The proposals brought before Auburn’s school committee on Oct. 7 to either rebuild, or renovate and expand, Edward Little High School have an Alice in Wonderland quality to them. With a price of $48 million (for renovation and expansion) or $60 million (for new construction), they seem do-able only to those who sip tea with the Mad Hatter.

The building committee that formulated the proposals apparently didn’t think through whether EL needs an extreme makeover, a new or renovated building would improve education commensurate with its cost, or a less expensive alternative could fix the school’s most glaring deficiencies.

They should, because taxpayer sticker shock in a dismal economy generally spells failure at the polls.

Ambitious school building schemes are often the product of well-meaning people engaged in wishful thinking. Enlist a bunch of pro-education enthusiasts for a building committee, send them to tour the state’s spiffiest new schools, and they’ll come back with a burning zeal to erect the Taj Mahal.

I know. I’ve been there. I was a member of the Auburn School Committee in the early 1990s, when it unsuccessfully promoted a plan for a new $8 million, 800-pupil elementary school on Turner Street, near the present-day Wal-Mart shopping center.

There was a far more compelling case for that elementary school than for a new EL. It would have closed three antiquated buildings, reduced administrative, transportation, heating and maintenance costs, and allowed the district to finally put grades K-6 under one roof. The stillbirth of the project later necessitated expensive renovations and expansions of Fairview, Sherwood Heights and Washburn, and more recent, the construction of new school on Park Avenue — at an aggregate price more than double the $8 million.

But then, as now, the country, state and community were in the throes of a painful recession, the local tax base was shrinking and the public was scared. This fear, coupled with a desire to cling to the “neighborhood” school concept, led to the plan being thrashed in a referendum.

On the other hand, an inexpensive, pragmatic solution to overcrowding at EL in 1998 proved successful. In lieu of proceeding with the proposed creation of a three-campus high school (EL, Walton and Merrill Hill), the school committee was able to build a locally funded, two-story classroom wing with no frills for about $1 million.

To be sure, the existing EL has its shortcomings. Built in 1961, it contains, among other things, an obsolete heating and ventilation system, a substandard cafeteria, shabby hallway carpeting, a cramped library, inadequate spaces for guidance, special education and administration, a noisy music room, bathrooms without handicapped accessibility, science classes too small for proper labs, and areas of roof to weak to handle heavy snow loads. It’s also energy inefficient and has no auditorium.

Still, it’s undergone a lot of work to update and upgrade it over its lifetime, and it hardly qualifies as a throw-away.

The architect’s report on projected costs of renovating or replacing the existing building is thorough, professional, and undoubtedly accurate. My only concern is whether it represents the right answer to the wrong question.

Had the school committee first taken soundings from the city council and perhaps convened focus groups to measure how much the community might be willing to contribute, the building committee could have asked the architect a more realistic question: “How many of EL’s most pressing problems can be remedied for the sum of money we think we can raise?”

Such an approach would entail not only careful prioritizing of needs, but differentiating needs from wants. Needs involve features of the existing building which are entirely unacceptable from a health, safety or functional point of view. Wants are in the “wouldn’t it be nice” category and include goodies such as more athletic fields, new administrative offices, a larger library and an auditorium.

Maybe the wants could be built in phases down the road, but not now.

My guess is the public might be willing to go along with local funding at a level somewhere between $10 and $20 million, which, given the uncertainties, red tape and delays inherent in securing state construction subsidies, could end up being the only money in the kitty.

Still, a lot of work can be done for $10 to $20 million.

Yes, it will be a disappointment not to get a brand new high school. But of the three vital ingredients for a good educational system — teachers, curriculum, and buildings — teaching is the most important and physical plant the least.

If you don’t believe it, consider the former Lake Street School. It was already a badly outdated building when I moved to Lewiston-Auburn in 1978, yet it soldiered on for decades, widely regarded as the city’s most desirable elementary school due to the skill, dedication and esprit de corps of its teaching staff.

As Auburn’s school system, like many others, struggles with the daunting challenges of educating youngsters in a country undergoing profound economic and social transition, there’s a strong temptation to show tangible progress through bigger and better buildings. Yet this progress may be illusory.

The U.S. Department of Education reported that between 1989-90 and 2002-2003, capital outlay and interest expenditures (for school construction) went up 64 percent in constant dollars, while, during roughly the same period, national reading scores remained flat and math scores showed only modest improvements for 4th, 8th and 12th-graders. If putting a lot of money into new buildings is a booster rocket for education, you couldn’t tell it from these statistics.

It’s not too late for the school and building committees to alter course and adopt more realistic financial assumptions. They should start by changing the project’s slogan from the messianic “Renew EL” to a more modest “Spruce Up EL.”

Elliott L. Epstein, a local attorney, is founder and board president of
Museum L-A and an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community
College. He can be reached at [email protected].