'More dollars for kids'
By Bonnie Washuk
,
Staff Writer
Monday, March 24, 2008
AUBURN - Big changes that would impact virtually every Auburn student by 2012 have been recommended by a subcommittee that studied the city's schools.
The Auburn Master Plan Subcommittee is recommending a five-year plan to renovate and expand four schools, especially Edward Little High School, and consolidate elementary schools from six to four.
Six school department buildings would eventually be closed and sold.
The overall goal is to provide quality programs and equity for all students, said David Das, Auburn School Committee chairman, who also chaired the subcommittee.
What's not known is how many millions it would it cost, and how it would be paid for.
The costs and funding decisions would be decided by elected officials and Auburn residents. None of the recommended action could happen without approval from taxpayers, Das said.
"Our motto is more dollars for kids, less dollars for facilities," Das said. As proposed, by 2012/13 the number of Auburn School Department school buildings would be reduced from 16 to 10, he said.
Topping the list is to give new life to the 48-year-old Edward Little High School.
The high school would get a major renovation, basically stripped down to the steel frame and rebuilt. A new-and-improved school would include an addition with a new cafeteria, science labs, music and chorus area, new library, a fitness center and an auditorium with a stage.
The school department could partner with community organizations, such as the YMCA or the Lewiston-Auburn Community Theatre, to share the fitness center and auditorium.
Principal James Miller said the high school was "a Cadillac in 1961 when it opened. It served its purpose well." Now the building "is an antique."
Subcommittee member Tonya Gagne, an EL senior, said inside the school "it's not the best environment." The school "is very dirty. It's not well kept." Some classrooms are scorching, others are freezing, she said. There are new bathrooms that students are excited about, she said. The older bathrooms "are the worst," and so bad that some students "hold it till they get home," Gagne said.
Seniors Ben Demers and Greg Merritt, also subcommittee members, said EL lacks athletic fields and the cafeteria is inferior. The cafeteria was initially built as a storage area, and does not have windows and a full kitchen. The lack of kitchen means students are unable to get free-and-reduced lunches subsidized by the federal government.
As recommended, Auburn would lose what some consider neighborhood schools. Elementary schools would be consolidated from six to four, and would become grades pre-K or K-5 schools instead of pre-K or K-6.
Students would be redistricted to attend one of four schools: Washburn, Sherwood Heights, Fairview and Park Avenue. Washburn and Park Avenue would be expanded to hold more students.
Two schools, East Auburn and Walton, would close. East Auburn would hold the land lab and special education; Walton the alternative schools and adult education. Four buildings would be decommissioned, turned over to the city and sold.
Parent and subcommittee member Verne Paradie said he was initially opposed to moving students out of East Auburn and Walton, getting rid of what many consider neighborhood schools.
But after learning the financial benefits to taxpayers and program benefits to student, he's convinced consolidation makes sense. Programs in Auburn's elementary schools are not equal, he said. Not all schools have a cafeteria, a stage or gymnasium. With consolidation programs would be more equal, Paradie said.
Park Avenue Elementary School Principal Vickie Gaylord agreed that Auburn has always had a preference for small, neighborhood schools. But state funding for education gives preference to schools with 350 to 550 students. And most students don't walk to school. For instance at the East Auburn school, 13 percent of students walk, 87 percent are bused, Gaylord said.
Another recommendation is to renovate and expand the Auburn Middle School to hold sixth-graders instead of just seventh and eighth.
Principal Kathi Cutler said students would benefit by having a three-year experience instead of a two-year experience at the school. Two years is too short, she said, comparing it to a "landing strip." Students now spend too much time transitioning in from elementary school, and transitioning out to high school, Cutler said.
If sixth-graders attended the middle school they could take advantage of more programs, sports and club activities, Cutler said. Of the 121 middle schools in Maine, the majority have grades six through eight, and only 14 percent have seventh and eighth grades.
Renovations would also eliminate the use of classrooms without windows, Cutler said.
While costs are not known, a report given last fall by architect Stephen Blatt projected renovating the high school would cost between $24 million to $26 million, expanding the middle school about $5.5 million; and renovating elementary schools $3 million to $3.5 million, or a total of about $32 million to $35 million.
