|
The local newspapers wouldn't publish my entire Commentary supporting the Crafstbury school bond vote, so I am posting it here on my blog for anyone to read:
COMMENTARY
I walked into the Craftsbury Academy building Saturday morning for the first of two informational meetings the Craftsbury School Board has scheduled prior to the November 4 vote on the proposed new school in Craftsbury and who did I run into? None other than Ken Young (no relation), the Town of Derby Moderator. Having lived in Derby for twenty years before moving back to Craftsbury, it was like déjà vu. Ken was there to moderate the morning’s meeting. Of course, he does have connections…his son, Chris, is principal at the school.
I’ll be up front—I support the Craftsbury school construction project. I have supported the school since I first moved to Craftsbury in 1971, even while away from Craftsbury for over twenty-six years. Two of my sisters were graduated from Craftsbury Academy in the early 1960’s. At that time, Craftsbury Academy had a very high reputation for education and sportsmanship. I remember hearing back then that a graduate of CA could “write their own ticket” to any college.
I don’t personally know what the CA academic reputation is right now. It doesn’t matter to me right now. Want to know why? That’s because with the condition of the school facilities now, we are not reaching the potential of our students. It’s hard to learn in an environment where the school building is a fire hazard, the air quality is not good, your classroom is either too hot or too cold, bathrooms are down in the dank basement-I could go on about the facility conditions. Not only that, but with the uncertainty of what Craftsbury will or won’t do with its school system, will they be able to attract good teachers and staff when they need to hire? As for programs, outdated facilities affect what can be feasibly offered. It is reasonable to conclude that most of Craftsbury’s students attend the local school because they have no choice. What about students in outlying towns who do have a choice? If you were they, would you choose to attend a school in CA’s present physical condition?
As a member of the last class to graduate from Hardwick Academy, my school was in the same position and condition. I know that attracting top quality teachers was difficult. I know what it’s like to go to school in a hazardous building. Our students deserve better.
The school board sent out brochures describing different scenarios. They were discussed at Saturday’s meeting. One thing is clear; we cannot do nothing. We need to proceed to a school construction project or else we could face closure by the state. Our buildings do not meet code now. Doing nothing won’t change that. Spending six million dollars just to bring the old buildings up to code won’t solve all the problems, like heat loss at the cost of oil today.
Our schools currently use between 2,500-3,000 gallons of oil per month for heating. A thermal audit showed how much of that heat was escaping. At an estimated $3.19 per gallon for oil, the projected cost for heating the existing school is $83,990. The estimated cost to heat the proposed school project is $60,234. That is over $23,000 that can be applied to a bond payment. That is over $23,000 that we will not be penalized for in our per pupil spending. Some may like the idea of spending only six million dollars to renovate the existing school building to meet fire and safety codes. Those dollars would do nothing about the heating loss, we’d still have old buildings and there would be no state aid for the bond.
Craftsbury is the only Vermont school construction project approved in 2008. If the bond is approved, Craftsbury’s project would be the first “green” school in Vermont. Our School Board has worked hard to weigh the various green technologies for efficiency and cost. That is why wood pellet heat was selected. Natural lighting and ventilation have been incorporated as much as possible. Building materials were carefully selected so as not to emit toxic gases. The school would also be a “high performance school,” meaning that the design professionals have worked together to build a facility that would enhance the students’ learning environment, air quality and save energy. The Northeast Collaborative for High Performance Schools Protocol is assisting in the school design.
What if we tuition out grades 9-12? The School Board evaluated that scenario. That option still requires renovations of possibly four million dollars. Again, there is no state funding for that. We then have no control over tuition rate increases we would pay for the high school students. We would still need facilities for the cafeteria, gymnasium, physical education, art and music for grades k-4. Lunches are delivered to the elementary school. Currently, students are bussed to the Common for art, music and physical education. That decreases the students’ learning time and increases bussing costs.
