Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > January > 14 > Entry
Why a school is more than bricks and cement
(Students rush to class on the first day of school in August at Colonel White High School.)
We’ve talked a lot here at GOTB about school preservation. Overall, my sense of the regular readers here is that most are not overly sentimental about Dayton’s old schools. While I think most here favor preserving historic buildings, I think they also believe (as the voters did in 2002) that in most cases Dayton needs new, updated schools.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think that is the general sentiment.
On Saturday, I went to the “closing ceremony” for Colonel White High School and witnessed something that challenged the view of the most jaded anti-preservationists.
What I saw suggested schools truly are more than just bricks and cement — that they have a permanent and personal connection with the community.
The story of Samuel and Cynthia Crosby proves it. Follow the link and read the story of why they wanted to renew their vows in a dusty hallway of a this soon-to-be-demolished high school and you’ll get a sense of the role the school played in their personal histories. You’ll see why Cynthia Crosby said she wouldn’t have traded that old hallway for a trip to the islands.
This is a good demonstration of what I’ve termed “emotional signficance”, rather than “historic” significance of old schools. The do matter to a community, even if they are not truly historic.
There was a huge crowd at Colonel White this weekend. There were a lot of tears. Many people hadn’t set foot in the school in years. But the place still mattered to them in a very personal way.
(Image credit: Jan Underwood, DDN)
Permalink | Comments (32) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By V. Keel
January 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
I attendend Colonel White in 78-82. The tearing down of my old school saddens me. I haven’t lived in Dayton for many years; however, I have visited and am disappointed with the way the city has declined. I see mixed emotions and opinions to the issue of the schools being renovated or torn down. I didn’t read opinions that stated the school being totally unsafe and must be demolished to save public health. ANY building can be renovated and used again. Colonel White would have been an awesome Boys and Girls Club, a teaching facility for adults who need to continue their education, computer classes, daycare/early education facility for working parents, so many possibilites! I see the tearing down of old buildings more for trying to improve the appearance of an already worn-down, worn-out city. Not gonna work…when around the “new” buildings is the same worn-out city. And it is worn-out because no one will listen to the people of Dayton. Keeping a building such as C.W. and re-using it for the good of the community would build up a neighborhood. I have seen it done. Those who live in Dayton need to be asked, listened to; but they also need to be willing to put in the muscle. It is shameful that our government officials from local to the White House are ignoring the needs of our oldest cities.By Joe Lacey
January 21, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
The arrogance that I refer to is not in assuming that people should get their information a certain way. The arrogance is in demonizing people for having a different opinion about what the schools in their community should look like. Mario accuses them of agitating, questionable motives, and irresponsible acts against the school district. That’s the arrogance.By mario
January 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Let�s say it is arrogant to assume that people are or should be getting information from traditional media outlets or community wide opportunities. So how do people in Dayton get the information they need to understand what is going on in their community. This came up repeatedly last year. So often people would comment that DPS wasn�t getting the word out about what was going on in schools. Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.By crisp
January 21, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
I have to say I am really amazed at some of the comments I have seen regarding community involvement in the decision making process. I am also surprised at the comment of a “few people” being against the demolition of Wilbur Wright when the school board was given signed petitions with literally hundreds of names…not all alumni. What if someone moved in to the neighborhood in the last couple of years. Are they not allowed a voice? I guess my biggest shock was my new found knowledge that how a school board member acts or what they say at meetings may not actually reflect their true feelings on a subject. I was certainly fooled into thinking Mario was concerned about the feelings of the WrightView neighborhood regarding the school. Shame on me for being so gullible.By Joe Lacey
January 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
The conclusions in the case of EJ Brown were the conclusions of DPS administration which had argued for its demolition from the beginning. There is no consensus on suitability and the cost depends on State co-funding and I don’t believe the district really pushed for co-funding of a renovation that it didn’t want. I question Mario’s conclusion that school renovations were taken off the table because of enrollment projections because, now that enrollment projections are going up, neither of these schools are being put back on the list. Once again, accusing community members of not being responsible in their actions simply because you disagree with them is arrogance whether born of frustration or not.By mario
January 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
