We're spending too much on fancy school buildings
Seattle is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate schools – and they need renovating. But the resulting extravagance seems out of scale given the basic challenges today of simply educating kids.
We in Seattle are spending obscene amounts of money fixing our schools with the hope that it will help improve the quality of education. The spending binge is such that you can't help but wonder if it has more to do with assuaging our consciences for failing to improve test scores or help children at risk.
Educational reform is one of the more challenging social dilemmas of the century. Graduation testing requirements and Bush's slogan of "no child left behind" haven't brought about significant changes. There are children still at risk, and a staggering number of high school graduates couldn't pass the citizenship test we ask of new immigrants. But is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elaborate school buildings going to cure the problems in education? It's as though we feel helpless to increase student performance, so we throw money at the structures where learning's supposed to occur.
In the Seattle area, private schools are flourishing. A good many of these schools are in makeshift buildings. Lakeside school, one of the most generously endowed private schools in the region, operates in facilities that are modest if not spartan by comparison to the new or remodeled public high schools. There simply is no correlation between money spent to remodel a school and educational effectiveness.
We want our schools to be clean, safe, warm, and have the classrooms and spaces that support the educational programs, but just how fancy do they need to be?
The Seattle School District has many aging buildings. Some are more than a half century old. While the district's student population is half what it was in the 1960s, the district asked for and the public voted yes on a $398 million measure in 2001 to rebuild aging schools.
Garfield High School is under renovation, and it has already become the most expensive construction project in Seattle Public Schools history. The extensive remodeling of the 1923 building will add a performing-arts center said to have few rivals. Garfield's $78 million project cost has now soared to more than $100 million. It remains to be seen if that $100 million will improve student performance.
Garfield isn't the only school to experience cost overruns. Cleveland High has just opened at a cost of more than $68 million. It took $93.8 million to renovate Roosevelt High School. Stadium High in Tacoma finished a remodel last year at a cost of more than $106 million. Stadium's restoration is the most expensive restoration in the state. Eleanor Trainor, a spokesperson for Seattle schools, said Seattle's school renovation costs more than $310 per square foot. The state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction says this is twice the statewide average. It's impossible not to question if school boards and administrations in Seattle and Tacoma are more preoccupied with image than functionality. Will spending twice as much show we care more about our kids or improve performance?
Trainor, the Seattle schools spokesperson, asserts that high costs are due to a shortage of materials, inflation, high labor costs, and competition for construction companies in Seattle's building boom. Likely all true. But neighboring districts are experiencing the same building boom and are building for less. It leaves only one conclusion. Seattle and Tacoma school boards and administrations are asking for Rolls Royce buildings when a Ford would do as well.
Let's look at a project still in the works. The Seattle School District has developed plans to remodel Hamilton International Middle School. Still amazingly functional, it was built in the 1920s on a small site and has served many generations of Seattle children. It has undergone several upgrades in the past, but none to rival the current project. While mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems need replacement, the basic structure and architecture are sound. It's being used today. The cost of this project is projected to be $73.5 million. That's $81,000 for each pupil they expect to educate.
Now we come to the hard part. What should we have to spend to have a good school? We can look at other school districts to see if they have done better. Lake Washington School District just completed, a year or so ago, a new school of somewhat similar size to Hamilton for $9.8 million. It's a spectacular school, having won architectural awards including commendation for energy efficiency. In all fairness you can't compare it directly with Hamilton, which is intended to serve several hundred more kids. But even at that, it is incredibly impressive at less than $10 million. It's about one-seventh as expensive as the projected cost of Hamilton at $73.5 million.
Hamilton's original architect was outstanding. His design was attractive if not elegant for its time. It provided all the required educational spaces, was efficient and functional, but not extravagant. His basic designs are still relevant today. The educational spaces work. Why build a new gymnasium when two already exist? Why build a very expensive on-site parking garage at $30,000 per stall when staff parking could be accommodated at Lower Woodland Park and a shuttle bus provided? Or why plan for a middle school of near a thousand students on one of the smallest school sites in Seattle? Especially when data suggest smaller schools perform better?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 8:21 a.m. inappropriate
Facilities matter to parents: The quality of the facilities do, in fact, matter to parents. These improvements will certainly help the public schools compete with private schools for students, particularly those from upper middle class families.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 11:53 a.m. inappropriate
IT'S THE PROGRAM: Sean, I think the question is whether that's a good way to compete with the private schools? it sounds like we are constructing Potemkin Villages.
