Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > September > 30 > Entry
The growing debate over razing old schools
The former Julienne High School
In Sunday’s DDN, Joanne Huist Smith and I take a look at a controversy that is about to come to a head — a community effort to stop Dayton schools from tearing down the former Julienne High School building, a project scheduled for the spring.
This marks the third controversy about the district’s plan to rebuild its schools with nearly all new buildings by 2010 along with the long-running debate over Roosevelt High School and the recent concerns raised over Wilbur Wright Middle School, which helped prompt Shirley Crisp’s school board run.
These issues stir strong emotions on all sides. Columnist Mary McCarty, daughter of a Julienne grad, does a good job of summing up the sentiments of those who want to save the building.
But for the sake of argument, let me offer one opinion on the other side. This came from a school district employee who is completely uninvolved in the decision-making process regarding Julienne. When I brought the subject up in conversation, they unloaded on me about it.
I thought their take was interesting, and it seemed to sum up one under-discussed side of the school district’s argument for new schools at the Julienne and Wilbur Wright sites. In essence, what they said was, “why should our kids have to learn in a 100-year-old, out-of-date building instead of a state-of-the-art learning center just so a few old timers can walk through their old school a couple times a year?”
That’s, um, a bit politically incorrect. You probably won’t find anyone connected with the district who would say it publicly because it sounds rather insensitive. But perhaps it’s a fair question anyway.
Is sentimentality a good enough reason to keep Dayton kids in old schools where they have to work around the limitations of the structure to learn while for more advantaged kids in the suburbs the school buildings actually enhance their learning experiences?
It’s difficult to explain if you haven’t been into one of the new schools. If you haven’t, I suggest you schedule a visit to tour one. In terms of technology, security, safety, usability, air quality, lighting, etc., there truly is no comparison to the schools that were built 100 years ago. Those old school buildings might still be useful, but probably not as schools in the 21st century.
Dayton students have lots of disadvantages in terms of home life, poverty, etc., the person told me. The district at least has an opportunity to remove one barrier to learning by giving them great facilities. Why would we hesitate just so adults can have their memories?
This is especially persuasive in the case of schools that are not truly historic, which is most schools. Last year, I laid out my personal test of significance while discussing Roosevelt High School. In fairness, Julienne, I think scores pretty well on that test.
It seems likely that Dorothy Stang, the martyred Catholic nun from Dayton who was called to service as a student at Julienne, will eventually be named just the fourth American saint. Proponents of saving the building say the Julienne building should be the place in Dayton where people can come to remember Dorothy Stang. They make a compelling case.
But it’s still difficult to balance the needs of the community to remember against the needs of the kids to learn effectively. My source in the district believes it is nearly always wrong to choose yesterday’s buildings over today’s kids. What’s your view?
(Image credit: Teesha McClam, DDN)
Permalink | Comments (21) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By Laura
October 5, 2007 10:58 PM | Link to this
Scott, the doors to the restrooms in the particular school I am speaking of are kept locked-usually. However, there are times when a staff member forgets to lock the door. In the case of the sink, they were older girls with a male teacher. As with all situations, sometimes staff doesn’t do what they are supposed to do, and these are the things that result. The attic paint incident was by a basically “psycho” kid. The bottom line is, I know of no school in the suburban area that has to lock the restroom doors. I know of no other school in the area that cannot allow a student to go to the restroom when they need to go- only with the entire class. There is something disturbing that children would repeatedly act this way.By Scott Elliott
October 4, 2007 9:03 PM | Link to this
Laura, where are the teachers and the staff when all this damage is happening? At my kids’ school, the kids are never unsupervised. An adult is with them at all times.By Laura
October 4, 2007 7:49 PM | Link to this
“Very Sad”, you left out ripping sinks off the walls, tearing stall doors off the hinges and then having their parents file a complaint that there is no privacy in the restrooms, break into attics and dump stored paint and other things all over, urinate on the walls and floors (not the little ones, the 7th and 8th graders), dump feces into the urinals, stuff the toilets, soap dispensers and sinks with paper towels and then turn on the faucets and flush the toilets.By Very Sad