The four schools that were mentioned as candidates for renovation were Stivers (which was done), EJ Brown, which underwent considerable discussion and professional architectural input before the conclusion was made that the building would not adapt to the Educational Specifications and would be significantly more costly to renovate than to build new. Patterson Kennedy was listed and that school has been eliminated from the Master Plan due to declining student population over the district and because demographic information indicates there are only 100 or so children in that area. The last school was Col. White, which was to be turned into an elementary school and currently has been eliminated from the Master Plan because of enrollment. There is a difference between making adjustments because of changing circumstances, i.e. enrollment and budget, and demanding all things come to a halt because a few people finally took notice. It is not arrogance, but frustration, when a complicated and expensive process is stalled because people failed to pay attention. Again, at what point can we expect people to become responsible for making themselves aware of what is going on in their community?By TB
January 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Generally speaking, when you accept the lowest bid, you are accepting lower quality and higher maintenance items (because they’re cheaper) being put into the schools. Better quality, lower maintenance materials are not affordable with the given budgets. For DPS to have better constructed buildings, fewer buildings for greater populations would have had to have been designed.By Joe Lacey
January 16, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this
The allegation that these new buildings are not 60 year buildings probably does deserve some further study. Especially when you consider the problems with roof leaks in brand new buildings. When the issue of the leaks was raised, the administration explained that the contractor was being held liable but I really wasn’t aware that this was a common problem in brand new buildings…or is it simply a common problem for the level of quality that was accepted for our new buildings?By TB
January 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Oldprof, you have misinterpreted my comment. The buildings built CIRCA 1950’s (that means AROUND the 1950’s) need to come down. I did not say all buildings built before that date. Please reread my comment. The buildings built close to the turn of the century that are structurally sound need to be preserved. Students can use those buildings as a learning tool. To investigate a world that existed before the computer age; To see what true craftsmanship is all about; to learn to look to the future while appreciating the past. These are all lessons that are quickly falling by the wayside.By Worried DPS Parent
January 16, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Obviously, if the building is dilapidated, dangerous and/or too expensive to modernize, then it’s the only option but if updating is a viable option, the building should be kept. Maybe it’s because I’m a Brit, but I just don’t understand this apparent need here to tear down buildings just to rebuild on the site. As far as I know, there has only been one Infant (Pre-K to 1st) and one Junior School (2nd to 5th) built in the last 20 years, in my old hometown; the others are all Victorian/Edwardian buildings that are still employed as schools today. In fact, when I was in the equivalent of 2nd Grade, (30+ years ago), our school building celebrated its centenary, which shows the short-sightedness of the “60 Year buildings” concept!By TB
January 16, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
60 years is way too generous. I’d give it 30. Some of the new buildings currently open look like they’ve been around at least 5 years already.By crisp
January 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Mario I can’t believe we were at the same meeting! People not wanting kids walking in front of their house?? We live across the street from a school now so that is really out there. As far as mailings coming to my house regarding the decisions for Wilbur Wright, that didn’t happen. The levy stated 4 schools were to be renovated not which ones so why wouldn’t a voter assume it could, notice I said could, involve their neighborhood school. Lastly, when we bought our home, we knew there was a school there but we had no idea there would be any reason to think anyone would want to tear down that beautiful structure and comepletely redesign the neighborhood by not only building a new boxy school, but putting it on the current football field. If you think that is good, fine do it some place else. Of course we are concerned about the children. Renovation would address all those issues.By Joe Lacey
January 16, 2008 1:14 AM | Link to this
The community understands that the process is fluid. Changes in the building plan have been made since the beginning and continue to this day. Community members who want to get involved in that process at whatever point are welcome in my book. Accusing them of agitating and questioning their motives are just examples of the arrogance that should no longer be welcome in the process.By Oldprof
January 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Link to this
Joe, maybe you’d like to share the names of the people in “the construction community” who are chuckling, because from what I hear more of them snort out loud when they hear YOUR name. As for TB’s comment, OK, all of the schools built in the 1950s or before need to come down. THAT’S ALL OF THEM. There are no buildings in DPS that were originally built later than the 1950s. The amount of disinformation here continues to demonstrate why Dayton is in decline.By Joe Lacey
January 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
