in which phasing is discussed

I suppose that one of the characteristics that may be associated with blogging is engaging your audience in a dialog.  But it can also involve, as in the present case, a more traditional (or one-way) communication of information.  For the moment, I have decided not to read the comments, if any, because I find that doing so distracts me from my main purpose.  If that offends, you are welcome to stop reading.   So please forgive me if I have not yet gotten to your questions, and allow me to expound on my themes at some length.  After that, which I do not imagine will be immediate, for this is just one of many issues I plan to address, I will try to answer as many serious questions and criticisms as I am able.

Tonight, I want to address the phasing of the project.  

Here is the history: while developing what ultimately evolved into Plan C, the Administration proposed starting with the elementary schools.  (At that time, they envisioned closing all but three.)  The stated rationale was that by closing the other four elementary schools as early as possible, the district would reap significant operational savings early on in the project.  The savings, the thinking went, could then be leveraged to help finance a greater portion of the remainder of the project via a mechanism involving issuance of ‘certificates of participation” which allow bank borrowing at very favorable terms.  At that time, however, the Administration was heavily focused on incorporating  “learning communities” often defined as “flexible learning spaces” into the refurbished buildings.  There was considerable public outcry in opposition to what many in the community worried would turn out to be a re-hash of the “open classroom” buildings of the 70’s.  At that time, the plans called for the elementaries to be done first, followed by the middle schools, and finally the high school.

Given the uncertainty over the flexible learning community spaces concept and the virtual certainty that young children entering the system would be in temporary swing space for a substantial portion of their entire time in the schools, several community members (I was one) suggested a re-ordering.  “Show us,” we said, “that these learning spaces can really work.  Start with a single, pilot project to demonstrate how they’ll be done.  If they’re really as good as you say, then put them at the high school where everyone in the district can see how good they are.”  

We also wanted to make sure that no children would suffer more than one construction disruption during their twelve years in our schools.  One easy way to accomplish that is to start at the top and work back down.  There is another advantage to starting at the high school as well.  As any experienced contractor will tell you, until you open up a wall, you never really know exactly what you’re going to find, even though you have the original architectural plans.  In my line of work (I’m an auto mechanic) cumulative experience counts for a lot.  You learn how to take old things apart without breaking them any more than they already are.   This can help keep costs down. My friends in the building trades tell me it’s the same for them.  By starting at the high school (one of the oldest of our buildings) the folks who will actually do the hands-on work can gain experience that may translate into greater work efficiencies on the other buildings.  The architects, construction managers, and others involved may also learn from their experiences at the high school, allowing the cumulative project to become better and better.  

Is the current phasing plan ideal?  Is it the only feasible alternative?  No, and no.  But I believe that it is a mistake to let the ideal become the enemy of the good, and I believe that we have arrived at a good, workable solution.  For the record, I do not generally see things as only black or white, but rather as shades of gray.

The question still remains, however, are we in some way jeopardizing the well-being or the education of our youngest students by making them wait before we renovate the elementaries?  Again, I believe the answer is “No.”  Now let me tell you why.

1.  Safety first.  While the current elementary schools are, in every case, inefficient, none of them is dangerous.  Yes, some of them are old, but they are all structurally sound.  Is there a backlog of needed repairs?  Yes, but none of these is yet at a mission critical point. Nor do I believe our excellent custodial staff will ever let them become so. Does this mean we will never have another water main burst, as happened at Roxboro Elementary last Fall?  No. (Although one might hope that flow meter alarms, at the least, have now been installed on all mains.)  What it does mean is exactly what it says: the walls are not going to fall down, nor the roofs cave in, nor the boilers explode before the renovations are finally completed.

2.  There are good teachers at every school in the district.  Learning is taking place.  Lots of it.  (In all categories of students, across all grade levels, our teachers are delivering more than a year’s worth of measurable progress to their students every year.  That is why the CHUH system has earned its enviable Straight-A marks in all sections of the state’s value-added assessment.)  Could we do better?  Sure.  Would renovated and refurbished facilities make the teaching job easier?  Of course.  We expect better acoustic control, improved indoor air quality, daylighting, and other improvements to improve student achievement at the elementary school level.  Just as we expect the same at the middle and high schools.  

3.  Young children, elementary school students, are naturally resilient.  (If kids weren’t resilient, the entire human race would have died out tens of thousands, or even millions, of years ago.) Young kids are naturally curious and make eager learners.  [By middle school, hormonal changes foster the type of rebellious behavior that, in our ancestral environment, led  young males to seek out their own territories as far away as they could get from their parents!  These behavioral changes pose a tremendous challenge to middle- and high-school teachers.  I, for one, would not have the patience!]  Back to the younger kids: their relative compliance and curiosity makes it easier for them (vs older students)  to learn even in less than optimal conditions.  Ask experienced teachers: they will tell you that middle- and high-school students are much harder to teach than elementary school kids.

Is it ideal to put off the elementary school renovations while proceeding with the upper schools’?  No, perhaps not.   Ideally, we’d be able to pay for the whole project at once. Ideally out of accumulated cash on hand, right?  But the current phasing might be the best idea anyway, even if there were no constraints on the financing.  Why?  Because no child’s schooling will be disrupted by facilities construction more than once.