posted by Mike Madison at 8:02 PM /
It is unfortunate that important education issues facing Mt. Lebanon and the Mt. Lebanon School District are bubbling to the public surface at precisely the moment when the attention of most citizens is turning to holiday celebrations.
So, it is all the more important that those of you who read this blog regularly forward this post to your friends and neighbors. The time has come to make some noise. Your School Board has made it clear that it is not interested in critical thinking about the wisest use of your tax dollars or the wisest path towards restoring the educational excellence that all residents of this Municipality should expect.
Here is a brief recap of the events so far:
Well over a year ago, the School Board began investigating options in connection with substantial renovation and/or replacement of the high school campus. As anyone with even a passing familiarity with the high school facility knows, it is in dire need of significant attention, if not necessarily outright replacement.
As the School Board review proceeded, it became clear quickly that even the cheapest comprehensive repair would cost in excess of $100 million, all costs included. That is not money that the School District has in the bank; that is money that would have to be borrowed.
Over the last three months, the international financial system has collapsed. Even before that series of events, it was far from clear that Mt. Lebanon could or should afford to borrow more than $100 million in the near future. The School District already has one of the highest debt levels in the state, and the taxpaying citizens of the Municipality already look at their annual school tax bills with absolute dread. The collapse of international financial markets has made some construction materials cheaper, and it has made borrowing money cheaper -- in some respects. In many other respects, borrowing is more expensive and more harrowing than it was before.
Enter School Director James Fraasch. Back in mid-November, he presented to his Board colleagues the results of his own independent research into the costs of the proposed high school renovation project, along with a proposal to delay the full-scale replacement of the building while simultaneously affordably addressing the most pressing repair issues -- the roof, and the heating system. The purpose of the proposal, which he later made public on his own weblog, was to stimulate Board and public discussion regarding the wisest use of public money in connection with the schools.
For his efforts, James Fraasch was publicly ridiculed by his Board colleagues. That's strike one.
One of those colleagues specifically noted that the financial figures that he used should have been vetted by District accountants and advisors before being released to the public.
At the recent School Board meeting, James Fraasch sought Board support to pursue precisely the action that his colleague criticized him for failing to undertake in the first place. As Bill Matthews notes in a comment to this post, James Fraasch's suggestion that professionals scrutinize his plan was ruled out of order, on procedural grounds. That's strike two.
What is strike three?
Over the last month, I have had conversation after conversation with friends and Mt. Lebanon neighbors about the high school renovation project and the School Board's attitude regarding James Fraasch's proposal. To a soul -- to a soul! -- every single person I have spoken to agrees that the time is right to reconsider the obviously substantial expense associated with the high school renovation project. To a soul, they are outraged that the School Board has reacted with narrow, closed minds to the proposal. The only people to have spoken up publicly in support of the Board are individuals who are personally affiliated with School Directors who have criticized James Fraasch.
Meanwhile, in other but related conversations, twice yesterday I heard from people who reported the tenor of recent conversations involving families who considered moving to Mt. Lebanon but who have chosen not to move here. The once-vaunted reputation of Mt. Lebanon's school system is called into doubt by Upper St. Clair, which already built a new high school, and by reports of drug abuse among Mt. Lebanon high school students.
I don't care much about Upper St. Clair envy, but it bothers me to hear that people are choosing not to move to Mt. Lebanon because they think that the schools aren't worth it. Even among people who don't know about drug problems at the high school (they exist; what wealthy suburban high school doesn't have them?), the consensus among those I talk to is that Mt. Lebanon schools are doing a pretty good job of educating the pretty smart kids. Not the brilliant kids, and not the less than pretty smart kids. For the citizens of Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average, the Mt. Lebanon School District is doing just fine.
Houston, we have a problem.
Mt. Lebanon's schools were once the jewel of this town, the reason that families moved here, the reason that they stayed, the reason that property values went up and stayed up, the reason that neighbors and neighborhoods took root and flourished.
Mt. Lebanon's schools still should be all those things. The reality today is that our schools are struggling to do that. The battle over a new high school is an emblem of the problem.