The school department would try to gain state dollars to help, but state money may not be available, which could mean the project would largely depend on local taxpayers. The Department of Education has warned money for school construction may not be available for years, and even then Auburn would have to compete for funding with other school districts.
Money would be saved by heating and maintaining fewer buildings, and reducing personnel. Going from six to four elementary schools would require fewer principals, secretaries, guidance counselors, teachers, librarians and ed techs, subcommittee member Marnie Coleman told school committee members.
The master plan subcommittee began examining schools in January, and on Wednesday it presented its findings to the School Committee. Subcommittee members included school board members, educators, students and lay people.
The Auburn School Committee may take up the subcommittee's recommendations at its April 2 meeting.
Recommendations for Auburn schools
• Gut and rebuild Edward Little with addition for auditorium, cafeteria, science labs, music room, library, fitness center;
• Add new wing to Auburn Middle School for sixth-graders;
• Close two elementary schools (East Auburn and Walton);
• Remaining elementary schools (Sherwood Heights, Park Avenue, Washburn and Fairview) would house grades K-5;
• East Auburn school building would house land lab, special education program; Walton building would house Franklin alternative high school and Merrill Hill alternative middle school, and adult education;
• 6 school buildings, Mt. Auburn, Webster, C.P. Wight, Lake Street, Chamberlain and Merrill Hill, would be turned over to the city to be sold.
To read the full report, go to:
http://www.auburnschl.edu/SchoolCommittee/masterplansubcommittee.html and click on 3/19/08 recommendations.
|
CLICK HERE To Show/Hide Discussion Thread - (25 Comments)
Comments
 |
Posted By:ROBERT at March 24, 2008 6:37 AM (Suggest Removal) If we can educate our students for less per student, Itchy is all for this plan. If it is going to cost us more per student, I have a problem with it. At a price tag of at least $35 million with little or no funding from the remainder of Maine's taxpayers, I doubt it will be less. I was struck with the "dirty" comment at EL. A little Lestoil and hot water goes a long way. Pleased that the schools are finally going to get rid of all the excess real estate that they own (six buildings).
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:L'il at March 24, 2008 7:02 AM (Suggest Removal) I was also struck by the "dirty" comment regarding conditions at EL. Dirty? Unacceptable bathrooms? Sounds like the cleaning staff needs to get cracking.
That said, I can't fathom how that high school in Maine was built without insulation. Improvements could help to contain fuel costs. My understanding is that the roof has leaked since the very beginning; is this true? And if so, was there litigation? I was also unaware that the school has been unable to serve reduced-cost lunches. That's just unacceptable, particularly given the current climate. (By the way, if this happens, what will happen to the old EL on Main Street?)
I was also struck by the information on Auburn Middle School. Wasn't there an article in the paper within the month that said there's way too much classroom space there for the number of students who attend? Why must a separate wing be built for sixth graders? Is there not enough room to accommodate them?
I don't like to hear about a $35 million project funded by taxpayers, either. But students throughout the city deserve equal educational opportunities, and it appears that aging facilities are denying those opportunities to some.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Frank at March 24, 2008 7:55 AM (Suggest Removal) EL--a 1981 Cadillac built without a gym. The basketball team had to play its home games at the Lewiston Armory. And gym classes were held in the multi-purpose room. When a gym was added on in 1966 it was not large enough for our seniors to graduate in their own city. EL needs to be renovated and expanded with a vision for the future. Kudos to the Committee for their consolidation recommendations.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Frank at March 24, 2008 8:04 AM (Suggest Removal) A 1961 Cadillac that is.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Jane at March 24, 2008 9:07 AM (Suggest Removal) I agree with this plan 100%.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:parent207 at March 24, 2008 9:11 AM (Suggest Removal) I too agree with the subcommittees plan. I'm very happy with the elementary school my child attends but if they don't do something with the high school I will seek another option, which is a shame considering the amount I pay in taxes but a childs learning enviroment is VERY important.
