[Vision2020] Governors New Clothes

[Donovan Arnold]

JFord,

I really hope that if you work with children you soon develop the ability to 
listen to people rather than assuming there intentions and understandings.

First, I do support our children and school district. I went to Moscow High 
School. And I support renovations. I hope at least this gets through to you 
if nothing else.

Second, let me point out that the high school is NOT worn out, the oldest 
part of the Moscow High School is only 67 years old (build 1938 as Moscow 
Middle School). Are you suggesting we throw out buildings that are only 67 
years old? Should we throw away 3/4 of UI and every city owned building? The 
other two parts of the High School are 37 (1968) and only 14 (1991). That 
makes the average age of the High School only 40 years old. Not to mention 
we have put millions of dollars into that high school to maintain it along 
the way. In fact, we are still paying off the loans for it. You would know 
this if you ever went inside the high school or attended it. It looks much 
like the way it did when I attended the High School.

The complaints about the High School is not that it is old, or past its 
time. The complains are that it is overcrowded, even though the population 
in the High School is less then when I went there. I was in the largest 
class that high school has ever seen between 1990-1992. It was not ever 
overcrowded. Sorry, but it was not. SO it is not old, not dilapidated, not 
falling apart, it is not, and it certainly is not overcrowded.
I will admit it needs some TLC. Nobody backs the idea that the school is not 
maintained and in one piece, you can ask Bob the principle and Annette 
Erickson. They will NOT back your statements that the school is falling 
apart or not a worthy building.

Next, if you think that the building is old and falling apart, why would you 
ever support putting other students in there? That is not a kind or loving 
thing to do.


Fourth, I was not referring to the roads as being responsible for the deaths 
of drunk drives, nor did I ever imply this. If you have been around more 
than a year, you too would have lost a friend or two, or at least a car, to 
the dangerous and narrow Highway 95.

Finally, it is the children that I care about. I want a bond levy that 
addresses the needs of the students, not the desires and wishes for a new 
high school. No logical reason has been yet given to ignore the renovation 
needs of the Junior High and build a new high school instead. No reason has 
been given for this. The Junior High's electrical system is going out, it 
needs to be replaced. West Park needs more renovation then is being provided 
in the levy. McDonald needs expansion. If you are going to replace a school, 
should you not replace the one that needs the MOST replacing, Russell? Why 
does that seem so difficult to understand. Why does it not make more sense 
to you to replace the school that needs the replacing?

If they do build a new high school they should make it for grades  6-12 
because I do not know how we can teach Junior High students in a building 
with no electricity. I also wonder who is going to attend the High School if 
they cannot get past the 6th grade because there is no Junior High. Students 
can and do learn in 40 year old high schools, but they cannot learn to read 
in the dark. Maybe the plan is for them to go to McDonald where the children 
are outside because there are no classrooms.

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold


Donovan - I am sure you realize that the roads are not what killed the 
students, especially the ones that have died this year...it is alcohol, 
drugs, bad decisions, speed, etc.  Yes, we need better roads but then what 
city doesn't?  I just think it is so unfair that you blame everything except 
those who are truly responsible - the students/bad drivers.

The Junior High is very overcrowded...just where do you suppose we put them 
when they hit the high school? a high school building whose time has come 
and gone?  We have the Alternative High kids in a very inadequate building - 
it does not meet all the needs they have.  Using the old high school for 
them is a positive step.

I grew up in a town that had a 4-year high school.  To date, it is still 
that way even though the town has grown over 65% of what it was when I was 
there.  The fight to build a new school there has been just as long and just 
as hard as this one appears to be.  It took over 4 votes to get it passed.  
Now that it is, people see the wisdom of the building and are supporting not 
only the progress but the children that will be benefiting from it.

Again, I ask if you care to talk to the teachers?  Talk to the 
Administrators that have to work in the buildings covered by this levy?  Or 
the children that have to go to college without the necessary background to 
start on an even kiel?  No, I am not talking about fly fishing, (that is 
just a smoke screen being used to distract from the real issues) but rather 
computer, school basics, physical well being our children need to compete 
and succeed in any college outside/inside of Idaho?

I realize it is very difficult to be on the outside looking in, trying to 
see if something is worth doing or not, but you might try putting on the 
shoes of those of us who work/teach/support/have kids in these schools and 
see what we see.  It can be a real eye opener.