Note that I write that the battle over the high school is an emblem of the problem. The high school facility is not the problem itself. The School District might, in time, find the public support that I believe is now lacking, and build a brand new building over the next couple of years. Problems with the School District and the schools would remain.
Try this exercise.
Suppose that the School District could really borrow $150 million over the next three years. What should it spend that money on? In my hypothetical -- and this is a complete hypothetical, intended only to provoke comment and discussion -- which of these two options is more likely to restore Mt. Lebanon's lustre as a destination for families, as a superior educational alternative to Upper St. Clair, as a vessel of rising real estate values, and as the suburban jewel in Southwestern PA's crown?
One possibility: Spend all of it on a brand new high school campus, with fantastic facilities for educational programs, extracurricular activities, and community functions.
A second possibility: Spend half of it on a modernized and safe high school campus, with facilities that are state of the art for decades worth of educational programming and adequate -- adequate, only -- for a meaningful but focused range of extracurricular activities. Spend the other half on a substantive commitment to excellence in teaching and learning, serving the full range of needs of Mt. Lebanon families. Spend the money on more and better teachers (and better pay for the junior faculty) in core academic areas -- languages, including English; history and the arts; natural science; and social sciences. Spend the money in all of the schools, not just the high school. Ensure fully adequate support for children across the range of ability and achievement, from services for special needs kids to support for kids who are not college-bound to real support for exceptionally talented kids.
Strike three, to me, would be choosing the first option.
Does the high school need a tremendous amount of work? Yes. Does it need to be replaced? In an ideal world, yes. Even in our actual non-ideal world, probably yes again. Does it need to be comprehensively and renovated right now, without recognizing that the real purpose of the School District should be to recover the educational mission that Mt. Lebanon once pursued? I'd like to hear the Board's views and the community's views on that question, without anyone's opinion -- presented civilly -- being ruled "out of order."
"Both" is not an option in my hypothetical universe. Choose one and only one option. What do you think?
So, it is all the more important that those of you who read this blog regularly forward this post to your friends and neighbors. The time has come to make some noise. Your School Board has made it clear that it is not interested in critical thinking about the wisest use of your tax dollars or the wisest path towards restoring the educational excellence that all residents of this Municipality should expect.
Here is a brief recap of the events so far:
Well over a year ago, the School Board began investigating options in connection with substantial renovation and/or replacement of the high school campus. As anyone with even a passing familiarity with the high school facility knows, it is in dire need of significant attention, if not necessarily outright replacement.
As the School Board review proceeded, it became clear quickly that even the cheapest comprehensive repair would cost in excess of $100 million, all costs included. That is not money that the School District has in the bank; that is money that would have to be borrowed.
Over the last three months, the international financial system has collapsed. Even before that series of events, it was far from clear that Mt. Lebanon could or should afford to borrow more than $100 million in the near future. The School District already has one of the highest debt levels in the state, and the taxpaying citizens of the Municipality already look at their annual school tax bills with absolute dread. The collapse of international financial markets has made some construction materials cheaper, and it has made borrowing money cheaper -- in some respects. In many other respects, borrowing is more expensive and more harrowing than it was before.
Enter School Director James Fraasch. Back in mid-November, he presented to his Board colleagues the results of his own independent research into the costs of the proposed high school renovation project, along with a proposal to delay the full-scale replacement of the building while simultaneously affordably addressing the most pressing repair issues -- the roof, and the heating system. The purpose of the proposal, which he later made public on his own weblog, was to stimulate Board and public discussion regarding the wisest use of public money in connection with the schools.
For his efforts, James Fraasch was publicly ridiculed by his Board colleagues. That's strike one.
One of those colleagues specifically noted that the financial figures that he used should have been vetted by District accountants and advisors before being released to the public.
At the recent School Board meeting, James Fraasch sought Board support to pursue precisely the action that his colleague criticized him for failing to undertake in the first place. As Bill Matthews notes in a comment to this post, James Fraasch's suggestion that professionals scrutinize his plan was ruled out of order, on procedural grounds. That's strike two.