Very good and timely work, Mr. K. I suspect the culprit is, to some extent, in the program stage of planning. Like the Defense Department when they are imagining a new airplane the school programmers construct a wish list of characteristics and features that a large population of administrators and teachers would like to have. It is difficult, prior to design studies, to estimate the relative cost of these features. The design program builds a momentum and a constituency before the scope of the project is realized. Because there seems to be no enforceable limits on the budget (and scheduling is usually inflexible) it becomes near unstoppable.
I claim no direct experience in the above process. I have no axe to grind here other than that of a taxpayer.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 2:18 p.m. inappropriate
Misplaced priorities: It's not just that so much is spent on the total renovations. Yes, that does seem wasteful by itself. But it becomes even more disheartening when you think of what other things could be done with that money.
It couldn't be spent on teachers or other operating costs - the operating budget and the capital budgets are separate. But think of all of the schools that need about $3 - $5 million in repairs to their HVAC systems, their electrical systems, their plumbing systems, etc. There are others that need seismic upgrades.
Hale needed a $1 million seismic upgrade, but the District decided to give it a $70 million renovation instead.
For the cost of a single extravagent renovation of a building that is working fairly well, the District could fix a dozen buildings that aren't working.
And how are the buildings that get totally rebuilt get chosen? How did Sealth and Denny get rebuilt (weren't they working well?) when Pathfinder doesn't have a suitable building? How did The New School get a new building when the District is closing three schools in that neighborhood? How did Hale get rebuilt when Pinehurst is so in need?
Who chooses these and what criteria do they use? How are the priorities set? It doesn't make sense.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 3:39 p.m. inappropriate
Um, the Voters Approved these Projects in the 2001 School Levy, I think: The renovations discussed by Kent are funded by a levy passed by the voters in 2001 -- the projects to be funded and the costs were on the table at that time, and the voters approved the levy overwhelmingly, for better or worse. The School District could not at this point simply revise the whole plan as I understand it. Nor could the money from this levy be used for other purposes such as operating expenses. The voters allocated the money in 2001 and the school district just can't take this money and use it for other purposes. So, while Kent's criticism would be pretty on-point if these projects were being planned right now, I have to ask if Kent and others opposing this spending said anything when the levy funding it was up for approval? Did anyone back then propose moving the capitol improvements to an operating fund? I don't recall it. And, why focus on building projects that were discussed and voted on in 2001, when the school district has so many other pressing problems today?
Another important point -- the Seattle levy for capitol improvements isn't particularly high compared to other surrounding districts. I'm impressed by the Lake Washington example above, but I'd like to see a little deeper analysis why Seattle can spend so much more with a comparable tax rate.
Finally, to the comment that we need ultra-fancy schools to attracts upper middle income students, this seems to me just totally wrong. Lakeside, mentioned in Kent's piece has the Taj Mahal of campuses compared with other private schools such as Northwest, which is in an ancient building formerly a Seattle public school. Northwest has no problem whatsoever attracting great students because of the wonderful education program. Check their website and mission statement if you want to see how a school should be run in my opinion.
One quick example -- at Northwest, there's a class called environment, where three times a week for 20 minutes students organize into teams, headed by Seniors, and they are assigned sections of the school to clean, organize and maintain. The program gives students an active role in maintaining the school building and makes them stakeholders. This, in addition to a program that requires participation in the arts along with superb academics. The school's slogan is "Courtesy and Common Sense". This is the sort of thing that attracts students who have choices, not the cost of the the building. (Disclaimer -- I sent my kids to Northwest and am very happy having done so.)
Anyway, the way I see it, arguing over the build-out of projects approved in past school capital improvement levies when the Seattle schools face very difficult issues relating to quality of the education that goes on in the buildings -- well, this is a little like fiddling while Rome burns.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 5:29 p.m. inappropriate
small correction: In his excellent comments - good point about the timing of the complaint - Ken Shear wrote "The School District could not at this point simply revise the whole plan as I understand it."