October 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Give Dayton students a nice, new building with all the latest equipment and see what happens. They start by first removing all the balls from the computers’ mouses, write graffiti on the walls and desks, scrape the desks on the newly polished floors to make black streaks, empty pencil sharpener shavings all over the floor, erase instructions from the white boards, steal the whiteboard markers, leave trash including crumbs and wrappers along with balled up notebook paper in the desks, break brand new pencils in half and throw them or leave them on the floor, unplug electrical equipment, plug up the toilets, break pieces off the plastic bleachers in the gym, write obsence words in the books and rip the pages in them, leave displayed reading books everywhere but on the shelves, walk out of the room without taking their books, pull chair seats and backs away from the metal frames, jump in doorways to touch the ceiling with dirty hands, rub dirty, greasy hands along the walls in the hallway, rip down posters or other students work, scream and push each other in the halls, disturb other student’s combination locks, kick things, arrange for sloppy and disrespectful clothes/uniforms, disobey and nonconform at every opportunity and I’m going to stop now because it appears that kids who are miserable and have bad attitudes are going to be miserable and have bad attitudes in whatever environment they are in.By Anne
October 2, 2007 9:42 PM | Link to this
From another teacher’s point of view, teaching in a new building would, at times be nice. There would certainly be less roaches and mice, at least for awhile. Having the white baords and new tech. (Like they have at both palace buildings downtown) would be nice. But as someone mentioned, the new buildings were not well planned with teachers giving input. The bathrooms at the old schools at least have enough stalls so that restroom breaks are more manageable. Come on - out of all of the people downtown who have been making the decisions - weren’t ANY of them classroom teachers? Oh - and Joe - it is nice to see ONE of the current board members has both a backbone and some values - thank you!By Rick
October 1, 2007 10:00 PM | Link to this
I can remember being in Pisa, Italy and wandering around downtown. I came across and old building, which, by certain architectural features, I guessed was built in the 13th or 14 centuries. I looked up a very slowly read the title (it was 36 years since I had Latin). My translation of the title was “Pisa High School.” I have been to Cambridge, England and seen those college buildings that were hundreds of years old. No, I don’t believe the newer buildings will last very long.By Laura
October 1, 2007 7:27 PM | Link to this
Smiling every day should realize that if a teacher has more than 10 years or so in a district it is very costly to move to another. I looked into moving to a nearby district nearly 10 years ago and would have had to take more than a 50% pay cut. Not everyone can afford to make such a drastic financial change. However, I do agree with your comment that DPS has a serious problem when it comes to observing and following successful leaders- i.e. local school districts. If they paid any attention to what the rest of the country is doing they wouldn’t have gone year-round, either. It is amusing to hear them speak out of both sides of their mouths. Their position when it comes to following the lead of others has been “we aren’t a suburban school- we need to do things differently”. But when it comes to the students, teachers are told “they aren’t any different than other children”. Regarding the Lacy/Old Prof conflict: It was amusing for a while but it is becoming tedious. It is beginning to sound like the bickering of some of my 10 year old girls. Why don’t you agree to disagree?By Smiling every day
October 1, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
To all those discouraged DPS teachers——you should be happy you have a job. However, walking away from that broken down system was the best thing I ever did and I am all the richer for it. No more tension of dealing with the hypocracy of inept leaders attempting to “play school” with their limited knowledge of what is going on in the many successful districts surrounding the city. Too much “who you know” gets to be rather incestuous and facilitates the downfall of any organization. Teachers who have any regard for their own high standards which cannot be met in the current atmosphere should get out now. It is such a pleasure not to have to deal with the tension created by inept leaders who attempt to “play school” with their insular way of thinking. There is such a wealth of successful school districts surrounding the city, that it is in comprehensible as to why DPS can’t seem to LEARN from THEM. The trend is AWAY from K-8 schools towards one or two grades housed together in one building. Brilliant—all the resources and expertise in ONE place instead of spread out all over the city. Hmmm…isn’t that what Ludlow was all about? I guess what is good enough for the administration is not good enough for the kids, after all…By Joe Lacey
October 1, 2007 7:39 AM | Link to this
Oldprof the construction experts at the Ohio School Facilities Commission are the source of what I’m telling you here. They are the ones who are saying that renovation costs less than new construction. And to Appalled, this isn’t the most important issue. However, many of the most important issues facing our district are directly related to funding. We rely on the community for funding and it doesn’t help when the district goes into a community and destroys an irreplacible building with lots of architectural detail, ignoring the overwhelming objection of the community. A lot of people have told me that they voted against the last levy because of Roosevelt.By one Dayton teacher