Wouldn't it also make sense and save a lot of money if the two communities of Auburn/Lewiston combined their adult education programs. One facility/shared staff/shared advertising.... It just seems foolish to have two programs...waste of money and resources.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ojhuig at March 24, 2008 9:20 AM (Suggest Removal) You're planning to segregate special-ed students in a separate school? I don't think so!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Jane at March 24, 2008 9:39 AM (Suggest Removal) I don't think that is what they are saying- I think what will happen- as it happens now- is that students with severe behavioral disorders will be in a separate program- the kids that would otherwise be expelled from school. Also, the students that are severely developmentally delayed would also have their own spot. These kids are already separated from the mainstream.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JulieL at March 24, 2008 10:31 AM (Suggest Removal) Parts of EL, (bathrooms), are so old they appear dirty. Imagine a house built in 1961 without a major renovation? It is our repsonsiblity as a community to give kids in our commnuities the best education we can provide. If you don't have kids, if you're kids are grown, you still have a responsibility to contribute via your taxes. With a name like "itchy" you must have a few kids or neices and nephews?
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Billy at March 24, 2008 10:45 AM (Suggest Removal) Please dont be fooled by the title of this, how can you give more dollars too kids when the city will have 35-50 million dollars in debt for this proposal. There is no state help it will be local only debt.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Lisa at March 24, 2008 11:36 AM (Suggest Removal) Itchy, Itchy Itchy.... please educate yourself before you make comments like this,
"Pleased that the schools are finally going to get rid of all the excess real estate that they own (six buildings)."
The schools do not OWN any buildings. Attend some meetings. You may learn something.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ROBERT at March 24, 2008 11:48 AM (Suggest Removal) Lisa... Itchy read, in the Washuk story, that the school department plans to "turn over" six buildings to the city so that the buildings can be sold. If they don't own them, then they control them. Or do they really control them at all if they don't own them? I'll reserve judgement on my support of this plan until I see the numbers. A plan with no numbers is deficient. It's a nice vision statement, but the taxpayers deserve to have an accountable, accurate projection of costs before getting worked up into a lather about it.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ojhuig at March 24, 2008 11:54 AM (Suggest Removal) Jane, segregation is against everything the parents have fought for. It won't stand.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Jane at March 24, 2008 12:26 PM (Suggest Removal) It's not segregation, ojhuig. These students all already in an environment away from the mainstream- that is regular education classrooms. To be sure, by law, you must try to keep special education students in the "least restrictive environment". This cannot always happen. Thus, the need for more restrictive classrooms-i.e. classrooms for students with behavior problems that might otherwise be expelled (this happens after repeated and severe behavior issues in the mainstream environment), and students that are so severely developmentally delayed that to have them in a mainstream classroom does not suit the individual educationally and may or may not cause disruptions the other mainstream students. This is in no way discriminatory to these students, and is not segregation in the sense that I believe you mean. It is making education work for everyone one involved. The special ed. student and the non special ed. students. I'm not sure that you fully understand the ins and outs of the educational process.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:post man at March 24, 2008 2:30 PM (Suggest Removal) It makes alot of sense to get rid of old buildings. It is no longer cost effective to keep each neighborhood schools. As mentioned, larger schools allow for more effecient delivery and economy of scale. Lastly, my only hope would be the sale of these properties would directly benefit the education system. It is the responsibility of us all to pressure the city council into taking that money and giving it back to the school side.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:cranky yankee at March 24, 2008 3:47 PM (Suggest Removal) Sounds like some of the gripers need to make a visit to EL before they gripe. The "dirty" situation has nothing to do with "dirt." It is about facilities that are simply worn out with no money to replace and rebuild them.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Lisa at March 24, 2008 4:28 PM (Suggest Removal) Itchy, "If they don't own them, then they control them. Or do they really control them at all if they don't own them?"