So the voters approved 4 renovations and now we have one, so far. I don’t think that the voter’s intent in 2002 was as clear as Scott claims. The board may have been selling the levy as “new schools in your neighborhood”, but the people involved in that campaign have told me that it wasn’t selling well until they started pushing the message that a vote for $150 million in taxes would bring in $350 million from the state. The board sent out a lot of messages in 2002 as part of that campaign. The very name of the campaign committee included “Neighborhood Schools” and yet a good chunk of the money is going into magnet or non-neighborhood schools. And with regard to the new buildings, I’m hearing chuckles from people in the construction industry at the claim that our new buildings are 60 year buildings.By mario
January 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
One of the things that puzzles me the most is trying to determine where people get their news. The Wilbur Wright issue is a perfect example. Extensive newspaper coverage, multiple city wide and neighborhood meetings, mailings from the district, DPS TV all spoke to new neighborhood schools including in the Wright View neighborhood. At what point are citizens responsible for making themselves aware of what is going on in the community? Those people who are now agitating for keeping the old building act as if it were a new concept dropped down from the sky. The most telling comments from people who were not alumni had nothing to do with education, but had to do with not wanting kids walking in front of their house if the school was built at the bottom of the hill and two others saying a new school would block their view of the downtown skyline, at which point they would move out of the city. As a result of this, the planning for the new school has been on hold for nine months. Evan Joe Lacy waited for over a year into his term as a board member, before knocking on doors to tell people that DPS was going to tear the building down. That was 5 years after the decision had been publicly made. The final result of this delay, whatever the outcome, is that the school facility will most likely suffer because of budget constraints.By crisp
January 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
I am not going to make an attempt to dispute what you are saying Scott. The issue at hand is there are many people in the neighborhood who want the current school renovated and believe it would save taxpayer dollars. I don’t know what neighborhood you live in but I want mine to remain intact. Your article was about a school being more than bricks and cement. I happen to agree with that assessment.By Scott Elliott
January 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The master plan that was originally approved in April of 2002 (seven months before the levy vote) called for 33 new schools and 4 renovations. The plan has changed significantly over time, but that is the proposal voters approved with 64 percent voting yes. Wilbur Wright has been in the master plan as a tear down since 2001. Just in the 2001-02 period I covered more than 10 meetings at which the master plan was presented and discussed and public input gathered. A lot of these stories were on the front page as the school construction plan was a hot issue at the time. Concerns were raised about tearing down some schools, but not Wilbur Wright. The first concerns I heard about Wilbur Wright were raised in 2007. The planners showed lots of examples of new schools from around the area at the 2001-02 meetings and the district even ran a couple bus trips to other districts so people could see what the new schools would be like. We took a bunch of pictures that ran in the paper when I wrote about one of the trips.By crisp
January 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Maybe I was dreaming, but I really was under the impression that schools would be looked at on a case by case basis. I was also under the impression that the neighborhoods would have input as to what would happen in their area. I know for WrightView, that didn’t happen until last spring….after the plans had been drawn up! Only then did someone come to a neighborhood meeting to get us involved. The needs of the children have to come first, but it can be accomplished without tearing down this school and ruining the look and feel of the neighborhood. There was a “master plan”….plan being the key word. Plans can and should be adjusted when needed they are not carved in stone.By TB
January 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
Scott, I’m sure the voters that voted for new schools did not expect to see a sterile ‘box’ either. Especially a ‘box’ that a)does not follow the asthetics of the neighborhood; b)was constructed with cheap materials; and c)will not last half as long as its predecessor. I agree, all of the more lackluster buildings need to come down (circa 1950’s). However, the buildings with extreme character and craftsmanship need to be preserved.By Oldprof
January 15, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
OK, complete this sentence: “If your emotional memory can’t survive without an old building…”By dan kennedy
January 15, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Did this master plan come out before the levy?By Mary
January 15, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this
Lou, what you mentioned about funding, I had also thought of. But that should also be clarified in the article. If what you say is true, then those were not really $10 million schools. Money is money and comes from somewhere and someone and goes to someone else.By Scott Elliott
January 14, 2008 9:32 PM | Link to this