Actually, regardless of what projects the District may describe in the days leading up to the vote, they are under no obligation to complete the described projects or any others. There are projects which are dropped from these levies as earlier projects run over budget. Hamilton, for example, was in the plans for BEX I, but got bumped, and then was in the project list for BEX II, but got bumped. During the election, when people took issue with the project list, some supporters of the levy said "Just vote 'yes' and we'll fix the list afterwards".
The money raised can only be spent on capital projects - not for teachers - but you would be surprised by the sort of things that find themselves in the capital budget.
There are projects which are still in the planning stages, using money from this year's bond, BEX III, which could be cancelled and replaced. Or, to follow Mr. Kammerer's suggestion, scaled down.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 5:36 p.m. inappropriate
LEVY: Ken Shear:
I think Mr. K's subject here is is projects that were allowed to exceed the levy, e. g.: Garfield from $78M to $100M and: Cleveland $68M to $93.8 M. I would assume that the smaller figures were in the levy and, by some means, the levy amount was increased or other less crucial projects were abandoned.
Remind me, were even the lower figures above included in the voters information packet? I think I voted for the levy but the figure of $78M to remodel Garfield certainly would have given me pause. I hope you do not intend to imply that the voters, having approved the levy, should not complain about broken budgets; that would, in my opinion, expect too much of even diligent and thoughtful voters.
Posted Sat, Oct 27, 11:55 p.m. inappropriate
RE: LEVY: Cleveland cost $68M. Roosevelt cost $93.8M.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 7:55 a.m. inappropriate
RE: IT'S THE PROGRAM: Garfield has the AP program for the city's brightest kids, yet most of the parent buzz I heard about the school was that the building was infested by rats. I have no idea if that's even true, but I do know the rumor turned many parents off of the idea of sending their kids there.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 8:52 a.m. inappropriate
Remember the Public Safety Bldg. & City Hall?: Seattle has been down the path of quick, cheap and tasteless civic buildings in the not too distant past, we don't need to repeat that mistake. Meany, Sealth, Denny, Aki Kurose, South Shore, Rainier Beach, Washington Midlle School, Hale, and others were all designed with a framing square on the back of an envelope by the same mentality that gave us the late and unlamented Public Safety Building, City Hall and Central Library. Schools should look like educational institutions not correctional facilities.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 6:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: emember the Public Safety Bldg. & City Hall?: "Schools should look like educational institutions not correctional facilities."
I don't care what they look like, I just wish they were run like correctional facilities rather than day care centers. At least inmates are taught usable job skills.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 7:47 p.m. inappropriate
Kent is Probably Right: As someone who has done a lot of research on Seattle School facilities this is a great article to read. (Kudos to Kent Kammerer, someone akin to the late Walt Crowley, who truly cares about Seattle.) I did research on the last bond issue (as best you can when you are required to submit Public Disclosure requests to the district for minutes of public meetings), wrote a report and gave it to the media so they would get a better picture of this bond measure.
In the district's defense, first building costs have gone up. (Note all the thefts of copper lately.) Second, there is a lot of building from Seattle up the coast into Canada. It's a lot of people chasing the same resources. Third, builders 50 years ago didn't have to think about handicapped access, the need for more science labs (both in middle and high school, just say WASL), parents' desire for dedicated art rooms, etc.
However, despite the high costs, some things are NOT being done right. Both Roosevelt and Cleveland suffer from flaws in their safety designs. It's hard to believe in 2007 that a school building could be built where visitors coming in the main entryway are not visible to anyone else in the school (I'm not going to name schools but there are actually more of them - new and old - than you would think.)
Roosevelt has had problems from day one with the heating/cooling system. Was it fixed while under warranty? Nope. Will taxpayers have to pay upwards of $200,000 to fix it? Yup. Where is that money coming from? Don't know.
