[Vision2020] Public Education & Development

[tbertruss at aol.com]

All:
 
While some have suggested the debate on the levy and associated issues regarding public education should stop now that the levy vote has passed, I could not disagree more.  The issues being parsed are still alive and relevant to the present and future of public education in MSD.  Furthermore, given the nature of the debate that occurred over the failed levy, it is clear that there was not enough information organizing in a comprehensible, comprehensive and verifiable manner regarding all the important issues the levy impacted.  This suggests that rather than dropping these issues for discussion, an ongoing debate and exploration of what is best for Moscow and public education in MSD is needed.  And that MSD needs a much better method of informing voters of all the details involved in planning for MSD, answering objections and concerns as the plans are underway, altering these plans if necessary, when possible, to accommodate voter's concerns.
 
Many of the opponents of the levy raised issues that are going to remain problems without a new high school.  Traffic and development in Moscow will continue to expand.  Rather than making a new high school the target of these problems, would it not be wise to push for a better comprehensive plan regulating development and traffic, a plan that would limit the negative impacts of a new school?  Could not a new high school be built and developed with the goal of reducing traffic, expensive fossil fuel use and energy consumption?  A high school with solar panels on the roof and school buses running on alternative fuels or energy?  Why not use a new high school to set an example of how to solve problems of development, environmental problems and resource use, rather than blaming a proposed new high school for creating them?  
 
It seems some of the opponents of this levy used public education as a scapegoat upon which to blame problems that are being created by many forces in Latah County that the voters cannot vote on, or at least not so directly.  For example, we can't vote directly, nor can the residents of Pullman, for that matter, to block Pullman from allowing a Wal-Mart Supercenter, an economic development that can obviously impact Moscow profoundly.
 
Consider the objection of students driving to high school at the more remote location, adding traffic, using expensive fossil fuels, demanding a large parking lot, and leaving the students without cars lower on the popularity scale.  This of course already happens to some extent with Moscow High where it is, though we can assume it would become more of an issue at a more remote high school.  To solve this problem, why not ban high school students from driving their cars to school, except in special cases?  They could bike, take a bus, or even, (gasp!) walk.  I lived about a mile from Moscow High in the late 1960s, and I never drove a car to school.  I either biked, walked or took the bus.  The solution to this problem is so obvious I am at a loss to explain why it has vexed so many.  
 
We have been debating the need for improved physical education resources for MSD, while the obvious health benefits and reduced traffic problems that would result if students biked or walked to school due to a ban on driving vehicles was not highlighted as an option?  Perhaps there is a concern that if high school students were not allowed to drive their cars to school, a revolt of dangerous proportions among youth would create chaos.  Or perhaps our addiction to cars and fossil fuels is so taken for granted that it is regarded as an unalienable right that minors must drive cars to school, creating traffic problems and wasting critical resources.  Or perhaps some thought our streets and sidewalks too dangerous for high school students to be biking or walking to school?  What a sad commentary on Moscow if this is regarded as the truth!  Or could it be the extra time it might take to walk or bike to school is not considered practical for the high pressure life of the Type A pe!
 rsonality super achieving high school student who cannot waste a moment while rushing to school?  Good grief, what a life!
 
Problems with agricultural chemicals near a school?  The answer to this is to block the needs of public education?  Insist on stopping the spraying of dangerous chemicals near populated areas!
 
Too much authoritarian control of students in a closed campus?  If parents were involved with their children and the school, it should be possible to work these problems out.  But to insist a plan for a closed campus for the younger students is a reason to give up on a needed new high school is like, well, throwing the baby out with the bath water! 
 
A current lack of funding for teachers and textbooks?  Work on solving this problem, rather than blocking facilities needed for education.
 
Worried the new high school is still too small to accommodate the number of students?  Plan for the new high school to be expanded when needed, which I think the plans for the suggested new high school location included, did it not?
 
Of course, if the argument boils down to the community not having the money to fund a new school, with all the financial worries impacting Moscow, then any and all arguments pro and con are overruled by the bottom line.
 
But consider that if MSD grows in student numbers along with the growth and development of Moscow, a new high school site will become even more necessary.  Then if land close to Moscow's core has been developed already, a new high school site will be even further away from downtown.  Of course it has been suggested that taking land near Moscow's downtown from owners who may be urged to sell can make room for a high school larger than the current one, but there are many problems with this idea. 
 
Those who objected to the new MSD high school based on being NIMBY, or for theological reasons, will not be swayed by any argument.  One groups wants to keep their neighborhood as it is without a new high school nearby, the other will oppose all public education regardless.  
 
Those who want to keep the downtown core of Moscow in possession of the high school will in the long run lose this argument.  If we could really keep Moscow as a zero growth city, this argument would be valid.  But the writing is on the wall that Moscow will grow and grow till... who knows?
 
Ted Moffett
 
PS.  Yes, Joan, I voted for the levy, despite all the very good reasons I had against it!
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050429/968610b8/attachment.htm