It is apparent that the failure of the elevator at the Bangs Center will present a great inconvenience to its users and I commend your attempts to secure its repair in times shorter than the six-month estimate.
The cost of this repair is high and if it must be paid for by the town, it would be a burden to taxpayers already facing high tax rates. I presume attempts are in progress to have parts of the cost carried by the elevator manufacturer and/or insurance.
It appears that the elevator failed in the test to determine whether it could operate according to its rated specifications. The testing group claims that the test was conducted properly. If so, and if the specification for purchase of the elevator required that it could carry the specified load, then it manufacturer failed to meet this requirement and should be responsible for at least a portion of the repair cost.
A lesson for society is the need to assume responsibility for actions and I see no reason why Amherst taxpayers should be burdened with the cost to deal with a problem that may be due to the action of the manufacturer.
Richard S. Stein
Amherst
The writer is the Goessmann Professor of Chemistry, emeritus, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Although we had great respect for all of the candidates running for state representative for the 3rd Hampshire District, the three of us differed on our ultimate choice. But we are united in our support for the proposed new elementary school in Amherst and for the Proposition 2 ½ override. We urge Amherst voters to vote yes on Question 5.
This is not an easy decision – no one likes higher taxes and most everyone likes the idea of small neighborhood schools.
But the condition of both the Fort River and the Wildwood schools is appalling. Renovation of those buildings to provide individual classrooms with proper ventilation and to address the deterioration of the structures would be extremely expensive (if even possible) and would not be eligible for state support. Instead we have an excellent opportunity to access state funding and to build a new state-of-the-art educational building.
Amherst’s commitment to high-quality education is at the very heart of our community. The painstaking and comprehensive work done by the school building committee should be commended. Implementing its proposal will allow us to receive from the state 52 percent of the cost of the project.
If we turn this down, we will have to spend additional dollars on alternative plans and will face ever-increasing construction costs, with no guarantee that state funds will be available to help us meet them. This would also force us to send yet another generation of elementary school children to languish in poorly designed spaces with inadequate ventilation and moldy conditions.
Let’s agree to put our dollars into a well-designed project that will benefit all of our young children. Vote yes on Question 5.
John Olver
Amherst
The letter was also signed by Amherst residents Sarah LaCour and Nancy Eddy.
My children attended day care together for one year. The single drop-off and pick-up made family life easier, and that brought our family closer. Their teachers made extra time and space for their interaction, and our little girl had a role model and the security of an older sibling.
Our older daughter started kindergarten this fall. If the plan for separate K-1 and 2-6 schools is approved, six years will pass before our daughters attend the same school again.
When our younger one reaches kindergarten she may spend up to 30 minutes alone on a bus to Crocker Farm instead of three minutes going down the block with her sister. My older daughter will not be her reading buddy or role model. They won’t play together in the after school program. We lose two years of community and critical bonding, and many families will do the same.
But there are a number of other issues. The current plan nearly doubles cohort size, when studies of grade cohort size recommend fewer students per grade. The current plan also introduces a transition at age 7. Data show that transitions are difficult for all children, with less time per school robbing them of a sense of place. The effects of transitions and larger cohorts intensify for at-risk students, increasing achievement gaps and provoking disciplinary actions that disproportionally target minority students.
Classroom community is part of the goal; involving the families is equally central to closing education gaps and improving education quality. Neighborhood schools facilitate involvement.
Sadly, the prior ARPS central administration suffered from strained relationships with the community. An administration now in transition has an opportunity to mend those relationships and hand the new superintendent a clean slate.
Amherst can change plans and still have state funding. In all three cases case where a town resubmitted a new proposal after the original proposal was voted down, the Massachusetts School Building Association funded proposals with a two- to three-year delay. A plan that costs the average homeowner an annual $300 while disregarding the best educational practices will ultimately cost far more than $67 million.
The consolidated school plan may provide the quickest fix, but Amherst should not trade short-term gains at the cost of becoming the incoming parent’s second choice for the next 50 years.
Had we won the PVLSI lottery for our older daughter, my little one would have priority enrollment, both girls could share the drive together to a smaller school and have fewer transitions.
But we believe in public schools and the ARPS community that make our schools remarkable. Only prioritizing the best practices in education will stem the flow to private and charter schools. Better options solve Wildwood and Fort River’s problems without destroying K-6 schools.
Kristen DeAngelis
Amherst
Here’s the simple answer to what Question 5 is, and why a yes vote will save our town a boat load of money.
First off, it has nothing to do with supporting the actions or behavior of our previous superintendent or the school committee. Rather, it approves a tax override to fund a new public school building. That’s it – it’s not a blank check.
The reason why it saves a ton of money is simple: if it passes, the state will grant us 34 million dollars, covering more than half the cost of the building! Ridiculous, right? Well, not so easy to come by: there’s a wicked slow, highly competitive approval process that we had to get through first, starting way back in 2007. this is the last step.
The reason we need this now is that we have two old school buildings in substantial disrepair, and both have a really bad design to boot (built in the ‘70s during the “open classroom” fad that most everyone hates now). So we just had this endless year of town meetings about what to do, and the building committee unanimously recommended combining both schools into one – since the state’s offer covers half the cost of one building only.
Some people like the idea of two schools in one, and some don’t. But the building committee, select board, and our state representative are all in unanimous agreement that we should do this now, given our other major upcoming town expenses. If it fails, we go back to the beginning of the free state money line, waiting an unknown number of additional years for approval.
A grant of $34 million dollars is just way too good a deal to pass up. This is why it makes the most fiscal sense to vote yes on 5.
Peter Demling
Amherst