What if we do nothing? As Co-superintendent David Ford told us, we can’t close our obligation to educate the students. The town is still obligated to pay for education. Besides paying out tuition to other towns, the Town loses the tuition income it now realizes on students from other Towns. Students who may now attend another private school would again become the Town’s responsibility, as well as home-schooled students who choose to attend another school. The current estimate is that this option would reduce the tax rate by $.176 per hundred, or $176 on a hundred thousand dollar home. That does not include transportation to the school. If the Town decided to pay for transportation, the tax reduction would be less. None of those figures includes the parents’ costs in time or money of driving to the school for various reasons, such as parent-teacher conferences, sports practice, ballgames, to bring a forgotten item, to pick up a sick child, etc. It wouldn’t take long to use up that money in gas. Parent participation in their children’s education is a key to the students’ success. Removing the school from the local community can lead to decreased parent to school interaction. Is that worth a few dollars? I don’t think so. With or without a new school, Craftsbury needs a meeting place for its Town meetings. With a new school, the Town will have a meeting place that does not depend on the weather.
Buying local was another question that was raised at Saturday’s meeting. Some indicated that they would like the proposed school to be built using local workers. Related to that was how many teachers and staff who live in Craftsbury and work at the school would lose their jobs if the school closed. What would that impact be on the town? There is the possibility of local workers and local subcontractors being hired to build the new school. What is the likelihood of the local teachers and staff being hired at other area schools? That may be less identifiable.
The estimated tax increase to build the proposed school project is $.566 per $100 or $566 on a one hundred thousand dollar home. That is before any State income sensitivity calculation. The bond payment cost is backed out of the per pupil expenditures before calculating the excess spending penalty. While the State has approved the school project for State Aid, the money is not currently available. The Town would have to borrow in anticipation of the reimbursement. The interest on that loan would add $.189 per $100, or $189 on a one hundred thousand dollar house. The interest on the State’s share of the project would be in the per pupil calculation for excess spending. Representative John Rodgers, who attended the informational meeting, was asked to explain why the taxpayers would have to pay the penalties in the per pupil spending figure for the interest on the State’s share. He explained that the State determined that the taxpayers should bear some of the cost if they decide to approve the spending. He was asked to have that changed in Legislature. Representative Rodgers made no assurance that he would have that law changed.
Our proposed school could see an increase the number of students attending, which would lower the per pupil cost and mean less of a tax increase. If you were a student choosing which school to attend, would you go to a school in the condition that Craftsbury is now or to a school that provides a better learning environment? If Craftsbury approves the bond vote and builds a new school facility what school do you think they will choose, especially if the students have attended for grades 7-8? Remember the 1989 movie “Field of Dreams?” If you build it, they will come. We could keep those students for grades 9-12 and maybe attract more students for grades 7-8 who would stay for high school. Parents are more apt to tuition their high school students to Craftsbury if they know the school is here to stay. According to Lister Willie Ryan, about 50% of the new landowners in town are of childbearing years. Also, the tax calculations are based on the highest bond year, the second year of the bond. As the principal decreases, the bond payments will decrease. There may also be income from the sale of the elementary school and Industrial Arts buildings that has not been figured into the calculations. Grant opportunities cannot be realized until we have an approved bond vote.
So what are Craftsbury’s voters to do? Do they vote Yes on the school project bond vote on November 4 or do they vote No? Voters should decide the issue on what kind of Town they want for the future, not the immediate property tax ramifications. Do they want the Town to be totally a bedroom community or do they want to continue the tradition of being the united community that we all remember?
We may all have little disagreements with this or that part of the proposed school project. The School Board will never satisfy everyone. I believe they and their architects have listened to the majority of the townspeople and have submitted a project that will serve Craftsbury well into the future.
I say we vote FOR the future and FOR the proposed school building project. That will be a vote FOR all of our children and their futures.
Jeannine A. Young
Craftsbury Common, VT 05827
|