Hale is being remodeled (not rebuilt) on a 25-year cycle instead of the usual 50-year cycle. Why can't it be "rebuilt" and why a 25-year cycle? That's because Hale is situated on a bog near a stream and the district couldn't get a building permit from the City if they tried. So, it's a remodel for 25 years. Don't forget - Hale already has a new performing arts hall and sports field - so their cost will rival Roosevelt's. (And by the way, both Hale and Sealth who are on the bond measure list, are going to get their sports fields resurfaced. Hey, it's just money.)
Denny (being rebuilt) and Sealth (partial remodel and also being redone to a 25 and not a 50 year cycle) are going to be cojoined with a 450-foot galleria. Does any school really need that?
If the district ever had an outside audit of the capital projects over the last 12 years, it would not be pretty. The people in Facilities are honest, hard-working people so I don't mean anything illegal. But I'd bet you'd find a trail of cost overruns, money moved around (they have a motion right now before the Board to move the overages built into 5 of the current bond projects into one fund), and projects that started as one thing and morphed into something else.
I had done all this work because I truly believed that the schools with the worst buildings who had been waiting the longest were not being addressed. Nor the buildings with the worst seismic issues. It will be the saddest day in the history of SPS and our city if we have an earthquake and one of these underaddressed schools suffers damage with bad outcomes for the people in it.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 8:15 p.m. inappropriate
Not as simple as it looks to remodel: I have personally been involved with several of the campaigns to pass the levies that pay for the remodeling that is happening in Seattle. The author has missed several huge issues that impact the cost of remodeling schools in Seattle.
First, as a rule, building a new school from scratch is much much cheaper than remodeling an old one, although most people believe otherwise. This is one reason why it was so much cheaper in Lake Washington district. To remodel, you have to work around the current structure, which is quite difficult, while a new building you just build what you want. So remodeling an older building to be earthquake safe, safe in the event of a school shooting, able to handle modern technology, all of that is harder when you have to accomodate the current structure.
Second, even if you want to go the cheaper route and tear down the building to start again, you will run into huge resistance from the community. After Ballard High was demolished and completely rebuilt, people were very angry. When the district was working to develop the plans for doing Garfield and Roosevelt, the communities were very vocal and insistent that the look of the schools not be changed. They wanted schools that had the charming look of a turn of the century school with modern functionality. That gets very expensive when you must retain portions of the building.
And the previous poster is correct: funding for school construction and remodeling is voted on by voters and the district is required to use it for what they said they would use it for. So while a HVAC system would be good, it isn't an option.
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 8:39 p.m. inappropriate
Correction -- $73.5 Million for Hamilton Voted on a Few Months ago, in 2007 and approved: While I do agree with Kent that we should be careful with these sorts of capital expenditures, I have a big problem with his case against the Hamilton renewal in particular. The $73.5 million budget for the Hamilton improvement was part of the capital improvement levy passed earlier this year (2007) by Seattle voters. (In my previous posting, I mistakenly said it was part of an earlier levy.) For info on the 2007 levy, see www.seattleschools.org/ specifically at area/main/01886_SPS_Levy_Bro_Final.pdf (p.5). (Apologies for the inelegant URL but the Crosscut system won't post the whole URL as one word.) Many of the same issues that Kent raised were listed in the voters pamphlet statement against the levy. See http://www.metrokc.gov/ and specifically elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=22990&eid;=1216 (again, apologies for the inelegant URL). Nevertheless, Seattle voters passed the measure by some 70%. Kent's discussion of this project ignores the arguments of the proponents of this measure that, only a few months ago, succeeded in convincing an overwhelming majority of Seattle voters that a bond issue including the $73.5 million renovation of Hamilton was appropriate. Frankly, to attack the bond issue again in this context seems sort of like sour grapes at this point.
Why revive the attack on this levy just a few months after it was passed? Let's focus on the important school board election coming up in a few weeks, and on ways that the school district could improve education for Seattle kids.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 8:17 a.m. inappropriate
Chincy: I completely disagree with the premise of this article. Modern, well-designed educational facilities that are also beautiful and a pleasure to work and learn in are fundamental to 21st education.