What is strike three?
Over the last month, I have had conversation after conversation with friends and Mt. Lebanon neighbors about the high school renovation project and the School Board's attitude regarding James Fraasch's proposal. To a soul -- to a soul! -- every single person I have spoken to agrees that the time is right to reconsider the obviously substantial expense associated with the high school renovation project. To a soul, they are outraged that the School Board has reacted with narrow, closed minds to the proposal. The only people to have spoken up publicly in support of the Board are individuals who are personally affiliated with School Directors who have criticized James Fraasch.
Meanwhile, in other but related conversations, twice yesterday I heard from people who reported the tenor of recent conversations involving families who considered moving to Mt. Lebanon but who have chosen not to move here. The once-vaunted reputation of Mt. Lebanon's school system is called into doubt by Upper St. Clair, which already built a new high school, and by reports of drug abuse among Mt. Lebanon high school students.
I don't care much about Upper St. Clair envy, but it bothers me to hear that people are choosing not to move to Mt. Lebanon because they think that the schools aren't worth it. Even among people who don't know about drug problems at the high school (they exist; what wealthy suburban high school doesn't have them?), the consensus among those I talk to is that Mt. Lebanon schools are doing a pretty good job of educating the pretty smart kids. Not the brilliant kids, and not the less than pretty smart kids. For the citizens of Lake Wobegon, where all the kids are above average, the Mt. Lebanon School District is doing just fine.
Houston, we have a problem.
Mt. Lebanon's schools were once the jewel of this town, the reason that families moved here, the reason that they stayed, the reason that property values went up and stayed up, the reason that neighbors and neighborhoods took root and flourished.
Mt. Lebanon's schools still should be all those things. The reality today is that our schools are struggling to do that. The battle over a new high school is an emblem of the problem.
Note that I write that the battle over the high school is an emblem of the problem. The high school facility is not the problem itself. The School District might, in time, find the public support that I believe is now lacking, and build a brand new building over the next couple of years. Problems with the School District and the schools would remain.
Try this exercise.
Suppose that the School District could really borrow $150 million over the next three years. What should it spend that money on? In my hypothetical -- and this is a complete hypothetical, intended only to provoke comment and discussion -- which of these two options is more likely to restore Mt. Lebanon's lustre as a destination for families, as a superior educational alternative to Upper St. Clair, as a vessel of rising real estate values, and as the suburban jewel in Southwestern PA's crown?
One possibility: Spend all of it on a brand new high school campus, with fantastic facilities for educational programs, extracurricular activities, and community functions.
A second possibility: Spend half of it on a modernized and safe high school campus, with facilities that are state of the art for decades worth of educational programming and adequate -- adequate, only -- for a meaningful but focused range of extracurricular activities. Spend the other half on a substantive commitment to excellence in teaching and learning, serving the full range of needs of Mt. Lebanon families. Spend the money on more and better teachers (and better pay for the junior faculty) in core academic areas -- languages, including English; history and the arts; natural science; and social sciences. Spend the money in all of the schools, not just the high school. Ensure fully adequate support for children across the range of ability and achievement, from services for special needs kids to support for kids who are not college-bound to real support for exceptionally talented kids.
Strike three, to me, would be choosing the first option.
Does the high school need a tremendous amount of work? Yes. Does it need to be replaced? In an ideal world, yes. Even in our actual non-ideal world, probably yes again. Does it need to be comprehensively and renovated right now, without recognizing that the real purpose of the School District should be to recover the educational mission that Mt. Lebanon once pursued? I'd like to hear the Board's views and the community's views on that question, without anyone's opinion -- presented civilly -- being ruled "out of order."
"Both" is not an option in my hypothetical universe. Choose one and only one option. What do you think?
9 Comments:
I was remiss earlier in not pointing out that at the December 15 Board meeting Mr. Silhol after dispatching with James’ motion, did ask for the Board's okay to have James discuss his alternative plan with the Board at its January 12, 2009 meeting. The Board agreed.