October 1, 2007 12:54 AM | Link to this
Although it may be difficult for former students to admit, many DPS old buildings need to be razed. They have served their purpose and despite some lovely architectural details, they will not serve the new generation needing technology above sentiment. The reality is that much of higher education is being done on-line these days and I expect technology to be more important for secondary and elementary as well. Society has changed and the old school house is as dated as the one-room school house of the prairie. Dayton has made an effort with the new schools to get us on board that revolution. (They drug me kicking & screaming into it, but I now agree that it is our present and future.) I just wish when the new schools had been built, that DPS had listened to the teachers. We would have had adequate restrooms, roomy & well furnished classrooms, auditoriums and lunchrooms. New is good if it is well planned with quality workmanship.By Dan Kennedy
September 30, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
Lacy is a member of the BoE and Oldprof is the husband of another member . Old prof knocks Lacy’s profession and then says he doesn’t know anything about construction. Does that imply that any of the other BoE members do know anything about construction and therefore have more valid opinions. They don’t. That logic doesn’t even make sense. Wouldn’t then only a teacher be qualified to serve on the BoE?By Dan Kennedy
September 30, 2007 11:27 PM | Link to this
I think Scott and the DPS employee completely mischaracterize the arguments for remodeling these buildings by summing it up into a sound byte of �memory lane� verses �learning center�. Our arguments are so much more than �memory lane�. What types of buildings have people been educated in for thousands of years? Anyone remember the one room school house? Is there any proof that a new building makes a more successful student than a remodeled building? Oakwood students don�t seem to be suffering in their �old� buildings, nor UD or Harvard students. DPS numbers are �backed into� by setting the number of students for a new building at a predetermined level that is not related to the capacity of any of the existing buildings that should be saved. By that method, they can always show higher costs for remodeling then new construction. These new buildings are not substantial, they are flimsy, �office building� quality that will not last. They are also not of the caliber of quality, style or ornamentation of the buildings that need preserved. Those that say preservationists should �write a check�, well, we did, we voted for the building levy. This is about how tax dollars are spent. Remodeling has show to cost 80% of building new. What is the smart choice now? This paper published charts that showed, in inflation adjusted dollars, the building levy was almost as large as the post flood conservancy district that tamed the Great Miami and built 5 dams! In 35 years we are going to be in the difficult fix of rebuilding they flimsy office buildings, and then without the benefit of over half the cost being picked up by tobacco settlement money. These buildings that should be preserved were built with class by people who understood that our public buildings are modern �temples�. That is, ancient cultures constructed temples for the things they believed most important in their society, be they gods, games, or government. In the same way, buildings like Julianne were built to reflect the importance of the significant activities that they housed. They were built to be maintained and they were built to last. Many were deemed substantial enough for public shelters in the event of war. Remodeling is a green activity. Destroying all the materials and craftsmanship then went into these buildings, many times with tax dollars, is a waste of the resources and assets with which the BoE has been entrusted. I was in a pub in Woodstock England where the main room was 700 years old. That�s over twice the age of our entire country. The building housed a valued public activity, it was substantially built and it was maintained. The master plan was based on the input of only a 150 people, mostly DPS teachers I suspect, at one public meeting in 2001. Completely inadequate public input. And BTW, it�s hard to have input on a blank slate. It�s only when the details start to come out that folks actually realize what the DPS BoE is up to and that some of these buildings like Roosevelt, Julianne, Wilbur Wright, Patterson-Kennedy, are slated for demo. Further, input is NOT the same as influence. Where is the City of Dayton on the issue of preservation? We know that Williams is anti-preservation, but what about McLin, Lovelace, Joseph and Whaley? They can prevent the demo of Julianne if they want to, even if DPS BoE wants to throw away our important buildings. We know where these Democrats stand on a war half a world away, where are they on the future of important buildings in Dayton?By Oldprof
September 30, 2007 10:48 PM | Link to this