Public spaces, whether schools or otherwise, skimp on esthetics, the result is places like Sacajawea Elementary or Nathan Hale: you enter the building and are immediately oppressed by the architecture and by the obvious skimping that went into the planning and design of these buildings. Teachers work in these buildings 8 hours a day or more; it's one more example of teachers being asked to put up with something that other professionals do not. Students work and play in these buildings 8 hours a day or more, as well. Do you really think that learning in such a depressing environment is actually conducive to learning? I can't cite studies off hand, but I know that there is a correlation between people's attitudes, mood, and productivity and the quality of surroundings they work in.
Education is not something to skimp on. We should be spending lavish sums on beautiful schools with all the latest--so that these buildings last for 100 years or more. The myopia of this article is stunning.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 9:57 a.m. inappropriate
Lazy Journalism: There's no news here. Kammerer mentions extravagance in his lead, but nowhere does he point to a single example of, say, walnut paneling or marble bathrooms. He merely describes risings costs. That's not anything particular to the Seattle School District. Construction cost inflation is tearing apart capital budgets all over the place. The Daily Journal of Commerce just reviewed 32 major public projects over the last three quarters, and found that only ONE came in at budget. That's really the only story here. If I were Crosscut, I would expect a writer to provide this kind of context. This is not helpful.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 12:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Lazy Journalism: This is a good point. So where is the extravagance? It's there. Some of it is in the original designs - have you seen the Commons at Ballard High School? The African American Academy has amazing spaces and high end fixtures. It was built to hold about twice as many students as the number who attend it. Some of these structures are more than just pleasant and functional, they are close to ostentatious.
Beyond the original designs, there are the changes. The addition of an atrium here, a covered walkway there, a covered parking garage, or a special room for this or that. Many of these design elements were added after the "final" plans and budgets were set. People could have said no to them, but no one did.
One could argue that retaining architectural elements from the current building is an extravagance - it certianly costs more. One could argue that any amount paid for non-functional HVAC systems is an extravagance. One could argue that any amount spent to design Cleveland around the "small schools" fad is an extravagance, particularly as the enthusiasm for high schools divided into multiple "academies" has waned. One could argue that
What wasn't mentioned in the original article is the disingenuous budgets. A big part of the cost overrun at Roosevelt was a direct result of the deliberate choice to adopt a design without the legally required amount of parking space. The District had to buy additional property - at great expense - to meet the legal requirements. They chose that over altering the design. A similar situation increased the cost at Garfield. There are other budgets that were knowingly low-balled in one way or another by leaving out necessary elements.
The BEX Oversight Committee has stated that their priority is to keep the projects intact - not to keep them on budget. This is another conscious choice which has led to increased costs. No one had the job of controlling costs - not the contractor, the architects, the District staff, the schools, the Board or even the Oversight Committee. No one has that charge, so no one did that work. I would say that going without any effort at cost control is an extravagance.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 1:29 p.m. inappropriate
It takes a Village...: Kent's argument is a good one - but I too think an expensive school building can be a good thing, but we aren't getting our money's worth now.
Designed obsolesence is something that occurs in all to many products, public buildings included. We should be spending money on schools, but we should be doing it right - not building something with a pretty facade and mechanical/HVAC designs that can't be upgraded.
In spite of busing schools are the center of our Communities and they should work as Community spaces - open and covered. It would be good to see these communities take on more than just their own improvement - how about a PTA sponsoring a neighborhood tree planting? How about volunteering at a soup kitchen once a year?
I remember the era just before the expenditures on schools and in downtown public buildings. We were promised that expenditures on downtown facilities would be investments that would allow investments in neighborhoods. New offices for City Bureaucrats was how that particular 'promise' was filled. New Schools are about all we are going to get.
Certainly they've not built any park and ride lots in the neighborhood business districts. How about creating park and ride lots at Elementary Schools? That way a young family could gain the benefits of only making a single car payment while keeping the vehicle parked near the children, for emergencies and convenience. Heck, why not build daycare centers at high schools and create job training experiences for high school kids?
BTW - I understand the problems of high remodel costs, but it does seem that there are craftsmen out there that could perhaps do it better than the typical corporate business model applied effectively on new construction.
But the result can be stunning. Stadium High School, just north of Downtown Tacoma, is perhaps one of the top ten most beautiful campuses in the nation. It is something to be proud about here in Tacoma - and our schools should be something to be proud of, no matter how you look at them.