The rest of the story is that the Design Advisory Team will meet the previous week on January 6. The Design Advisory Team is composed of Community members, Faculty and Staff and evolved out of the original Educational Specifications Team.
The meeting announcement for 01/06/09 indicates there will be a "presentation on the cost estimates for the High School project based on the work that has taken place over the past month between the architects and the construction manager. They will also give (the team) an update on the work they’ve done on the project to date." Because of the timing, James' salternative will not be part of this presentation.
It is worth noting, the 01/06 meeting is likely to be a test drive for broader Community forums to begin January 14, just two days after the Board will discuss James' ideas.
I favor option 2 - a split of the money between the high school project and education generally.
I find it hard to believe that the high school building is completely useless. A healthy majority of of us live in homes as old as or older than the high school. Over time, we replace the roof, the plumbing, the HVAC and we do so with savings, planning, borrowing and budgeting. Rarely do we bulldoze it and start over. Are single family homes easier and less expensive to renovate and maintain than a high school - sure. But the concepts are the same. You plan, you budget, and you save. Plus, you use the power to tax to pay for it, which is fine if you do so wisely and after using the first 3 steps.
My fear, as I've said before, is that we will bog down the process with meeting after meeting and nothing will get done. As we all know, board members are only temporary, and on projects as large as this, members will come and go during the process (we're already on the 3rd president since this began).
I favor Mike's option 2, but in my opinion doing nothing is failure.
A quick search of the Howard Hanna website showed me that THERE ARE 231 HOMES FOR SALE in Mt. Lebanon between $100,000 and $750,000. I would be curious to have a local real estate agent chime in to inform me (us) if this number is above or below the norm but, to be honest, I would be immensely surprised if this number wasn't on the high side of the curve. I have personally never seen so many 'for sale' signs around town and common sense tells me that that does not bode well for our community.
I have never taken a complete tour of the entire high school and yes, in a perfect world, I would love Mt. Lebanon to have the finest facilities in the state to go along with many of the finest teachers. But we don't live in that world. The pressing issues with the current building, as I have witnessed them, relate to the following.
1) The roof
2) The boilers
3) The athletic facilities that include the pool, the main gym and the high school fieldhouse
4) Asbestos-lines pipes
Fix the roof, replace the boilers and don't touch the pipes (asbestos only causes harm when it is RELEASED into the air via disruption.) But please knock out the wall on the west side of the pool and completely start over there. The pool is an embarrassment and it is used as much - if not more - by so many facets of the community. Same goes for the gym and the football fieldhouse. I'm not an engineer or architect but, from a totally personal perspective, if these things were done and complete in short order it would convince me, if I had kids and were looking at one of the forementioned 231 properties, to buy here AND it would convince me, as a current homeowner of twelve years in Mt. Lebanon, to stay and not keep looking at the Howard Hanna website to see if something new has been put on the market south of Connor/Gilkeson Road.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah to all!
Bob Reich, Jr.
To say that "Your School Board has made it clear that it is not interested in critical thinking about the wisest use of your tax dollars or the wisest path towards restoring the educational excellence that all residents of this Municipality should expect." is not really fair. Mrs. Cappucci and Mr. Remely have worked hard to chair the board committee regarding the renovation. I see nothing that would support the notion that they are not using critical thinking skills or planning on unwise spending. Not one board member has publicly said they have come to any decision regarding the possible renovation of the high school.
Just because someone doesn't support Mr. Fraasch's idea doesn't make them "unwise".
According to some of Mr. Remely's comments at the last meeting it seems like Mr. Fraasch's proposal was perhaps not addressing the depth of the problems...i.e. replacing the boilers could cause too much pressure on the old pipe system...leading to pipe repair (if even able to repair) which would involve asbestos removal before the pipe repair could even be done.
If Mr. Fraasch's idea really has merit that should reveal itself in full board discussion on Jan. 12.
The "not interested in critical thinking" comment was and is directed, properly, at the public reaction by several Board members to James Fraasch's proposal. That proposal may be right in every respect. It may be mistaken in some or in all of its assumptions.
