critical areas such as high school math and science. These areas are more difficult subjects and are more difficult to become certified in, so there most certainly is a shortage of teachers! Not to sound harsh, but elementary teachers are a dime a dozen.

Trailers is another area with a lot of “misinformation.” While yes, they may reduce class sizes initially, they do not solve any problem long term, and they create their own set of problems short term. Students must go outside and then back into the trailer if they change classes - lots of things can happen here. Some kids love classes in trailers - they can sneak a cig. (or worse) between classes without getting caught!

Can you imagine a science class in a trailor? There isn’t properly equipped rooms with hoods in the building much less in a trailer for science! Safety is just a large concern.

Not to mention that tailers are an eyesore to the neighborhood and makes the campus really look bad.

Bottom line is that we all pay plenty of taxes to have sufficient school facilities. It is only due to poor leadership and fore sight that tailers are needed to begin with, and due to lazy school systems to not correct the initial problem that trailers have become a regular sight on school grounds.

By E. Lewis

July 27, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Portable classrooms are not the problem they are indicators of deeper issues in education.

Someone somewhere is not planning nor funding permanent facilities for students. It’s one thing when you have a Hurricane Katrina temporary influx of students. It’s quite another when the powers that be don’t build permanent solutions for an on going problem.

Any first year accounting student can tell you that once you move into a new facility, your business needs to start funding for upgrades and eventual relocation.

By E. Lewis

July 27, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

And if the building and facilities fund is getting short changed, what else is?

By Erin

July 27, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

I attended school in both seventh grade and during high school in DeKalb County with trailers. Except in bad weather, I thought it wasn’t so bad.

The problem as I see it now, as an adult, is that trailers are a short-term solution to a long-term problem in the school system.

In terms of future planning, how far ahead are the school system leaders thinkiing? It doesn’t seem very far when you have a brand-new school with trailers already. I think it shows a lack of long-term thinking and proper planning.

Having said that, again, I didn’t mind the trailers in either elementary or high school - especially in high school because I attended Stone Mountain High and going outside to the trailers was quite seriously the ONLY time I ever saw daylight sometimes when I was really busy with extracurricular activities!

By E. Lewis

July 27, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Trailers really are a short term “solution”. For the moment they are cheaper, But over the long haul they can end up costing more.

Too many politicians are involved in school funding and a quick, easy “answer” to any problem is the one they will choose.

By Truth

July 27, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

The problems with schools today are 1) lack of student discipline, 2) lack of student discipline, and 3) lack of student discipline. Trailers are the least of our problems.

By Jan

July 27, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

IF I TOLD yall that a trailer turned over, THEN you should not say you NEVER heard of it, for you just DID. And it DID fall over, it did not flip and roll, one of the supports gave way. It was a Drivers Ed class and the teacher was Coach B. Lawrence. Hey, it could happen, and what makes you think they were inspected??? Maybe the fire marshal was doing it - when the fire codes were checked, opps. forget that. SEE? BLa BLA BLa!!!!!

By lt

July 27, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

actually, if you look at demographics and population fluctuations, you will begin to see that there will always be problems figuring out how many classrooms are enough, but not too much. Once the boomers grew up and had kids, there were lots and lots… and lots… of kids to fill up classrooms, trailers, auditoriums, and other facilities. Once these boomers’ babies start growing up, and in the environment of fewer children per family being espoused these days, suddenly someone will begin to complain: “why are there so many relatively new school buildings sitting empty?” you’d think they’ll make class sizes smaller and keep on hiring teachers, but they won’t…they’ll let teachers go, close schools, and keep it crowded…after all, that’s how they justify asking for MORE money for “next year”…

just a thought

By Michael H. Smith

July 27, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

The population growth in this country is now driven by immigration (not the native baby boomers), “It”. Nothing wrong with immigration, when: 1) You’re talking LEGAL immigration of equality 2) This LEGAL immigration serves the purpose to invigorate the nation rather than to keep-up with the populations of the Chinas and Indias of this world. OVERpopulation is the driving factor in OVERdevelopment. If they come, you will have to build it… “It”.

By D

July 27, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this

As much as I would rather teach in the main building, if I ever have to teach in a trailer, I’ll make do and my students will still learn if they want to learn. The problem is, Gwinnett County Public Schools does one thing very good other than just provide excellent education — and that is project future enrollment. The problem is though the system cannot really build for what they project. They have to build for what is.