If there’s to be a museum to a religious figure, then the person’s religion ought to sponsor it. Time for the archdiocese of Cincinnati to step up and make a fair market value offer to DPS for the old Julienne property. If they don’t care, no one else should either. As for Mr. Lacey’s continued insistence, he’s an accountant who has no credentials in construction; the construction experts disagree with him. Joe, I’ve noted here before that I’d respect your opinion regarding accounting (if you’d only offer some evidence that you’ve actually studied the books) but your opinions about the building trades are not credible.By null
September 30, 2007 10:34 PM | Link to this
Patterson Kennedy is also on a historical site. I hate to see the district sell or get rid of that builidng. It is close to UD and woodland cementary. Two great places for the students to utilize and see.By Laura
September 30, 2007 10:29 PM | Link to this
I think Fairbornite has a great idea. I have seen the Central Senior apartments and they are really quite nice. I would think this would be an excellent use for the old buildings. This would give low-income senior citizens a safe, secure place in an environment that would permit them to maintain independence and even develop friendships. Loneliness is a big problem for seniors. I hope someone will give it some serious consideration.By Appalled DPS Teacher
September 30, 2007 9:32 PM | Link to this
I cannot honestly believe that the BIGGEST question facing DPS at this time is old vs. new buildings!? The REAL questions facing this district are, in my eyes, as follows: 1) How will the students get the best “quality education for every student, every day” with the huge class sizes and grade level combinations or “splits” that are currently being used to save money? 2) How will DPS offer any sort of “fine arts” education to students when there are virtually no “fine arts” teachers left in the district? 3) How will DPS attract new students while dealing with the disciplinary issues that continue to exist so that all may learn in a fair and peaceful environment? 4) How does the board (and the community) propose to treat district employees so that we may help and encourage students if the current policies of flagrant contract violations continue? The fight for the physical buildings such as Wilbur Wright and other grand old buildings do not speak to me but the continual back-and-forth on this blog and in the community are counterproductive but very telling. Good thing I love teaching and I appreciate my students or I’d be completely discouraged. Board members and candidates should by all means continue to bloviate, I’ll keep on teaching, as will all of my fellow teachers, bus drivers, paraprofessionals, counselors, lunchroom staff, and so on…By Fairbornite
September 30, 2007 9:12 PM | Link to this
In Fairborn, they took old Central School and turned it into Central Apartments - a retirement community. Now the people who went to school there can not only walk through and reminisce, but they can actually LIVE in their old classroom! I think they should do that with more of these buildings. It’s really a neat concept.By crisp
September 30, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this
Why is it always assumed that an old building can not be brought up to todays’ standards? If we use that philosphy would we keep the Dayton Art Institute? Are there plans in Oakwood to tear down their high school and build a new one that looks like a box? Would another community want to keep a building that “fits” the neighborhood or build something that looks totally out of place? I believe Wilbur Wright and other schools can be renovated. It is history and beautiful architecture that I would like to preserve, not walks down memory lane. It is sad that we have become such a “throw away” society.By Mary
September 30, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this
Students should be taught to respect old timers and old buildings. Think about Oakwood’s old buildings and their students’performance related to the rest of the state. Think about old buildings like the State Capitol, the Capitol building and Pentagon in Washington, Windsor Castle, etc. Of course, Dayton also ignored the history of the Wright Bros Bike shop. Someone else appreciated the history and moved it out of town. I think old buildings can have some utility, even for schools. Hold history, English, and building maintenance classes in them. Put in tunnel lights if the buildings seem to be dark, and if such changes do not violate historical preservaton codes. The buildings should still be wireable or go wireless for internet access.By Joe Lacey
September 30, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this
Comparing brand new schools to old schools that have not been renovated is not the question here. Technology, security, safety, usability, air quality and lighting would all be updated in a renovated school at a cost of less than new construction according to the Ohio School Facilities Commission estimates. This will show in the renovated portions of Stivers.By Concerned Mom of 3
September 30, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t it be neat if the old Julienne building could become the “St. Stang Peace Museum?” Dayton seems to be making history with the peace bridge activities, and all the international peace talks that happen at WPAFB… Maybe some local historians and the Cincinnati Arcdioces could get their heads together on this one. (I think it has a lot of grant potential.) Dream Big and Think without Boundaries! Then make something extraordinary happen!!! (Even if I can’t spell it!)