The proper, respectful response to that proposal would and should have been, "We welcome all thoughtful, critical commentary on the high school renovation project, and this proposal deserves careful scrutiny to see if it has merit."
Instead, one Board member publicly accused James Fraasch of offering a proposal that is "irresponsible" -- because it proposes delaying the project. That sounds to me like at least one board member has made a decision already.
And one more thing, while I'm thinking of it (this issue gets me going to an unusual degree, as you can tell):
The vast majority of the time, I join the chorus of Mt. Lebanon citizens who rightfully thank the people who serve the Municipality as volunteers on Boards, Commissions, and so on. This is almost always thankless work, and it often brings out the worst in people who criticize the effort for no good reason.
So, I believe that I have said it before but I can say it again: All of the School Board members who have worked over the last several months and years deserve acknowledgement and appreciation for their hard work.
However, the fact that they have worked hard doesn't mean that they are immune from criticism. Here, I hammer on the point precisely because I believe that the criticism is justified. I respect Dave Franklin's point that a decision needs to be made; we should not keep talking just for the sake of talking. But in this case more than in any other, it's important to get the decision as right as it can be. If that means reversing course and changing the analysis of the last nine months, so be it.
To be clear, again, the point is not that the Board members have come or are coming to a mistaken conclusion. The point is that relevant information regarding how to proceed is in front of the Board and the public, and neither that information nor its source is receiving the respect that is due, if only (though not only) because of the magnitude of the commitment that any decision involves.
To use an analogy:
No one gets an "A" in my courses just because they work hard at an assignment. People can work hard on something and come to a foolish result. You get an "A" if you show good judgment and come to a well-reasoned conclusion.
Okay...I guess my point is if it is a well reasoned conclusion its merit will be revealed upon discussion.
I did not hear the comment about the proposal being irresponsible. Was that in reference to the content of Mr. Fraasch's ideas or the nature of its presentation?
Perhaps if Mr. Fraasch's ideas had come earlier, or in the usual fashion in which proposals are presented, there would not be such a fuss?
Regardless, it seems as though there will be discussion.
I agree that service on this, and many boards, is thankless and difficult.
Even when I disagree with the results I do appreciate the service board members give to the community.
I've met James, and I like James, and I applaud his willingness to roll up his sleeves and get elected to the School Board. But various administrations have been dealing with the vexing question of what to do about the high school for most of the eleven years that I have lived here.
It's clear that the School Board is up against a "salary cap" in that it has to pay for unfunded state and federal mandates, that it serves a community that has little land left to develop, and that the amount it can increase taxes year to year is limited by statute.
There is no guarantee that a limited renovation would cost only $10 million to $15 million, nor that a series of changes would not lead to a series of unintended consequences that might cause greater damage to the aging structure. In any case, all you would be doing is pushing the decision to build a new school or complete a more extensive renovation onto another administration. The $115 million pricetag you are looking at today is likely to increase by 3% to 6% for every year that the community puts off dealing with it.
It's never going to be easy to afford this project and the annual operating needs of the district. But rather than create more reasons not to move forward and make some decision, let the issue come to a vote, and then the voters can pass judgment on the board when the next election rolls around.
The $115 million figure is actually $132 million which will become significantly higher due to cost overruns and soft costs like engineering costs and furnishings. My prediction is that the vote for a new high school will pass 7-2.
The community has been left out of 2 major discussions-December 18th and January 6th. These discussions are critical for deciding the option. Please note that December 18th is right before Christmas and January 6th is right after the holidays. Reaching school board members during that time is impossible since many are on vacation. Although the group meeting on January 6th has no board members on it, they have been hand picked by the board in order to be their mouthpiece.
The secret meetings really need to stop. There is a lot going on about which many members of the community are not aware. You really need to do a lot of research in order to gather much information. The results of these secret meetings are going to jam a major capital project down the taxpayers throats without public input.
James Fraasch is simply trying to look out for the taxpayers' money. For that he needs to be applauded. He's been called an irresponsible child in public meetings. I shudder to think what he's been called behind closed doors.
Post a Comment
<< Home