School Board Newsletter #48, November 13, 1998

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: School Issues: BMS, etc.
Date: 11/13/98 2:41:29 PM EST
From: jklagge@bev.net (Jim Klagge)

Dear Friends,
Before addressing BMS I need to thank the BoS for their financial support of the new HS in Elliston/Shawsville. They voted (on 10/26) for the funding to move ahead with that, including an auxiliary gym! (A school naming committee is already underway--clearly a big task!) It is important not to let the BMS issue cause us to lose perspective--we are moving ahead with the support of the BoS here.

As you may have read in the newspaper, or seen on TV, a lot has been happening over the BMS issue recently. I have spent many hours investigating and discussing this issue over the last few weeks. Some of the time I have been explaining the strong points of building a new HS first, some of the time I have been explaining the merits of building a new MS in Blacksburg first. My main purpose has been to create enough space in people's minds that whatever ends up happening, we can all consider it to be a good thing, even if it wasn't our first choice. I will recount some of the recent events, so you know exactly where things stand. But mainly I want to set out the important issues clearly, so you can see what is at stake in the discussions. If any of this moves you to want to take action, you should know that the BoS has (tentatively) put this issue on their agenda for discussion at their Monday, November 23rd meeting. All of their meetings begin (at 7pm) with time for public address, so you can make your views known if you wish to.

The BoS has had before them since December our resolution to buy land sufficient for a new MS and a new HS in Blacksburg, and to begin the building of a new second MS in Blacksburg, with the current BMS to be renovated. When the BoS had this on their agenda in October for approval, there was controversy over a provision that was included as follows: "the Board of Supervisors shall maintain engineering and architectural oversight, and will concur with the design concept and site utilization prior to the development of construction drawings." The motion, with this provision, was tabled due to the fact that some supervisors felt it interfered too much with the SB's right and responsibility to build and control schools. The superintendent and I then worked with the county administrator (Jeff Johnson) and the chair of the BoS (Joe Gorman) to find mutually agreeable wording. We agreed to the following provision: "the Board of Supervisors shall continue to work cooperatively with the School Board, and expects the School Board will continue to provide information on design concepts and site utilization prior to future appropriations to ensure the most cost effective construction of school buildings. This resolution is not intended to remove statutory authority of the School Board to erect, furnish and equip necessary school buildings." The wording acknowledges that the BoS has a right to information concerning what it is making appropriations for, and the SB has the right to control the school design and construction process. When the resolution with this wording was offered, the issue was again tabled, and questions were raised about why we need two MS in Blacksburg, and why not build a HS first and use the old HS as a second MS. (I mention this "wording" issue again because it has not yet been resolved. If the BoS does approve a plan, it will still have to resolve what wording goes with it.)

At our SB meeting on 11/3 we considered the possibility of rescinding our December motion. The main reason for this would have been to give this new SB (3 of the 7 hadn't been on the board last December when the resolution was approved) a chance to formulate its own position on this issue. It also gave us a chance to reconsider whether perhaps it would be best to build a new HS first. That motion to rescind was finally tabled.

At our meeting on 11/11 we considered this tabled motion to rescind further, and then after extensive discussion, voted against it 5-2. This had given us a chance to consider the issue from many perspectives, and gave the new SB members a sense of ownership in this important decision. In the paper today one of the supervisors was quoted as being disappointed that we were trying to "cram this decision down their throats". But far from that, we simply voted down a motion to reject our December resolution. It is really as though we have taken no further action, but in the process we have made sure that that is where this new board stands too. I did not interpret the action as aggressive or uncooperative.

What are the central issues? (They are quite complex, I believe):
-Do we need two MS's in Blacksburg, rather than 1? I believe most everyone agrees we need 2, based on the value engineering study by Marsh-Witt, commissioned by the BoS in 1997; and based on enrollment projections. Enrollments have not in fact been as high as projected in the Blacksburg area this year. Some think this discredits the whole set of projections. Despite this wobble, I think there is no doubt that we will be seeing sizable growth in this area. Others may disagree.
-Should we build a HS first, and then use the current HS as a 2nd MS?
This is an interesting option, but one that no study group has ever endorsed. From an overcrowding and from a mechanical standpoint BMS has much greater needs than BHS. But some think those needs could be addressed just as easily, and perhaps as rapidly, by building a new HS and using the old HS. This raises the question whether the current BHS could function effectively as a MS (or as a 2nd MS). In answer to this question from the BoS, we yesterday sent them the following:
Question One: Can the Blacksburg High School be used as a middle school?

