Advertisement
Editorial: Bridging the school divide
Op-Ed · September 20, 2017


Several months ago, a new family moved to town, and the mother commented to our editor that she sensed a deep division in the community over the West Branch Community School District bond referendum.
We don’t know if her conclusion came from sensitivity to a new environment, or a gift for listening, but she was proved right.

Perhaps we grew numb to the vitriol by the usual suspects on social media. That is, until we saw some new names or new statements or new tone which, as we interpreted them, made our eyes widen with astonishment.

In some of the back-and-forth before the vote, especially in the few days running up to the election, tempers rose higher.

Then, a pause as the community held its collective breath to see the decision by some 1,400 voters — about 200 more than February. In the end, the $19.8 million question fell further from the 60-percent supermajority than the first time around.

Immediately, and in the days to follow, social media lit up again. Some from the majority lashed out in anger at the loss, and some from the minority expressed gratuitous satisfaction from the power given to them by the supermajority rule. The hurt and pain on both sides was evident.

Our editor spoke to many people about this referendum, and we feel confident that the disappointing statements on social media do not reflect the majority of the two opposing groups.



•••

The West Branch Times wrote the below two “letters” as representations of what we heard from talking to voters, listening to questions at meetings and reading social media posts and Letters To The Editor.

These are interpretations and compilations of people on both sides, before and after the election, but neither “letter” represents a single person from either side:




•••

We who voted ‘no’

We who voted “no,” would first like to apologize for the few who voted “no” without good reason. There are, in every community, those who cannot find motivation to research beyond social media posts, yet still find time to go to the polls.

There are also those who vote out of spite for how another person was treated. We understand the desire to strike back against inappropriate language, but, for most of us, this issue is far too important for that kind of thinking to rule us at the ballot box.

Next, we want to thank the many people who invested years of time and effort to identify key problems with safety, financial waste and academic shortcomings. For school leaders to admit the district has problems takes a level of bravery that we certainly respect.

We agree that the congestion in front of Hoover Elementary is dangerous, that shuttling middle school pupils to the high school is wasteful — of both money and time — and that new technology and more hands-on education probably requires new facilities.

There are aspects of the plan we like. We like how it opens up room around Hoover Elementary and uses ample space around the high school for improvements and additions. We even see the wisdom of aligning the high school entrance to make a simple intersection with the planned neighborhood across the street — it’s a smart move for long-term traffic and pedestrian safety on a major road.

We do not see significant unnecessary frills, here, either. The additions are quite practical and not fancy.

We are not afraid of investing in children, or in the school district. We don’t hate children, either. We also understand that many of the angry social media posts from “yes” voters come from a small minority of people.

However, here are our concerns:

• The price tag is just too much. For some of us, we voted against the price tag. There is no way for us to outline all the reasons some of the 660-plus “no” voters chose to do so for financial reasons. Some of us are deeply in debt, some of us are on fixed incomes. We want to help, but this is just too much. Please try to bring the price down for those of us concerned with making a 20-year investment of this magnitude. We applaud the boldness of the school administration and the School Improvement Committee for putting such a large project out there. One very important thing our community learned is that $19.8 million is, at this point in time, beyond what we are willing to pay. That’s good information for the next plan.

• The middle school building is in good shape. Ten years ago, we voters approved $3.35 million, by a two-vote margin over the supermajority, to put air conditioning in both Hoover Elementary and the middle school, as well as make other improvements. That 10-year bond will not be paid off until next summer and this new project talks about tearing down the middle school. We hoped to see a longer life from that investment. Further, the board of education has, as it should, maintained the middle school building. The study that shows the middle school as inadequate earned most of that score because it does not have a gymnasium or cafeteria. We do not see the short walk to the Hoover Elementary for gym classes and lunch too much to ask to make up for those shortcomings.

• The project includes building additions while enrollment is decreasing. Enrollment had been over 800 just three years ago, and now it is down to about 760 pupils. The square footage mentioned at the Sept. 6 school forum said that, with this project, Hoover Elementary would increase from 52,900 square feet to 67,400 square feet, and the high school would increase from 78,000 square feet to 122,000 square feet. That adds about 59,000 square feet in total to the two buildings. The middle school, according to that Sept. 6 meeting, is about 25,200 square feet, so the addition is more than twice the size of the current middle school. We understand that a lot of that extra space goes into enlarging the auditorium, but please understand that it is difficult to convince us that the school needs more academic space when numbers are down.

We’ve heard the arguments that address the above, but, as you can see from the vote, those arguments were not enough to change our minds.

While some of us did not take part in planning sessions, many of us asked questions throughout the process at school events, through e-mails and online.

Ultimately, we are not saying “no.” We’re saying, “Please try again.”




•••

We who voted ‘yes’

We who voted “yes” also need to apologize for those who wrote in broad and accusing terms on social media. The majority of us know full well that families work hard to put food on the table, and that many taxpayers have few ties to the school system yet are asked to pay for someone else’s education.

Some who voted “yes” have forgotten that we parents are ultimately responsible for our child’s education, and that a public school system is only one means of reaching that end. Public schools require help from others — taxpayers — who are entirely justified to ask tough questions before agreeing to invest thousands of dollars of their own money into an idea.

Instead of shaming those who voted against this $19.8 million bond, we must humbly find a way to reach out to those of whom are willing to talk about ideas for improvement.

We have a good school system that more than educates, it enriches children with a host of extra-curricular activities, fine arts and sports. By definition, a public school system with a limited scope and limited resources cannot appeal to every interest or every age.

Some of us who are riding a wave of happiness bolstered by watching our children’s growth and progress and socialization in school clubs may have forgotten to thank those who, whether happily or begrudgingly, make it all possible by paying their taxes.

But being content with what we have is not the same as remaining stagnant. Where we see a chance to improve, we would be both foolish and negligent not to pursue improvement. Yet when we make goals greater than some individuals can afford, we must seek compromise, or we as a community are guilty of not living within our means. The supermajority rule is a tool to remind us of that.

We are determined to continue to improve our school system, and we hope that those who did not approve this bond referendum will remember that good schools benefit the entire town, even if those benefits do not directly impact individuals.

A good school system attracts more families and businesses, which helps drive economic growth. And more growth means spreading the tax burden out to more families, which lessens what every property owner must pay.

We are driven primarily to see children leave West Branch with the best education we can provide, but, secondly, we want a community in which those same children will want to return to work and live. Schools play a big part in that.

One key aspect of this project that will likely not change is the plan to enlarge the high school auditorium. Fine arts has proved that it draws so many students and such large audiences that our current auditorium is far too small.

We still must address safety and security. So many parents drop off their children that Oliphant Street in front of Hoover Elementary is dangerously congested. The school must address this before someone gets hurt. We’ve heard suggestions about turning Oliphant into a one-way street, or asking parents to drop off children behind the middle school, and we will take another look at those ideas, but we have already found problems with those suggestions.

We will also try to do a better job of explaining the benefits of new classrooms for technology, collaboration and hands-on learning so voters can understand why current rooms fall short to the point that rebuilding is better than renovating.

We will also try to better explain how much money the school could save by eliminating the middle school. Some of the costs include maintenance, utility bills, extra staff, shuttling pupils to the high school for specialty classes like industrial tech, etc.

Please be patient with us, too. The proposal placed before the voters took years of work and study, and it is difficult for us to abandon all that effort. The school district invested lots of money into architect and engineering companies as well, and we do not want to see that money wasted unnecessarily because we know that, too, is taxpayer money.

We will try again.