First, a disclaimer: I am writing this column as a taxpayer in the Warsaw school district, not as a reporter.

Now.

I attended the Warsaw school board meeting Monday, when the board received the feasibility study from Odle, McGuire and Shook Corp. I have problems with just about every aspect of this issue.

I was surprised at the number of WCS patrons present at Monday's meeting. I expected the lecture room at Warsaw Community High School to be standing-room-only, bursting at the seams with interested patrons and parents. Instead, there were approximately 50 people there, which was commendable for them, but disgraceful for everyone else.

It was even worse last summer when the school board passed its $44.5-million 2001 budget - not one member of the public was present. Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are at stake here, the meetings are always announced ahead of time, but no one seems to care. Why?

I would think the education of our children would be a primary concern to everyone in the school district. After all, an educated populace, aside from all the other benefits, attracts all sorts of industries that create all sorts of jobs.

And the school budget, including possible new school buildings, also is the biggest share of the property tax rate, which I think would interest just about every property owner.

(Of course, I've always believed that education is valuable for its own sake, but that doesn't seem to be a very popular view nowadays.)

Nevertheless, the 50-plus dedicated WCS parents and grandparents Monday heard the representatives from Odle, McGuire and Shook describe the three options available to solving the "problems" of Silver Lake, Claypool, Atwood and Jefferson schools. For good measure, OMS also threw in a track, football stadium and auditorium for the high school.

Doesn't this bother anyone else? OMS is but one of many architectural firms in Indiana that specialize in schools, both new and renovated. It also is the firm that designed Harrison and Eisenhower elementaries and the high school. I assume it's a done deal that OMS will get the contract for designing whatever renovation or new school building is decided in the future.

So to have OMS perform a study to advise the school board on whether to build schools is kind of like giving a recovering alcoholic the keys to a liquor store. I mean, really, would it be to their advantage to tell the board that the schools are fine and not to touch them? I think not.

Besides, this is the same firm that designed the high school and is now coming back and telling us what we should do to update the high school, all the while emphasizing the need for a "long-term" solution. They claimed Monday that 15 years (they did the study for the high school in 1986) is long-term. I would say that if the length of time to educate approximately one child is considered long-term in the educational world, then no wonder we have problems.

My last concern has to do with the premise of the study itself.

The OMS team based its "findings and conclusions" on the premise that the school corporation should pursue "educational equity" in all of its buildings. An admirable goal, but I never thought the quality of education was dependent on the building.

As a matter of fact, I always thought the quality of education depended more on the quality of the teaching staff and the support of the parents than on the building itself.

Or, as an acquaintance recently said, "If the teachers are good enough, kids can learn in a tent."

I can understand that we need safe buildings, access for handicapped kids and staff and buildings that are structurally sound. I can even understand the need for a computer lab, or at least updated electrical systems to enable classrooms to have computers in them.

But I would think that a sparkling, expensive new building would not guarantee equity in education. In fact, if equity in education is the true goal, then the kids in the smaller schools - Silver Lake, Claypool, Atwood - where the classes are smaller and kids get more individual attention from teachers, would have a distinct advantage over the kids in the larger, prettier schools.

And if a beautiful new building means a better education, then why did Atwood Elementary have the highest ISTEP scores in third and sixth grades last year? Silver Lake's were low and the rest were in the middle, so it would appear that building size, appearance and condition have nothing, or at least little, to do with the quality of education offered inside those buildings.

I think the board, no matter what they say in public, already has something in mind for what they want to do. (They, of course, will deny this, but who knows what is discussed in all those executive sessions that precede almost every public board meeting?) I also think, however, that if the people who are footing the bill for whatever is done - the taxpayers - go to the meetings, ask enough questions and make enough of a fuss, the board will have no choice but to listen to the public.

Remember what happened to year-round schooling?

And then if the board goes ahead and does what it wants anyway, it will have to justify itself and its decisions to the taxpayers. These people are, after all, our elected representatives.

So treat them that way. Call them. Come to the meetings. Make your feelings known, one way or the other. Don't allow the school board operate in a vacuum, and don't sit there and do nothing and then complain later about what others did in your absence.

It's a community thing. So treat it that way! [[In-content Ad]]