Opinion: Vote no on charter amendments one and two

Rundlett science teacher Amy Schaeffner points to the water leak spot above her desk in her classroom on Monday, October 21.

Rundlett science teacher Amy Schaeffner points to the water leak spot above her desk in her classroom on Monday, October 21. GEOFF FORESTER / Monitor photo

By HEIDI CRUMRINE

Published: 10-30-2024 6:00 AM

Heidi Crumrine is an English teacher and literacy coach at Concord High School, where she has taught since 2004. Before coming to CHS she taught for three years in the New York City public schools.

I am a longtime Concord teacher and have three school-aged children, each of whom have attended Rundlett in the last five years. I have spoken with many frustrated community members who want what is best for our students but who also want Rundlett to stay at its current location. They are feeling frustrated and marginalized because they don’t feel as though the school board listened to their concerns.

I empathize with these feelings of frustration, but that still doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for kids or for Concord taxpayers. The truth is, that voting yes guarantees a further delayed new middle school building that will cost more money, regardless of location.

There is a common sentiment that voting yes on school charter amendments one and two guarantees that the new middle school rebuild will be moved back to the current school location from the Broken Ground location. This is not true. What is true is that a yes vote will lead to significantly increased costs for any new middle school build, regardless of location with no guarantee of a changed location.

To begin, the board voted to build a new middle school at the BGS location in December 2023, which occurred under the current district charter. The passage of amendments one and two is unlikely to undo this because it occurred legally under the charter operating at the time.

It will lead to a delay in progress on the middle school project. As a result, a delay will invariably lead to increased building costs, which rise about 3-4 percent annually, although in recent years those increases have been significantly higher.

The district is contracted to spend $10.3 million to design the school at the BGS location, $4 million of which has already been spent. Approximately 75 percent of this work completed to date would not be transferable to a new site, thus the district would be required to spend an additional $2-$3 million to change locations.

Moreover, there is a risk that the state will provide less building aid in the future, or it might not provide any at all. Concord was ranked second on the state list for building aid and was found to be eligible for $70 million of a $176 million project. The threat of disappearing aid is real considering that there was no available building aid from the state from 2011-2022. At this point, the Rundlett Middle School build is so urgently needed that if Concord loses this aid, it will need to be paid for by the district.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Rising costs are a real concern, and as a taxpayer, I, too, believe that the board needs to balance fiscal responsibility with the needs of our district. Many believe that voting yes on amendments one and two would rein in district spending and help with rising tax rates. That is not true. What is true is that neither of these amendments impacts the board’s fiscal autonomy and will do nothing to change how they currently set their budget.

A better approach for mitigating costs would be to direct our anger and activism at our state government who are currently fighting the inequitable school funding formula lawsuit at the state supreme court. The court has found time and time again that the state is failing to contribute an equitable and fair amount of per pupil spending and, as a result, failing to provide an adequate education. That is the root of our shared frustration, not where to put our new middle school, and voting yes will not change that.

Another legitimate concern of the community is the beautiful land set to be developed as a result of the BGS location. I live in East Concord and love walking, biking, and running on the plethora of trails in the area. Many believe that a yes vote could help preserve this land. This is simply not true. What is true is that the district has owned this land since the 1980s. It is not public or conservation land. Moving a new school back to the current RMS location would still not guarantee land protections because the district owns it and can still build on it.

Amendment one and two only require a public vote for all future new school buildings of current schools. The district can still build offices, a new school, or anything else they deem appropriate at this location. There is no guarantee of land preservation through a yes vote for amendments one and two.

Lastly, I question if our current RMS building can even make it to 2028, the projected opening date of the BGS-site school. What if the building is condemned? Our nearly 1,000 middle schoolers will still need to go to school. Will the district need to then pay millions of dollars in portable classrooms until the new building can open? Anyone who has entered RMS in the last five years can tell you that this is not hyperbole. The building is really that bad.

At this point, our middle schoolers and their teachers are walking into a building that at any moment could need to be shut down due to electrical, physical, or water-related issues. They are sitting in classrooms where the ceiling is falling down. There is mold from roof leaks and lead in pipes that were installed in the 1950s. They cannot sharpen a pencil while the teacher’s projector is running; they are sitting in classrooms at temperatures above 90 degrees if they are in 8th grade or below 60 degrees if they are in 6th grade; they are in a building where a stretcher cannot fit into the elevator in the case of a medical emergency. Our children deserve better.

Likewise, our children’s teachers need to stop their lessons to coordinate with the teacher next door to make sure they can turn on a fan, run their projector, or operate the air conditioner that is required in some students’ IEPs. They are capturing and rescuing birds that live in the ceilings of their classrooms, they are teaching in hats and mittens or sweating through their clothes, depending on the location of their classroom.

They know that since their classroom doors open out instead of in, it will be harder to create barricades in the event of a lockdown. And yet they keep coming back to do what many in society deem to be nearly impossible: Engaging with, inspiring, and supporting middle schoolers through those wildly weird and unpredictable years of early adolescence. Our teachers deserve better.

There is no longer any time to waste. There is no such thing as a perfect school location, just like there is no such thing as a perfect school or a perfect teacher. We have now spent close to ten years as a community arguing in an effort to reach perfection. It is time to move forward. Join me in voting ‘no’ on amendments one and two so that we can make that happen for our community, our educators, and most importantly, our children.