Education today is very different from when the Maple, Center, and Pepin elementary schools were built 100-plus years ago and even when White Brook Middle School was built in the 1970s.
Today, classroom learning is interactive as students work in small groups and engage in hands-on activities. Technology is used in ways that were not anticipated 40 years ago, let alone 120 years ago.
Our regular classrooms are undersized, are not well-suited for students moving about and lack sufficient electrical outlets for the use of technology.
In addition, many students today receive special education services. We have reading and math specialists, autism specialists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, inclusion specialists, behavioral specialists, school psychologists and teachers for English language learners. These staff members work in cramped, loud and distracting places such as converted coat closets, stairway landings, an elevator alcove and hallways.
Two of our elementary schools don’t have a cafeteria or a gymnasium. They also lack adequate parking (cars weren’t prevalent in the early 1900s). Two of the schools are not accessible for handicapped people, and none of the buildings comply with current safety standards and building codes. A lot has changed in the last 120 years.
It is important that everyone understand the condition of the current schools is not a result of neglect. We would not be occupying 100-plus-year-old buildings if they had not been well-cared for and maintained.
Throughout the feasibility process, experts have told us that the elementary schools are in admirable shape for their age. A poor design and substandard construction typical of the industry in the 1970s contributes to the condition of White Brook. Still, it is 43 years old. The state does not, and we cannot, expect a school’s life to extend beyond 50 years without major re-investment. The current state of our schools is not due to neglect, but rather a lack of investment in renewal.
The age of the buildings and their systems pose an ever-present risk of major expense and not being able to use them for school purposes. Heating systems, exteriors, roofs, elevators, and parking lots are of very real concern for all four buildings. Last winter, there were many weeks where some portion of the heating system failed in at least one of the buildings. It was often questionable whether we could open the buildings for school.
Ongoing repairs to keep the buildings going is both inadequate (a Band-Aid) and very expensive. The estimated cost to repair and bring the four buildings up to code is $26 million more than the proposed project, and that will not improve the conditions that make them inadequate for delivering a quality education in 2018.
Delaying a project to address these needs will only increase the cost. The community is faced with a $109 million solution because we did not invest in the renewal of our schools until now. Missed opportunities and a lack of investment in our schools in the past is what got us to where we are today.
To compound the problems, we are currently losing $2-plus million dollars each year in the tuitions we pay due to school choice and charter schools. We know, based on survey data, that the primary reason families choose to educate their children elsewhere is our old buildings. Our experience with the new high school tells us that we can turn those numbers around with a new facility.
It is also important to note that it will cost us much less to operate one new building than four antiquated buildings. The total operational savings from the school budget and the city budget is conservatively estimated to be $663,984 annually.
We cannot afford to pass up the state’s offer to pay for approximately 50 percent of the cost of a new school. It has taken us four years to get to this point. Future opportunities for state funding are unknown and uncertain.
Currently, one penny of our sales tax dollars goes to funding school building projects across the state. How long will that continue? We don’t know.
If we turn this offer down, there will be a similar timeline for a new project with inflationary costs of approximately 4 percent per year. Additionally, the state will not pay a second time for the feasibility study and plan design costs. That expense would have to be incurred 100 percent by the city.
Building this new school now is not only the most fiscally responsible thing to do, it is also the right thing to do for our children, and for the future of our city.
Please join us in voting “yes” on May 22.
Debora Lusnia, of Easthampton, is co-chairwoman of the Committee for Building Easthampton’s Future, a group of residents committed to educating the community about the need for a new school. Lusnia also is a member of the School Building Committee and the former chairwoman of the School Committee.