Seattle schools are shameful - and shifting money from construction isn't going to solve that problem.
My own area High School - Lincoln - just back after a more modest 1 year remodel - is certainly one worthy of being proud of. Their football team is the best in the City.
Go Abes!
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 2:10 p.m. inappropriate
The State's Broken Educational Funding System: State's Broken Educational Funding System
I blame the System more than I blame anything else. Education spending is divided into capital spending controlled mainly by school bond and levy measures, while spending for teachers is controlled by the State, This produces an uncoordinated, ineffective, inefficient system that guarantees both mediocrity and unfairness, and one that most certainly doesn't focus on the educational outcomes of students. Because the system is controlled by two masters: the State and the individual school district in a given socio-economic region, the weird way the System works is this:
1. The teacher's union (WEA) perennially refuses either to reward great teachers or to get rid of horrible teachers. Instead, it rewards teachers for years of existence and for the educational level they achieve in their areas of expertise. (Both of these I'm sure are loosely correlated with quality instruction and should be used in hiring. Once hired, inifinitely more effective is correlate pay with actual real performance of students taught and on successfully creating educated students as measured by WASL scores, SAT scores, and college admissions.) Currently, the WEA's main fight is to get lower pupil/teacher ratios and higher pay-- both reasonable internal metrics-- but both are obviously teacher focused and not customer, student, or education-focused metrics. The result is that teachers remain lowly paid because they measure themselves by the wrong standards. Indeed, one of the reasons they think they should be paid more is because they want to be paid more -- which is not a reason that taxpaying parents or school district officials find compelling.
2. Schools get built to palatially high standards at enormous expense, replete with athletic facilities that serve the educational mission only minimally. On the Eastside, because of the affluence and opulence in many of the neighborhoods, taxpayer parents typically are willing to levy their homes with higher taxes than are lower income parents. Thus, on the Eastside school levies can raise considerably more than similar sized Seattle districts. Consequently, the size of per-pupil school construction budgets depend on the wealth of individual school districts, while socialism reigns when it comes to pay for teachers across all the districts.(NB: this may not all be completely true. A number of programs exist to try to compensate for unfairnesses that arise out of this historicallly mediocre way of funding education.)
Over time, the degeneratively tranformative effect of this broken financial regime is ever-worsening Seattle schools. The richer districts are preferred by teachers because of their lesser crime rates, the educational background and support of parents in the richer districts, and yes, because the school facilities are often state-of-the-art due to larger bonds for school construction and for technology. So the better teachers (not all, but most) vote with their feet, and seek out "richer" school districts. That's the only way they can truly be paid for performance. Parents in the poorer districts see the writing on the wall and figure out how to get their kids in the best and "richest" Seattle schools if possible. If this can't be done, then they put them in private schools or move to the Eastside, two options cost-prohibitive for poorer families and their children who are stuck in lesser schools with weaker teachers.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 6:05 p.m. inappropriate
From A Student's Point of View: First, let me state my qualifications. I am an alum of the Seattle School System, specifically Garfield High School, class of '07. I have been in the Seattle School District since first grade.
Mr. Kammerer is wrong on so many points that it would take a full-length article in order to correct the misinformation he is perpetuating.
Garfield High School is a first rate school. A first rate education cannot be produced with smoke and mirrors. For example, two hundred fifty seniors - two thirds of the class - take physics. A physics program that size costs money. Three hundred fifty kids a year take chemistry. Chemistry labs cost money. Furthermore, you're comparing apples to oranges. Garfield's student newspaper is among the very best in the nation. A newspaper program of that caliber cannot be produced for free. Lakeside has a shadow of a newspaper while Garfield has a nationally award-winning newspaper. Garfield appears to be an expensive remodel because they are adding facilities for the orchestra and jazz band, both of which are top music programs in the nation. Lakeside is a school with no music program while Garfield is a school with the best music program in the nation. Music programs cannot be produced for free. Education is not just reading, writing, and arithmetic. It's about experiencing everything life has to offer and learning from that experience. Well-rounded high schools like Garfield offer that sort of an education.
