vision2020
Re: New High School
John Danahy wrote:
> ... A school districts primary concern ... must be providing a
> quality education ...
> historic preservation of, old school buildings cannot be required ... > concerns about deferred maintenance at Russell should be addressed
> easily by asking ... what current district programs and/or people
> should be axed ...
Dear Vision2020:
This argument is all wrong.
The view that pits old school buildings against teachers ignores the
fact that a school district will end up spending more money to build a
new building. Dumping old, solid buildings, in favor of building new,
flimsy ones, results in less money available to education. This fact is
often lost to school administrations, because existing facility
maintenance and improvement must usually be budgeted from current funds,
whereas new construction can be paid for and sold to the public through
bonds. The result is the same, though: dumping old schools and building
new ones reduces the money available for education.
As an historical example, in the case of the 1912 building (I can hear
the groans right through my computer), the school district found that it
needed more space, so it built the "new" high school across the street;
new construction could not be avoided, owing to the growing population.
Unfortunately, there was no attempt to integrate the old and new. The
1912 building then became an island unto itself, within a stone's throw
of yet new additions to the new high school. Then, the new, new high
school did not suffice, so the junior high was built as a replacement on
what was not so long ago the outskirts of town. (Now, it's almost
central!) Efforts to switch the high school and junior high faltered.
Now, the school district wants to abandon the high school, which is
useless to the government and private sectors, and, therefore, worthless
as property (the school district will have to absorb a monumental loss),
in order to buy yet more land and build the third replacement high
school within 100 years! That's a very short facility life, far short of
the projected life.
This sort of planning is neither economical nor sensible.
Before I address Russell School, I want to digress and rant against new
construction of schools -- I cannot stop myself.
This tendency of us Westerners, to dump the old and build new, is one of
our worst traits. Easterners and Europeans scratch their heads and
wonder at what we are about. But, we blithely see progress in filling up
empty space. Educational institutions seem especially prone to this bad
habit. New buildings seem to be a sign of accomplishment and prestige to
administrations, while maintenance of existing buildings is presented as
a threat to teachers' salaries. Hooey! Absolute malarkey!
Obviously, money that was spent on the new could have been used to
maintain the old. The new, according to the cold war era ethos of ugly,
was windowless and grim, blocking sunlight, providing eyesplitting,
flickering florescent light to the prison-like atmosphere of modern
education. In time we have added zero tolerance, drug sniffing dogs,
metal detectors, and hallway police to complete the incarceration of our
young and satisfy our generation's obsessive compulsion to control their
minds. (But, that's another rant.)
This should not have happened. The 1912 building was built as a school
and it is a great school building. Modern school planners should learn
from it and the building code bureaucrats who regulate beauty out of our
public and private buildings should take note. The 1912 building has
large, floor to ceiling windows, providing vast amounts of light from
our very own sun, as well as a healthy escape for wandering young minds.
Such windows are now banned, of course, as unsafe and contrary to energy
policy. The 1912 building has high ceilings and wide, beautiful
stairways for running from class to class, in the manner of our
ancestors. Banned now.
Some people seem delight in publicly deriding the 1912 building as
insignificant and unworthy of the fuss it has created. In light of the
alternatives, I cannot conceive what the attractive option is; WalMart?
The 1912 building is tall, solid, majestic, and grand. It represents an
ideal. It sent young people into an institution that strongly asserted
the sense that the community wanted them well educated, not merely
housed. I maintain that it is not possible to enter the doors of the
1912 building without just a little awe. It is not the most beautiful
building I have seen; I do not suggest that it is outstanding. Rather,
it is an impressive building. It has history. It is of an era; a good
era in American education.
Well, that is all history now.
Learning from that history, I write at length to urge the community not
to repeat it with Russell School. The facts are: (1) Fort Russell needs
an elementary school; (2) Russell School is the elementary school for
Fort Russell; (3) Russell School needs to be maintained and improved
(get rid of the asphalt!); (4) Russell School has qualities a new school
will lack (a tall, impressive appearance, a southern view, large windows
allowing plenty of natural light -- if they were not blocked-up); (5)
Russell School works as an elementary school, but would not work as an
alternative school (the current proposed future use); (6) once allowed
to go into disrepair, Russell School will eventually become useless for
any purpose and the school district will be forced to get rid of it at a
loss; and (7), if the school district lets Russell School stagnate, it
will be forced to buy more land and build a new school, at greater cost
to the community.
Faithfully,
Duncan Palmatier
Law Office of Duncan Palmatier
530 South Asbury, Suite 5
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Tel: (208) 892-2962
Fax: (208) 892-3853
Email: dpalm@earthlink.net
Back to TOC