Blacksburg High School could be used as a middle school. However, a significant amount of work would need to be done on it for it to be a good space for a middle school. The aspects of the building that are good pretty much as they stand are the gymnasium and locker room facilities, outdoor practice areas, physical education space, cafeteria facility, auditorium space, vocational space, art facilities, and parking. Also, the building is in reasonably good condition mechanically. The problems with the building have to do with the space for core subjects and the educational experience. The building was originally designed as an open-classroom building. When a few years' experience in the early 1970s showed this to be unworkable, it was carved up into classrooms using essentially temporary walls. The configuration as it stands is unworkable for a middle school in several ways. Each grade level should have its own area of the building and within those grade levels there should be clusters of classrooms that are in close proximity to each other which will allow students to function in teams of classes with some flexible space for occasional larger groupings and adjacent lockers for student use. The current department structure does not serve this purpose. Current classrooms are not properly configured, science classrooms are all in one pod, and many classrooms are simply too small. Since the existing walls are really only temporary, it should be possible to reconfigure classrooms in any way that is necessary. However, if classrooms are reconfigured using temporary walls, it is important to consider that the noise level of middle-schoolers is considerably higher than that of high-schoolers. Consequently, more attention would have to be given to soundproofing. How effectively that could be done with temporary walls remains to be seen. By far the most important problems with the building, especially as a middle school, have to do with the experience of being in the building for long periods of time. There is way too much closed interior space, and there are far too few windows. (This design was doubtless influenced by the energy crisis of the early 1970s.) The experience of being in the building is equivalent to the experience of being underground. This would make for a depressing experience for young students--especially in contrast to the current middle school which, for all its drawbacks, has an enormous amount of window space and natural light. We could not recommend moving students into this building, even with classroom space reconfigured, unless this issue were adequately addressed. Though there has not been time to examine these issues from an educational or an architectural point of view, here are some thoughts on them. These issues could conceivably be addressed, at a cost perhaps comparable to the suggested renovations of the current middle school, as follows:
- Add more windows;
- Since the outside walls are not primarily load-bearing, it may be possible to replace brick with glass;
- Raise some of the ceilings to create more vertical space;
- Install skylights or cupolas, perhaps along the line of the Blacksburg town library, to produce natural light in the interior spaces; and,
- Create interior designs which allow a team of four teachers to work together with the same group of students.

These kinds of modifications would not be inexpensive, but they are essential for creating a livable building for younger students.

We applaud the BHS staff and students for having such an effective program in such an ill-conceived building. We could not ask a staff working with the middle school program with younger students to move into this space unless these rather subjective but crucial issues are first adequately addressed. Anyone who is skeptical of these issues should spend a couple of hours inside the high school--ideally a day with a student (and imagine that the student is 11-13 years old). I encourage all of you to form your own opinion about this important issue.

I think that with these provisions attended to the SB might be willing to consider building a HS first. But I think there is considerable scepticism whether money would be forthcoming for these concerns to be attended to. Thus, few people want to take the chance of going forward with a new HS and leaving the MS situation to chance. I think it is a difficult issue how to best look out for MS education while attending to the long run.

-Won't we need a new HS soon anyway? Though BHS is not yet at capacity, projections suggest it will be in the next several years. Concern for this growth is what moved the SB to have the BoS secure land now for use later on. Anyone familiar with the Blacksburg area knows that it will be increasingly difficult and expensive to secure large tracts of land in the future.
-What would happen to the current HS once it is vacated? I think this is a very important issue. When the Blacksburg study/FUSS committee looked at the options last December, they thought perhaps it could eventually be used for an elementary school--though that was just brain-storming. For the reasons given above, it could be a good MS facility only with a lot of work. I think it is even worse as a potential elementary facility, for the same reasons, and because an elementary school would not take advantage of some of its good points, such as large gymnasium, locker room, outdoor practice, vocational space, etc. If we build a new HS 2nd, it will be some 10 years before we need to decide what to do with a vacated BHS. Perhaps there will be other possibilites then that we aren't thinking of now. While we need to eventually find some responsible use for this ill-conceived facility, I don't think we have to be able to do that right now.

-Wouldn't it be more fair to build a new HS that would benefit all Blacksburg strand students for 4 years, rather than build a new MS that will only benefit half the Blacksburg strand students for 3 years? This is an important concern. It is part of our resolution that the current BMS be significantly renovated, and it has the advantages of being downtown. Though it is impossible to have perfect equality between facilities, it is important and likely that a wide-view of considerations would show the 2 facilities to be roughly comparable.

-If people can think of any other considerations, let me know. I think full and open discussion is the best way to handle this. I think if people know all the arguments, they are in a better position to form positions than if they just focus on what supports their side.

I said in my last newsletter that this is clearly a judgement call. I hope now that you can appreciate why I said that. The judgement involves not only educational considerations, but also political and fiscal considerations. Taking all of those into account, and after extensive discussion in open session during 2 meetings, the SB stuck with the resolution of last December. We now hope people can rally around that and see whether we can get it done. I know our reconsideration of all this angered some people. I can only say that I felt the new board had the need and the right to take real ownership in what happened.

Our next SB meeting is Monday, 11/16, because we will be going to the state SB convention later in the week. We have public address time at the first meeting of each month (Tuesday, 12/1, is next), and if you wish to voice your views on the BMS issue, or any other issue pertaining to education in the county, please feel free to attend and speak up. (3 minutes per person.)

On another issue of interest to some, the administration has formed a committee to research and report to the SB on the issue of whether to change starting times for elementary and secondary schools in the district. Their work will try to cover ALL the kinds of considerations relevant to making a decision on this. The SB had a discussion of this in the spring, and because of the pressure of other topics the committee is only now getting started. The committee will meet on the following dates, always from 7-9pm in the SB office (200 Junkin Street, Christiansburg): Monday, 11/16; Thursday, 11/19; Monday, 11/30; Monday, 12/7; and Thursday, 12/10.
The public is invited to these meetings. The committee will be chaired by Ass't Superintendent Jim Sellers (382-5107). My thought about this issue is that the presumption should be that no change should be made unless quite a strong case could be made for a change. We'll see what they come up with.

As part of my concern about how committees should properly function, this committee is not charged with making a recommendation to the SB, but with providing us with what we need to be able to make a decision. I hope committees will feel better about their work if this is their role. If we ask for a recommendation and then don't follow it, committees can well feel unappreciated.

-Jim Klagge
Chair & District F representative
Montgomery County School Board.

email: admin@gisone.com