By James

July 27, 2006 11:50 PM | Link to this

D is right, Gwinnett County does a really good job (usually) of projecting numbers of students. However, building new schools takes time, and by the time the new schools are built more students have moved in to the county. It is nearly impossible to catch up and they will certainly never get ahead. All these new buildings cost lots of money- all while people are complaining about paying more taxes for schools. A large building budget means less money for other materials, and schools suffer. Amazingly, Gwinnett County is still offering their students a WORLD CLASS education.

By jim dumond

July 28, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Susan,

Sorry for being late to this blog but allow me to point out a few of the not so obvious answers to your question re: Do portable classrooms make a difference in a child’s education? In what ways?

Indeed these classrooms can have an adverse affect on not only the quality of education being provided but the quantity as well. They may even be having an affect on those attending and teaching in these structures which may not be realized for years to come.

Here’s a link to an article regarding portables and health concerns

by Whitney Webber Children’s Health Environmental Coalition

http://www.checnet.org/healtheHouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=657

A few excerpts from the article:

Portables that are 10 years old or newer are more likely to have higher levels of formaldehyde, a strong-smelling, noxious gas frequently found indoors. As portable classrooms age, they begin to deteriorate, showing signs of poor maintenance, such as mold and mildew. Formaldehyde, mold, and other harmful pollutants persist in the indoor air, affecting the health of both teachers and students.

Like mold, formaldehyde is a known asthma trigger and an allergen. It can irritate the respiratory tract and cause skin rashes in susceptible individuals. Behavioral problems may also be a symptom of formaldehyde exposure. Numerous case studies have linked exposure to formaldehyde in classrooms with ADHD.

The study found that formaldehyde levels in portable classrooms were much higher than levels in traditional classrooms, and exceeded state health-based guidelines for acute and chronic effects. Additionally, environmental complaints, including mold and other air quality problems, were reported more frequently for portable classrooms.

Most districts are ill-equipped to handle environmental health concerns. Some districts dismiss the complaints, while others aim for the best solution given available resources.

In the American school system where there is no system in place to protect children’s environmental health, schools are forced to weigh the pros and cons of portable classrooms. While portables may be cheaper, easier to procure than traditional classrooms, and lessen the impact of increased enrollments, they can also pose a safety hazard, are occupied far beyond their intended use, have high maintenance costs, and can be isolating for students and staff.

Advice for Parents

At the first signs that your child is sick, consult a physician. If your child’s health improves when they spend time away from school, it might be an indication that the school environment is contributing to your child’s illness. To determine if your child’s school may be putting them at risk, get answers to the following questions:  Does the school have an IAQ management plan?  Is outdoor air supplied continuously to the classroom?  Are chemicals used in the classroom?  Do you detect chemical odors?  Is the room clean?  Are there signs of water damage or mold?

By Rick

July 28, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Trailers are fine for a classroom. The problem is the school board drags their heals when it comees to expansion or building new schools. Construction takes far too long and our children suffer because of it. If the government would allow our teachers to actually teach instead of being covered up in paperwork, a lot more woule be accomplished. Additionally, if school administrators such as Mr. Simmons would actually enforce dicipline and our whiney parents would make thier brats respect the teachers a class could be held in the middle of a parking lot and still be successful.

By jim dumond

July 28, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Oh, and the sad truth of the matter is that if one files an open records request asking for service records of what chemicals have been sprayed for control of mold, insects or other rodents in your childs portable or just request service records on the air handling system and you will be quoted a price for this service that most people would find unacceptable.

By jim dumond

July 28, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

For some real fun one might just request the MSDS sheets on chemicals sprayed in the trailers. Federal law requires them to keep these on file (right)

By jim dumond

July 28, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

“In the American school system where there is no system in place to protect children’s environmental health”

I guess I’m about the only one with problems about this. We have banned smoking in just about every public building where people enter voluntarily, yet we force our children to attend school in classrooms which could potentially be a greater health risk.

Where’s the logic in this?

By Tom Hardiman

July 28, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Portable classrooms DO NOT affect student learning. Get the facts and ignore the rhetoric. A recent study by Dr. Tak Cheung Chan (www.cefpi.org/member/pdf/Journal40-2-CEFPI.pdf) looked at 5th grade students in 21 portable classrooms and 38 permanent classrooms in 11 Georgia schools. “No significant difference was found in student behavior and achievement between portable and permanent classrooms”. As for portables being inherently dangerous, a California study of portables (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/pcs/pcs-fr/pcs-fr.htm)found that both portables and “traditional” classrooms were found to have some environmental conditions that need improvement, but that the most serious problems only occurred in a small percentage of classrooms. Schools have the ability to spec higher quality portable classrooms, but the issue is always about the budget. The Modular Building Institute (modular.org), has developed a “Portables Toolkit” for schools to use to improve the performance of their portable classrooms. Its can be downloaded for free from that site.

