[NOTE: Sam Zurier posted this as a comment on another post, but this essay should be on the front page where it will be more readily seen]
There are many standards by which we can measure the three types of school construction (renovation, new construction and hybrid) that will be proposed for the New Nathan Bishop. In my opinion, we should focus our discussion on three questions I will list in a moment. Before I do, I would like to review what we already know.
A. The City has hired an excellent architect. We have seen a large body of their work on their website and at demonstrations before committees.
B. This architect’s track record gives us confidence that they will develop a design that is compatible with the character of the Sessions/Elmgrove neighborhood, be it new construction, renovation or a hybrid.
C. The architect has a good track record on achieving “green building” objectives.
Since we are satisfied about these other goals, I believe that can focus on the need of the children in our neighborhood, as well as the needs of the children in the rest of the City. With that in mind, I propose that we focus on these three questions:
1. Which design will provide the best learning environment for the students?
2. Which design will permit the New Nathan Bishop to open at the earliest possible time?
3. Is the option affordable, in terms of State funding guidelines, and the City’s need to fund a facilities plan for the entire District?
Let me explain why these questions are important.
1. Learning Environment. As we learned at an ESPEC forum last year, middle schools are failing both in Providence and nationally because children are “falling through the cracks” in large, impersonal settings. In order to be a successful middle school, the New Nathan Bishop must create multiple relationships among children, and between children and adults through such innovations as team teaching, advisories and so forth. Thus, for example, while we may have personal, nostalgic memories of imposing and intimidating schools, this is not necessarily the best thing for our children. In my view, the learning environment is the single most important factor in evaluating the three options.
2. Timing. Timing could make a large difference for our community. We are at a crucial point in restoring public education in the Greater East Side. In the past 12 months, parents and neighbors have made great strides to re-engage in a public education system that many of us (and our predecessors) had abandoned over the last 30 years. We have developed a great deal of momentum based on the hope of a New Nathan Bishop. We could lose a whole cohort of families from the neighborhood if the opening of the New Nathan Bishop is delayed by one or two years due to facilities issues.
3. Cost. The City’s overall facilities plan is currently pegged at $792 million. The New Nathan Bishop deserves its fair share of those funds as a vital part of this greater picture. If one alternative is significantly less expensive or more expensive (for example, $10 million is a lot of money), then we owe it to the rest of the City to think carefully before claiming such a significant additional outlay of funds. If two alternatives (which are compatible with the neighborhood and are green buildings, as we can trust with these architects) draw equal scores on both learning environment and timing, then it is not fair to the rest of the City (and potentially harmful to future plans to renovate King and/or Gregorian) to claim extra, marginally productive funds for our neighborhood.
I encourage everyone to come up with their own list of key questions for next week’s forum, and prepare to ask them to the architects. Then we all can make our own best judgment for ourselves, and offer our input to the City and the School Department.
Read Full Post »
East Side Public Education Coalition 
