vision2020
Re: New High School
one of the most eloquent and moving passages I have ever read on this list
cheers, greg
Duncan Palmatier wrote:
> 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