Update. September 9, 2008

The following is the text of an e-mail I sent to dozens of colleagues who have worked on various phases of our "Our Schools: Our Future" Plan during the last three years.

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing because I have worked with all of you over the past several years to research and find solutions to the problems faced by Burlington's children and schools, and wanted to send you a note about where things stand with our bond campaign.  I am not speaking for the School Board here, but rather more personally. If you have been reading the Free Press, or spending time in the schools, you may already know that all of the research and visioning processes you have been involved with led us to a summer facilities audit.  The result of all your work, plus the audit, is “Our Schools: Our Future:” a ten-year master plan for renovating all our schools, and creating two magnet schools, with a price tag of 226 million dollars.  The plan is on our website:  www.bsdplan.com

There are some things I want you to know about our initiative that have been inaccurately reported in the media, or haven't been discussed at all, and then I want to update you on where things may go from here:

First, our vision is comprised of three facets:  sustainable (green) buildings; 21st century academic excellence; and equity, achieved through the addition of preschool classrooms in all of our elementary schools, full handicapped accessibility, and the creation of Old North End magnet schools that will achieve demographic balance through choice and inspire innovation.  Investment in our schools will bring substantial benefits, including significant energy savings (up to 35% of our current usage), cleaner, safer, more secure, and healthier buildings for students and staff, reduced building overhead (from the sale of Ira Allen), and the

creation of two cutting-edge incubators of innovation – the State’s first magnet schools – which so many of you have contributed hundreds of hours to nurturing. These new academies will end the economic isolation that has proven such a substantial disadvantage to students and teachers in the past through choice, not redistricting.  The Free Press reported that we want to build greenhouses – which is incorrect – we said green buildings.

At the end of August, the Board voted to ask the City Council to put a bond request for $226 million on the November ballot.  At tonight’s Board meeting, I anticipate that a majority of commissioners will vote to bring to the City Council a revised bond request for the November ballot that moves forward with our plan in a phased approach, and asks voters to approve a significantly lower dollar amount now. 

I believe a phased approach is a prudent and respectful response to the realities of bond financing as explained to us by the City Council’s finance board.  This is a lot of money, and we need to work with our city government to make sure that our request is feasible and does not undermine the fiscal health of the City.  The whole banana also is a very large increase for taxpayers who are used to paying the lowest school tax rate (by far) in Chittenden County. 

We have been asked – why not wait until March?  I have five reasons:

I have four more reasons for supporting this request to the City Council, should the Board approve it tonight.  First, whether Burlingtonians want to hear it or not, the truth is that sooner or later this tab will come due.  If we table this, we won’t get any closer to having insulation in the walls, sprinkler systems and secure entrances, accessibility in the two-thirds of our schools that don’t have it, Internet access and flexible leaning spaces in all the schools, or attractive Old North End facilities that support the programs we are developing there.  The tab will continue to grow every election cycle we wait, and the social fabric of our city will continue to fray if we do not bring greater equity to all our kids and neighborhoods. 

Second, we are in the business of education, and should never be afraid to have the tough conversation. If we take our case to the City Council, and the voters, and lose, we still will have accomplished a huge amount of education.  In the past, that always has been the beneficial choice in the long run, even if it means short-term pain.  My vote is for taking the plan to the people.

Third, I REALLY like this plan.  I know that the overwhelming share of the money will go for things like energy efficiency, modern electrical systems, secure entrances, and groundwater management, but I also love that the classrooms will all have mobile presentation stations with LCD projectors and wireless Internet so that we can implement current best practices in educating kids for the global economy; that Edmunds will have a real auditorium, separate cafeteria for the elementary, and renovated bathrooms; that at Hunt we can stop the walls from pulling apart from the roof; and that the magnet concepts so clearly support the themes of sustainability and integrated arts.  I think Colin Lindberg did a great job in understanding our vision and designing efficient – not extravagant – renovations. 

And finally, as a general rule I choose not to make decisions based on fear, but rather with cautious optimism.  What I truly fear is not advocating on behalf of our kids and city because the going is unpleasant.  I know that our process and research are solid, and that our plan is supportable.  I think this is a case we can make, and I am strengthened in that belief by conversations with many of you who have urged us on.  If the Board does vote to significantly lower the current asking amount and taxpayer liability, I hope more people will be willing to take the time to learn about the plan, and then decide whether they can support it. 

If you do support some or all of “Our School: Our Future,” there are a few things you can do to help out: