RE: New High School

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

I have read with interest the various comments posted regarding the new High
School idea, and I have a few comments of my own to add.

A school districts primary concern, and first priority, must be providing a
quality education for the students attending said schools.  Renovation of,
or historic preservation of, old school buildings cannot be required of
school trustees unless the community is willing to pay extra taxes
specifically for these purposes.  While I do understand that there are those
in our community that have looked upon the 1912 building and seen beauty
worth restoring, I do not share those views.  I have never considered the
building to be especially good looking or worth renovating.  The solution
that eventually came about is, to my eyes, the overall best solution where
the building is preserved for the community by local private community
efforts.

 Duncan's concerns about deferred maintenance at Russell should be addressed
easily by asking him to provide his suggestions as to what the district
should not have spent the "deferred maintenance" funds on instead of the
1912 building.  In other words, what current district programs and/or people
should be axed to provide sufficient funds to maintain, and upgrade, Russell
school?  It is important to remember that older buildings often require
serious spending on basic structural needs in order to be maintained in
accordance with current law.

As for building a new high school, that is an idea that is at least ten
years away from even beginning.  However, we should all take a close look at
the changing educational climate that will have a serious effect on public
schools in general and high schools in particular.  Education opportunities
abound outside of the "big box" high schools today and will only increase in
the future.  While a four year high school today may need to fit 850
students, will there be that many students in ten or fifteen years is the
important question.

Also, as more and more students find alternative solutions for quality
education, parents and communities will become less and less interested in
taxing themselves to provide buildings that they are not using.  In our
community, taxpayers comprise many different groups of people and many are
paying taxes supporting schools and paying out of pocket in order to insure
their children receive a quality education.  With the advent of "vouchers
for failing schools" and other avenues, I predict that state funding of
education will more than likely follow students where ever they go rather
than funnel into a centralized school building that students are expected to
attend.  For example, a student who is taking classes at the UI for high
school credit is now paying for the course out of pocket, but we could
easily see the state funding for that student being made available to pay
for the UI course. Thus the district would lose funding for students who
were not actually attending.

The release of the local census data for the last ten years should help the
district solidify its student population projections, but the impact of the
very tool you're using to read this cannot be adequately forecasted.  How
students access education will change significantly over the next ten years,
and whether a large high school will be needed is the big question.

John

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com