[Vision2020] Public Education & Development

[Donovan Arnold]

Ted,

Norm Chomsky would have voted against the bond :-)

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold

>From: tbertruss at aol.com
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Public Education & Development
>Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:45:40 -0400
>
>
>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!
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/