Moscow school facilities planning

["Kenton Bird" <kentonbird@hotmail.com>]

(Visionaries: This is an edited version of a guest commentary published 
earlier this month in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.)

By Kenton Bird, Mary DuPree and Tom Lamar
As residents of the Moscow School District, we strongly support modern 
school buildings to better achieve educational objectives.  At the same 
time, we have  reservations about the district Facilities Committee's 
apparent preference for a new four-year high school.

The Facilities Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday (Aug. 15) at 3:30 
p.m. at the School District office, 650 N. Cleveland.  We urge district 
residents concerned about the future of Moscow schools to attend.

We have concerns about three decisions made by the Facilities Committee in 
recent months:
· to recommend a four-year high school configuration;
· to ask voters to approve a bond issue for a new high school in September 
2003 - before the bonds for the most recent high school renovation are paid 
off;
· to limit its planning to the high school alone, failing to address needs 
at other grade levels.

We believe there is no clear community consensus on whether a K-5, 6-8, 9-12 
grade configuration is needed, desirable or affordable.  There has been 
little conversation outside the committee and the School Board about the 
relative advantages and disadvantages of a 6-7-8 middle school and a 
four-year high  school.

This discussion needs to take place at the same time as the district's 
architectural firm provides comparisons between a new high school on the 
edge of  Moscow and major improvements to the current school.  This is not 
simply a comparison between new construction vs. renovation, because an 
essentially new school can be built to 21st century standards on the current 
site - if that is the community's choice.

School district residents need to better understand the costs of the
configuration choice.  Whatever administrative advantages a four-year high 
school building might have, the public will insist on knowing how much more 
that would cost than extensively renovating the existing building as a 
three-year high school.

The Moscow district has operated very well with a three-year high school 
configuration for more than 30 years.  Has this somehow become a problem of 
such urgency that two-thirds of the voters will approve a multi-million 
dollar bond levy to fix it?

In addition, limiting the bond levy to the high school fails to address 
problems at the elementary level (except indirectly, by moving 6th grade 
classes to the junior high building).  The committee seems to be 
sidestepping questions of elementary school location, enrollment and 
attendance areas, particularly the board's recent decision to split Russell 
and West Park schools by grade level.

In its deliberations, the Facilities Committee so far has not considered 
community planning, design, environmental impacts, transportation, or the 
social and educational benefits of the high school's central location.

The 63 percent margin in favor of the operating levy in April indicates the 
difficulty the board will face in trying to win a two-thirds majority in 
favor of a controversial bond levy, particularly in a period of declining 
enrollment and economic cutbacks.  That makes achieving community consensus 
before any
proposal goes on the ballot all the more important.

  We recognize the shortcomings of existing Moscow school buildings.  
However, we favor addressing them in a fiscally responsible manner that 
reflects other community needs and priorities.  We hope the Facilities 
Committee, with thoughtful public participation, will craft a levy proposal 
that has a realistic chance of being passed.

Kenton Bird, Mary DuPree and Tom Lamar are members of Friends of 
Neighborhood Schools (FONS), formed in July of 2001.  The opinions expressed 
are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other groups 
with which the authors are associated.


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx