A 1961 Cadillac is a classic, a sharp-finned throwback to the heady days of Detroit dominance and 10-cent per-gallon gasoline. But nothing about a driving a ’61 Caddy is either efficient or effective in today’s world.

Neither is using a 1961 building, especially one as outdated and energy inefficient as one of those Cadillacs. Yet Auburn continues to utilize, and expect, Edward Little High School to perform as admirably as a newer model.

The building simply cannot. That’s the conclusion of the subcommittee tasked with examining school construction in Auburn, and we agree. A massive taxpayer investment into Edward Little is not only warranted, but it is inevitable with each passing day.

To offset the investment, the subcommittee presented a common sense timeline for closing smaller, neighborhood schools. In striving for efficiency, the least efficient facilities must be sacrificed.

From a community perspective, there’s nothing more uniting and pleasant than a small, neighborhood school. But the economic realities – and the facilities demands of the Auburn school system – have made neighborhood schools an expensive luxury.

The school’s subcommittee made these sensible recommendations in its seven-page report, which was released March 19. Sentiment took a back seat to compromise, which is essential in charting the future of the school system.

Although the subcommittee examined the entire system, its plan depends on Edward Little. The school might be able to be polished to shine, but a new exterior cannot mask the interior failings that will mandate its eventual renovation.

Modern high schools need athletic fields, cafeterias and auditoriums. The amenities at Edward Little are subpar and need improvement. This could come in two forms: the building of an entirely new school, or addition to the old.

The subcommittee endorses the latter. Estimates for new construction were lofty, to say the least, leaving the strong prospect for taxpayer sticker-shock. A ground-up restoration is a smart compromise that should be politically acceptable and appropriate. (It’s what one would do with a 1961 Cadillac, after all.)

So should the concept of sharing facilities, and facility costs, with other groups, such as the YMCA, community theater, or a hospital. Nobody is asking, or should expect, taxpayers to shoulder renovation of Edward Little alone.

Further partnerships, perhaps with Lewiston, should also be pursued to offset the cost for construction. No facility or organization exists within a vacuum – through joint ventures, more than one community group benefits.

The subcommittee touched upon all this thinking in its report, which the school committee should embrace. The report said what’s apparent, and what should be said: that Edward Little needs work, and there are efficiencies to be found within the system.

There is bound to be debate about the proposal.

There should be little, however, about these conclusions.