Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > November > 06 > Entry
Kids vs. Bricks, Round 2
A few weeks ago, I jokingly called the debate over saving Julienne High School “Kids vs. Bricks.”
Bill Pflaum is not joking when he says it.
Pflaum is an interesting voice to join those who want an entirely new school on the Julienne site to serve elementary school kids in the lower Dayton View area, as the school district had planned. Plaum grew up practically next door to Julienne and served mass there for the nuns as an altar boy.
He also heads the Seedling Foundation, a support group for Stivers School for the Arts. In that capacity, Pflaum has spent countless volunteer hours in the Julienne building over the past few years while Stivers was temporarily housed there. He professes a deep affection for the building and understands its history and its value to the neighborhood.
But in an op-ed commentary in Monday’s Dayton Daily News, Pflaum says the push to save the building really is a choice of spending the school district’s money on kids or on bricks. And he says he is certain the nuns he remembers from the early days of the school would have chosen to spend the money on the kids.
Pflaum challenges those who want to save the building to put their money where their mouth is and raise $8 million to $10 million to cover the extra cost of converting the building for use as an elementary school.
And keep in mind, Pflam is not being a wise guy when he says that. The Seedling Foundation raised $1 million in local match money for the new Stivers building, making it eligible for a $10 million interest-free federal loan. That helped convince the district to rehab, rather than tear down, the original Stivers school, along with a large new addition.
I’m sure this will stir the debate over Julienne up some. What is your reaction to Pflaum’s commentary?
(Image credit: DDN)
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, School Construction
Comments
By Riverdale Ghost
November 18, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Mr. Pflaum’s “Julienne” comments are indeed interesting, particularly from the viewpoint that he claims he knows the area (he probably does) yet he speaks of “Dayton View,” which it never was as well as is not. Look up the street address zip code and you will find it is not in Dayton View (45406) but Riverdale (45405). The other school buildings nearby were built to serve the children of Riverdale, not Dayton View. Let me know the situation after the newspaper staff finds out where everything is.By Oldprof
November 7, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this
Now that the “Joe First” team got 2/3 elected, perhaps one of them will explain to Joe how much extra it would cost to completely redesign the interior of a crumbling building that already had a miserable roof, asbestos, and inadequate HVAC. Unfortunately, Joe is showing signs of being unable to remember what he said in meetings or even what meetings he attended—so perhaps it would be a wasted effort.By Joe Lacey
November 6, 2007 7:38 PM | Link to this
The claim that any renovation would cost $8 to $10 million more has been repeated often by the district but these figures are backed up by nothing more than that’s what Stivers cost. But the extra costs of Stivers are due to the new additions that added floor space that the state was not willing to co-fund. The old portion was renovated at a cost much less than the new portion according to the architect. That would include adequate safety and environmental systems. Also this is the first time I’ve seen the claim that more money would be needed to operate a newly renovated school than a new school. That’s not been established and isn’t even an argument that the district is making. The district has not made any real effort to show that Julienne could not be downsized and adapted to elementary use. Current plans include keeping the auditorium, an added space that will add cost to the project anyway. The case has not been made that kids learn better in a new building over a newly renovated historic structure. We have four brand new buildings in academic emergency. Renovations don’t have to be at the expense of children. I say the question is simply bricks vs. cinder blocks.By Mary
November 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this
I had read his interesting article. He might be a smart and wonderul guy, but we might also need to focus on “mission before bricks” for the kids’ sake. He seemed to be saying the best thing for kids’ education is new bricks. I saw a picture of a 600 year old stone church being moved in Germany in USA Today last week. Funny, what other cultures can build, maintain, value and protect. We do not seem to have the desire or knowhow.By Skeptic
November 6, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
His comments were certainly a bold call to arms, and I applaud them and his work. However, it is sad that even with the massive construction levy, our community still has to rely on private donations to build the schools people really want to see in their neighborhoods. What does that tell us? PS. On a related note, what happened to the fence at Stivers?