Well, true, the ballot language said something like that. But none of the considerable DPS publicity in the build up to the levy said anything about any renovation. Quite the opposite — a new school in your neighborhood was the major sell. Plus the district had a building masterplan that was nearly all new construction at the time. So that is what the voters approved by a huge margin.By Joe Lacey
January 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Link to this
The voters did not choose “new schools” in 2002. The ballot language didn’t say “new schools”. It said “school construction under the state accelerated urban school building assistance program” which, by law, includes school renovation. Also renovated schools can be “updated schools”.By lou
January 14, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this
My elementry school is about to be torn down. It has not been used for years as a city school. They had a day care in it and my son was in my old 6th grade room. It was really cool looking around and remembering grade school. I still see some of the people I went to school with and we all agree that that was the best school ever. But, being realistic, the school needs to come down along with 1 middle school and they need to build a new middle school. I cannot wait until my school opens. I know I will miss the old walls, but I will love the room for computers, the power to run them, sinks that work, warm rooms in the winter and cool in the summer. And most important I will like having a science lab that is up to date so I can teach what the kids need. Mary, the state funding depends on the income of the community. That is why it costs more some place than others. Your district may have decided to build without funding so that they did not have to follow state guidelines. The district I live in did it that way.By Concerned Mom of 3
January 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this
I grew up in a suburban school district. I do not have any feelings of “emotional significance” about any of the buildings I attended for elementary school, junior high school, or high school. But then again, I probably had my social and emotional needs met at home. Many Dayton Public School students find themselves in the situation where school was/is the most stable part of their lives… No wonder they develop an emotional connection to the place… school was/is their safe haven in a very chaotic life. I always try to listen and understand other people’s points of view. The emotional connections are valid- and should not be completely discounted. On the same note- the “historical buffs” should let logic kick in at some point. Safety has to be the first priority. (Asbestos and lead paint are not safe. We know it. We can’t ignore it just because we all lived through it.) Second to safety, the finances have to be considered… maintainence, efficiency, A/C… those are a must. If it costs twice as much to maintain the old building… is it really a wise investment to preserve the old building? On the other hand, if a building can be refurbished, updated, and maintained for approximately the same cost as building a new facility, why not consider saving the building- especially if there are people in the community that have a special emotional connection to the building? I know this “bricks vs. cement issue” is not a cut and dried issue. People on both sides of the issue should listen to one another- really listen, apply some logic, then problem solve in ways where everyone wins. (But mostly, the focus has to be on the students of Dayton being the winners.)Ultimately, the students are the ones who need our support.By crisp
January 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
The old buildings have so many memories and bring so much character to a neighborhood. I hate to see any of them lost to a “box”. The new schools are supposed to last 50 years, 60 years? The old schools have already done much better than that! I still believe it would be cheaper to renovate Wilbur Wright and keep the beautiful old building in our neighborhood. The school could be updated with new electirical for computers, new lighting, drop the ceilings for heat efficiency. There are many things that could be done to it and other neighborhood schools. Listen to the people, they value their neighborhoods and want to maintain the integrity.By Matt
January 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
It was emotional to walk around the building one final time: disappointment, regret, nostalgia, friendship, and invigoration. Go Cougars!By Riverdale Ghost
January 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
There’s a sense of solidness in old stuff that doesn’t exist in the new. If it’s old it lasted; if it’s new, it might not. More than that, if something was a part of our lives, to wash it away is to wash away our lives as if they were nothing; and, if you are not ten years old, there’s less time left to build another visible life.By David Esrati
January 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
As someone who had his elementary school torn down the year after “graduating” from the 6th grade- I can tell you, the teachers who are in the “New building”- circa 1973 or so- would much prefer to be in the old building -still to this day. Yes- it had asbestos, and lead paint, and big halls (with terrazzo floors) and didn’t have TV’s in every room- but, it had grand spaces, solid walls and floors- and had a history of learning- that you could feel. There is something very uncomfortable about being in all these “new” buildings- go to the Greene- walk in the Arcade- we can’t replicate the spirit of place. I don’t want to live and learn in the Truman show.By Mary
January 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
The thing that does not make sense is we can afford to build new buildings, but we cannot afford to keep up buildings. Also, as one of your articles points out, if three schools can be built for $30 million, why does my suburban district need $90 million for three schools?