Opinion written by Melissa McNair-King, guest contributor to VPK.
Last night, the Pulaski County School Board presented its plans for a new, consolidated Pulaski County Middle School. It is a beautiful plan, with tremendous upgrades compared to the current Pulaski Middle and Dublin Middle Schools. The proposed school will offer up-to-date accessibility and safety measures. It will include athletic and arts facilities, STEM and Agricultural labs, and areas for collaborative learning. And yes – it will even provide air conditioned classrooms! All of this will happen for a median tax increase of less than $100 per year! That sounds like a no-brainer to me. As the hashtag goes…#justbuildit.
But somehow – I left the meeting feeling ashamed and sad. The presentation was filled with comments like: “This is a modest proposal.” “The average square foot per pupil in Virginia is 166. Our design would provide 149 square feet per pupil.” “This isn’t the Taj Mahal.” “Here are the pictures of Page Middle School. They had a more generous budget; your school won’t look quite the same; this just gives you an idea.”
And here’s what I heard: “Don’t worry – we promise to build a school that is slightly below average. We will provide for our students something slightly worse than what the average Virginia student has.” If I hear it, then our teenagers hear it. You are below average. You deserve something modest. This isn’t the Taj Mahal.
I wish our students heard something more. I want them to hear that they deserve the best school in the state of Virginia. I want them to hear that we believe in them, that they can be successful, that we have confidence in their futures. I want them to hear that the possibilities are only as limited as their imagination and work ethic. I want them to hear that if the average student in Virginia has 166 square feet, then we’re going to give them 170.
Yes, let’s build the school. But let’s change our tone.
Thanks, Melissa for your comment! Sorry that Jennifer and I had a conflict last night and couldn't be at the important meeting. You suggest in your essay, I suppose coming out of information at the meeting, that we could built the PCMS for "a median tax increase of less than $100 per year." Then I just read in the SWT that how to fund the project is up to the Board of Supervisors, pardon me from scratching my head a bit? From whence cometh of the "less that $100 per year?" I read about "wrapped debt" and wondered is that issue something that the BOS should be discussing? I am a STRONG supporter of a new PCMS. The sooner, the better. I have been in local government long enough, however, to know that there are no easy decisions about financing, and that we in the County have many financial irons in the fire. I have heard no discussion (maybe there was last night) about how to handle the needs of a 40 year old County High School -- soon to be upon us. My comments are directed to the public and not to you. :) John
Hey John - here's where I got the number...part of the school board's proposal to the Board of Supervisors is a bond referendum at 8 cents per $100 assessed property value. It was shared that the median home value in Pulaski Co is $121,000. For a $120,000 home, the tax increase would amount to $8/month or $96 annually. And no, there was no discussion about the needs of the High School last night. The purpose of the meeting was to present to the public what the School Board is recommending to Supervisors regarding the middle school.
Unlimited wants always collide with limited resources. I would like a clearer overall picture of the finances. While a $100 a year SEEMS like a no-brainer, there is the question of HOW LONG? My initial search on "Wrap" financing didn't impress me as anything I would ever do. I'm skeptical of the many ways to get a low monthly payment, but long term cost is much higher. A proper budget should include realistic maintenance as well, that's how we got to this point. Speaking of realistic, what is the plan, and costs associated with the abandoned buildings formerly used as schools. I see that as one of the most detrimental aspects of our town's current situation. The skyline is already littered with decrepit buildings. Let us also address a somewhat intangible aspect of a community's versus a county, identity when schools consolidate and more people are drawn AWAY from town, not to mention transportation costs in time and money. Per the square footage per student- my personal thought is that teachers do the teaching, not the classroom. How about spending education dollars on people not buildings? I just don't see 4 square feet as ruining a student's life. How that number is calculated could be clarified. (How about a chart with dollars/different student head counts/square foot of space?) I believe it's more critical what is in a classroom, than how spacious it should be. Wishes, wants and needs have to balanced with financial reality and responsibility.
Mike - Your points are well taken and I hope that you've directed them towards the Board of Supervisors and School Board, too. That's a message that needs to be heard. I think a proper maintenance budget as well as plans for what should happen with the soon-to-be empty middle schools is essential. On the square footage for pupil issue, I think Melissa was talking more about how the conversation last week was framed and less about concrete footage. There were children and youth in the audience listening while an architect and others emphasized over and over again variations on the refrain of, "Don't worry, this plan is slightly less than what the average student in Virginia gets." We all understand why the School Board felt the need to frame the issue in this way (as an attempt to preemptively head off the naysayers who say we can't afford a new school). But what I read in Melissa's column is a reminder that we aren't just communicating to the Andy McCreadys and Jonathan Sweets of the world in these conversations. We're also communicating to the young people who understand intuitively that a budget is a statement of values. And if we are budgeting for and making the case for a school that is below average it might communicate to them that we think that they aren't worth that much either. Not for nothing, we're also communicating to other residents in the county who don't tend to show up for local elections. If all they hear/read about is a proposal for a "barely-meets-minimum-standards" middle school, I don't think they're going to be inspired to show up to support the referendum in the same way that an exciting proposal might get people excited. Again, I don't think an exciting proposal has to mean an overly expensive budget. It could be a proposal that is exciting because lots of people had some say in developing it or because it meets community needs in creative ways. I actually think our newly proposed middle school does some of that already and if we emphasized those things more, it might communicate a different message than what we heard last week.