So, yes, there is a price tag to producing the quality schools that Seattle wants to offer its children. And yes, many of the features that come with that price tag aren't absolutely necessary to give our students the standard education that will get them into a halfway decent college. But let's go beyond the basics. Let's reward Seattle's students for taking top national honors. And let's not ask them to crowd into too-small schools. But most of all, let's not forget that when we, as students, do well, it reflects positively on Seattle. You can't expect us to keep producing accolade after accolade for this district when the taxpayers of this city can't be bothered to produce clean and safe schools big enough to fit the enrolled population.
Annie Barouh
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 6:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: From A Student's Point of View: Correction: Garfield has one of the best music programs in the nation.
Sorry for the typo.
Posted Tue, Oct 30, 10:15 a.m. inappropriate
From yet another biproduct of the Seattle School System: I admittedly don't know average construction fees or any of that so I'm going to avoid the issue of exact figures. I just want to back up what is being said by Annie: schools need to be more than just reading, writing and mathematics. There is a correlation between musical ability and success in school. There is a correlation between keeping an active body and an active mind. There is a correlation between artistic perception and literary comprehension! I think you get my point. Students spend so much of their (our) time in school that it leaves time for little external activities. If the school offers it - as a class or an after-school program - students are *much* more likely to participate in that activity. This supports healthy social growth along with all the other benefits that come to the person via that particular activity.
A large library, an expanded gym, more science labs, an acoustically sound auditorium, a musical performance hall, extended workout facilities, more instrumental and vocal practice rooms, an advanced media center etc. - none of these are wastes of money! I would have killed for any of these accommodations when I was in school. Students want to take pride in their (our) school. Let them (us) do so.
I have been a student of the public school system since first grade and am now a freshman in college. I went to Washington Middle School and Garfield High School. My Chinese language classes were taught in a janitor closet. No, more building space is not a bad thing.
Posted Tue, Oct 30, 3 p.m. inappropriate
RE: From A Student's Point of View: Annie, I think you just made the opposing argument's case. You just got done telling us all of the wonderful things that have happened at Garfield - WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE REMODEL. In short, you've told us that all of this success and these accolades were possible WITHOUT the expense of the remodel of the building. You're telling us that not only CAN we get these sorts of results without having to spend $100 million, we actually HAVE been getting these sorts of results - and have been getting them reliably for years.
You argument tells us that we might as well save our money.
Posted Wed, Oct 31, 12:11 a.m. inappropriate
RE: From A Student's Point of View: Yes, but I also told you that it's not possible to keep getting cold from trash. It's not a sustainable environment, and if you read my comment, you'll see at the end where I point out that it's not reasonable to expect us to stay in the Seattle Schools and earn them these accolades if they can't be bothered to give us the buildings we deserve.
Garfield's a good school, but it can still be better. There are always improvements to be made, and a nice building will help these improvements.
Posted Wed, Oct 31, 12:12 a.m. inappropriate
RE: From A Student's Point of View: I'm sorry, that should be gold from trash.
Posted Wed, Oct 31, 6:54 a.m. inappropriate
Renovation ain't cheap: I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding when people think about school construction. Capital funding for schools and educational funding for school programs do not come out of the same pot of money. It seems as if, when the "average guy" thinks of these two things, there's a misimpression that they do. Absolutely...the educational system needs to be first-rate as well as facilities. But one is not a trade-off for the other. The bill is coming due on capital funding for long-ignored replacements and/or upgrades to old structures. I grew up in the Eastmont School District (E. Wenatchee) and the newest of its elementary schools came on line as I was entering first grade in the late 60s. It has replaced its high school and added a new intermediate school in the intervening years, but sometimes I wonder how my old elementary and the several that preceded it are faring. And when I compare that to urban schools that are decades older, of course they're nearing the end of their life cycle. This is a cost borne today out of the long-ignored or deferred projects of yesterday.
Posted Wed, Oct 31, 2:36 p.m. inappropriate
The Facilities policies are part of the problem: The effective working policy on facilities at Seattle Public Schools is to defer all maintenance until the structure is so decrepit that there is no option other than replacement.
The District has a number of buildings which are essentially uninhabitable. They were allowed to deteriorate as a conscious choice.