Letter: MIHS Student Says Bond Will Bring High Taxes, 'Mega' Schools

I am Dylan Ma, a freshman attending Mercer Island High School. Having followed the bond since January, I have become acutely aware of many of the flaws and drawbacks that the $196,000,000 bond brings.  Although I acknowledge the severe overcrowding of today’s elementary and middle schools, the current bond is not the right solution. Besides the unnecessary and excessive tax increases that it would bring, the proposition is vaguely worded, poorly planned, and sets in stone “Mega-Schools”.

Many proponents of the bond attempt to convince voters that because our tax rates are lower than surrounding areas, we can afford additional tax increases. However, . According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of owner-occupied housing units from 2006-2010 was $895,800. Issaquah, also with a bond of similar size, had a median value of $458,300 for the same time period. Clearly, there is a difference in property values with surrounding cities. In the long term, residents of Mercer Island may be over burdened with other bonds as well, such as the possible replacement of the , , and .

Another particularly concerning facet of this bond is the extremely vague wording of the bond. Section 2 of the bond states that “If the Board shall determine that it has become impractical to accomplish any of such Improvements…, the District shall not be required to accomplish such Improvements”. The bond also references RCW 28.A.530.020, which states that after holding only two public hearings, the district  “may adopt a new resolution or amend the original resolution”. This is especially alarming since the same school board that started the controversy over a school on the Stevenson’s farm would also be allowed to change the projects outlined in the resolution. Additionally, the only reason cited for the purchase of the is “for a potential land exchange”. Do we want to allow the same school board that to spend $9.25 million on land that has yet to have a purpose?

Considering the aspects of 21^st Century facilities, I must say that in my past years at , West Mercer, and Lakeridge, I was not negatively impacted by the so-called “cells and bells” school design. Neither did portables inhibit my learning. Teacher quality still remains the most fundamental influence on learning. I also was not affected by any overcrowding last year at IMS (although this is not to say that it won’t be a problem in the future).

The main issue with this bond is how it would solve overcrowding. Under even the most ambitious construction scenario, the final school would not be finished for another five years. Additionally, the current “plan” calls for rebuilding in place. In my own experience, construction during school hours is highly disruptive, and perhaps even dangerous.

According to the 21 CFPC report, “ Just under half of the committee, ideally, would favor a configuration with a 4th elementary school” (pg. 8). The main reason that many supported a 3-1-1 configuration, the report concluded, was because “there was no consensus on where the MISD might put (a fourth school)” (pg. 9). Some possible locations for a fourth elementary might include Mercerdale Park, the pea-patch near the Community Center, or the City Hall site with the adjacent property. Parkland for the first option could be compensated with the Stevenson’s property, besides the fact that a school there would include open space and a playground. The second option would encompass over 6.61 acres of land, above the recommended parcel size for an elementary school.

Some worry about “equity” in having one new school, others, about the extra overhead costs. To address the extra operating costs, the 21 CFPC report states that “three larger schools will also have some additional costs associated with them as well” (pg. 8). To address school “equity”, “The committee found that …some significant programmatic improvements could be accomplished through remodels” (pg. 7).  Thus, a slight remodel coupled with a fourth elementary school would result in equal “21^st Century” facilities.

A fourth school is also better in the long term for student education. Recently, the MISD Superintendent wrote that the study cited by a Board member supporting smaller schools indicated that only “schools (with) under 200 students” and serving students with “disadvantaged backgrounds” would help scores. However, the review also states, “elementary schools serving economically and socially heterogeneous or relatively advantaged students should be limited in size to about 500 students” (Leithwood 2007). A fourth school would have 500 learning spaces, fitting in with the definition of “small schools”.

Though at first glance the thought of having all elementary and middle schools being replaced is tempting, there are simply too many flaws and limitations in the current bond. The alternatives that are cost effective, feasible, and logical should be chosen over this solution. This bond does not warrant approval. Although I myself am not able to vote on this bond, I would vote 'NO', and hope that you will too.

Dylan Ma

Mercer Island High School Freshman