Actually they rent them. So they will no longer have to pay rent on the buildings that they don't use, but they won't profit from any buildings that are sold. I agree with your last post. How anyone can support a plan without all of the facts is beyond me. I wonder how much the Auburn School Deptment has to pay to rent the portion of the building that they were told, by the city, that they had to move into.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ROBERT at March 24, 2008 4:39 PM (Suggest Removal) Washuk quoted "dirty." We didn't read "tired", or "run down." We read "dirty." And commented on same....Please note that about 80% of the school budget goes to salaries and benefits...Most schools in Maine are built after the State ranking system determines that your community's needs are greater than other towns and cities. I understand that Auburn is way down the list..... Perhaps those that want a new facility would consider paying an additional contribution (a couple of thousand would be helpful) to their property taxes every year for the next 30 to build new facilities. They can drive by them every night after supper and admire their investment. The rest of us will be paying for car repairs until the roads are fixed.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:DONALD R at March 24, 2008 4:58 PM (Suggest Removal) What community did Das move here from? Had to have been south of here...a prince's dreams with a pauper's pockets! This is a really lousy time to be talking about spending even more money. It just shows the lack of common sense on the school committee...unreal.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:bill at March 24, 2008 6:38 PM (Suggest Removal) Although I would like to back this initiative I have to ask if this is the right time? We will get no help from the State as we are way down on the list. Yes in the future the costs for the project will be even more. But we (the citizens that work) don't have even enough money to live like we did last year or the year before. All of this is under the cloud of "we will save money." That's the same reasoning that the police department and fire department are using too for a new facility. When it comes to selling real estate, the city does a poor job. Instead of selling they prefer to give it away. We will need to pay a rain tax I'm sure. Add that to your tax bill even if you want to call it a fee. And of course we will begin pay per bag soon too. Another tax disguised as a fee. We work and work and pass our money over to the city, state, and feds. I'm for paying a fair share but it's getting ridiculous. Now this is my biggest fear. I'm worried and hopefully I'm worrying for nothing. But, my fear is that Bates #5 will be dropped in the lap of county for the conception of an unnecessary historical landmark. We pay county tax too through our property taxes. Please people, I agree that there is a need for a state of the art educational facility for our children. But we are working people and just can't afford it. I wish we could. And finally, you know the sale of those school building, if any profit is shown, will go for other things rather than help pay for education. I write this sincerely. Maybe I should change my name to a worry wart instead of bill. But if anyone can help me sort this out as to how we would be able to pay for this without making people like myself move to the poor house, I'd appreciate it.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ojhuig at March 24, 2008 7:09 PM (Suggest Removal) Jane, I actually sued to have my child tuitioned out to a private school for severely autistic students. I know from least restrictive. I can cite you chapter and verse, so let's put that little misconception to rest for you. If a student is ok for public school, that child cannot by law be relegated tp a different building. Even if they can't be mainstreamed into a regular class, they must be allowed to attend the same school as the rest of the children. It's the law.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JulieL at March 24, 2008 7:57 PM (Suggest Removal) Your child is lucky to have you as his advocate ojhuig. It's interesting to see how many people are worried about updating the local schools and acting as though educating someone else's child is not beneficial to them. Where do teachers, doctors, bankers, etc come from? Educate your community and you all benefit!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:dr. dosh at March 24, 2008 8:07 PM (Suggest Removal) ..lol EL ; sounds like a plan to me. We used to compete against a 1959 built city high school that was built w/o bathrooms, (they added them later), and tennis courts that were too short. Consolidate and reinvent Auburn. Put video cameras everywhere as a deterrant to outlandish behavior, also. /s, an actual H S grad. *<=)
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:dr. dosh at March 24, 2008 8:12 PM *'>(Suggest Removal) Q: Why did Cinderella have to be in by midnight ? Ayuh ; Her tampon was going to turn in to a pumpkin. It's just a joke, Mainers. Laugh a (coughs) Little. (=>*
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ojhuig at March 25, 2008 9:23 AM (Suggest Removal) You can laugh your days away Dosh. You obviously have no stake in it - or you THINK you don't. Julie's right.
| Add your comments
|
|
Advertisement

|
 |
| CMHVI and AHA Restaurant Event - May 12 thru 17 |
In celebration of its fifth anniversary, the Central Maine Heart and Vascular Institute is partnering with Lewiston-Auburn area restaurants to present “A Taste of the Twin Cities”, a fund-raiser for the American Heart Association that will feature heart h |
read more >>
|
| Making A Difference Commemorative Quilt |
In celebration of its fifth anniversary, the Central Maine Heart and
Vascular Institute is sponsoring the creation of a Making A Difference Commemorative Quilt to recognize those with or those who have had heart disease. |
read more >>
|
| “Growing Through Cancer: Your Personal Toolkit” |
is the theme of a multipart
workshop series being presented by the Patrick Dempsey Center for Cancer
Hope and Healing at Central Maine Medical Center. |
read more >>
|
| Ann E. Traynor, M.D |
a medical hematologist and oncologist, has been appointed to the Central Maine Medical Center Medical Staff. She is practicing with Hematology-Oncology Associates in Lewiston. |
read more >>
|
|
|