Too many unanswered questions

After reading through the opinion column letters from the Feb. 22 Pilot dealing with the upcoming school bond, I was reminded by Charlie Abell that the Whitefish school district still owes nearly $9 million for Central School and now the proponents want to add another $14 million to the platter.

They claim we “need’ a new school to take our children into the 21st century in order to compete with the world market. I assume the competitors they are referring to are countries like India, China and others in Asia where many U.S. jobs have been offshored. Places where the literacy rates are high and work/family ethics produce well educated students. Can the proponents tell me how many $15-$20 million schools it took to produce these strong competitors in the world market?

Another question comes to mind. How much money has the school district already spent on the proposed project before the final tally on this new bond? The consulting firm that has been promoting the project must be receiving some form of compensation for their efforts in the interim. I read in a previous article here in the Pilot that this same company has offices in the high school. Is this arraignment costing the district additional capital or is the consulting firm paying their way?

In that same article I also read a statement from one of the representatives from the consulting firm dealing, I assume, with the previous $7 million alternative that was presented at the public meeting back in September of 2010. The claim was that $7 million would only cover windows, lighting and some painting.

What? I worked in the construction trades here in the Flathead Valley for nearly 20 years before the crash and had the opportunity to work on projects covering the full spectrum from small residential, condominium complexes and high end homes, 10,000 square feet and larger to name a few. I saw and experienced firsthand the cost of materials and labor. I don’t know where they’re getting these numbers but I think I could do better with that $7 million dollars.

I would also like to know how the annual budget for general maintenance of the high school compares to what these bond proposal expenditures have been. Could these monies have been better spent now on fixing the leaky roof, heating systems etc., or are we to expect repair of these issues to only occur with the passage of the bond now that the district has committed itself so deeply?

So, with many unanswered question we are being asked to increase our debt load to the tune of $23 million for the “want” of a new building with dropping enrollment, double-digit unemployment state wide, and a housing/real estate industry in the gutter with no real prospects of it recovering anytime soon. This leads me back to that question of how our competitors are doing such a good job educating their students. Is it really new buildings, or are there other reasons? The answer has to do with why Montana students and Whitefish students in particular score at the top of national testing.

The two most important factors in producing well educated students who will lead independent productive lives are parents and teachers. No building will ever replace the effect good parenting and quality teachers will have on the students of our communities. Let’s reassess our priorities before we throw ourselves ever further into the black hole of debt this country is swimming in and saddling our children and theirs with that very same debt. We need only look to our own homes and classrooms to find the answer to the future in education.

— Rod Garcia