By catlady

July 28, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

In our county I don’t think we have very many portable classrooms, but we were told special ed students, no matter how few they were, would NEVER be put in trailers because it relegates them to second-class citizenship.

By jim d

July 28, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Tom,

While its obvious we disagree on this issue, I think we can agree that we could find a study to support either position.

If I were to have to be wrong, I’d rather error on the side of safety. You?

By terri

July 28, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

I’ll agree that portables are as good as permanent structures when the county administrators give over their plush offices to be used as a school and spend a year working exclusively in portables. Naw, that would never happen. Someone might get cold and wet on a rainy day! We wouldn’t want those adults to be uncomfortable.

By D

July 28, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

I’ve seen plenty of trailers at both 52 Gwinnett and Lawrenceville East and plenty of important people were working out of them.

By terri

July 28, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

Did those trailers have bathroom facilities inside them? The ones at the schools don’t. Did the “important people” have to change trailers every hour or so, regardless of the weather? The children do.

By Woodie

July 28, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

It is a travesty to park single-wide’s by the dozens in place of school buildings. This is the result of the unchecked growth that has been allowed to happen without a corresponding build up of government sponsored services. Either way the government fell down on the job. Whether it is high-density housing or hords of illegal immigrants, it should have been the first priority before anything to make sure the schools were up to par. The 50% drop-out rate is not a fluke in numbers. Kids are dropping out of schools faster than ever in the history of the county. The only decent schools in the county are in high-income pet areas. The rest of the county suffers the sins of the elected officials.

By James

July 29, 2006 01:50 AM | Link to this

“The only decent schools in the county are in high-income pet areas. The rest of the county suffers the sins of the elected officials.” -I disagree with your statement, Woodie, because of Duluth High School. Duluth consistently scores as good as or better than Brookwood or Parkview. Most of the students at Duluth do not come from high-income families and Duluth is certainly not a pet area for the school board. In fact, it is mostly ignored.

By Michael H. Smith

July 29, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Pardon me James but I have to agree with your disagreement about the decent schools statement. Admittedly poverty has a nasty hand in divvying out life’s rewards but some time back in a segment of Lou Dobbs Tonight it was brought to fore that one particular school system here in Georgia — one by far inferior monetarily speaking to Gwinnett – had made a dramatic turn-around in scholastic achievements in about a one year’s time span. Furthermore to add fuel to the fire, not only was this systems budget cut during that school year, meaning an already impoverished school system having to do more with less money than previously awarded, but this system is as well comprised of a “majority of minority students”. There are other elements in this education issue that money simply cannot remedy.

By monteal

July 29, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

forget the debate on class wars ,safety ,or weather you baby is no trailer trash! The thing that bothers me is that the schools are paying millions of dollers to lease sometimes low quality trailers when we should be at least be buying them do you wonder who gets these contracts and who is very rich because of it.dont we all know that buying is better than renting a better way to spend that lottery money if you ask me. Who knows maybe we could buy a trailer that is a better size classroom with no mold problems ect. is there anyone out there who might understand this and do something about it

budget minded

By Michael H. Smith

July 30, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Hey, hold the fort. Forget this namby-pamby blather. Somebody is getting RICH off the leasing of trailers!

What a non-starter.

If the county bought these trailers, guess what? You got it, somebody would get RICH!

Oh… but wait a minute… if the county built every brick and mortar school building necessary to house students, a greedy General Contractor would get RICH! Which eventually the county will do anyway; so then if the county had to turn around and sell bought trailers at an appreciable lo$$ via depreciation of course, another somebody would get RICH!

Look if spending tax money for building schools is your big issue in great fear of not getting your cut of the take or if having to pay more than you rightly feel you ought for education just to make somebody RICH, then cost efficiency answers are obtainable. If you are truly sincere about squeezing the tax nickel until the buffalo pooh-poohs, using internet classes and using year round multi tracking schedules in schools are two alternatives that will reduce overcrowding by one fourth to one third of the present school enrolments. Which of course means somebody will get RICH! – But not off of trailers and building brick and mortar structures.

Education is inescapably expensive and people do get rich from it, but without this expensive education process just watch-see how many people will suddenly become poor.

Personally I favor using the previously mentioned alternatives of internet classes and using year round multi tracking schedules in schools for a number of “budget minded reasons” including reducing and possibly eliminating school overcrowding.