Lewiston taxpayers have been asked to approve a $9 million bond to repair Lewiston Middle School, and because it is for our children, because its purpose is to support education, we want to approve it. But, before we rush to judgment, we should compare three communities.

Uncomfortably, we accept that Lewiston/Auburn schools are failing while trusting that our educators, the professionals, are striving for improvement. But, New England Common Assessment Program results reveal that only 52 percent and 61 percent of sixth-grade Lewiston students are proficient in mathematics and reading respectively; comparable numbers for Auburn’s sixth-grade students are 63 percent and 71 percent. Lewiston’s lower numbers, because of unfavorable demographics, are expected, but not forgiven.

Many of our children are illiterate, but, unbelievably, are promoted from grade to grade. According to NECAP, of the 25 “black or African-American” and seven “white” students, in Longley’s sixth-grade class, only one student (a “black, African-American”) was proficient in reading.

Instead of addressing that and other educational failures, we are distracted by chipped paint and missing toilet seats at the middle school.

Montgomery, Vt., has 1,200 people, six covered bridges and one school with 121 kindergarten through grade eight students. Fifty-four percent of its sixth-grade students are economically disadvantaged; that is less than Lewiston and slightly more than Auburn. Its sixth-grade NECAP percentages are 96 percent for reading and 96 percent for mathematics.

Montgomery’s education efforts concentrate, not upon whether the teacher taught it, but whether the student learned it. Montgomery sets expectations for both teachers and students; it uses research-based instruction and, importantly, provides help to struggling students. Each day, they re-teach students who require it and provide advanced work for students ready for it.

Disappointed by our own schools, we are like urchins, our faces pressed against the bakery window; if Montgomery were our school, we could presuppose our children’s later success in life. Instead, we must presuppose their failure.

We could do better if we revised the teachers’ union contract. Then, we could remove ineffective teachers, we could pay exceptional teachers more, we could pay more for math and science teachers.

Instead, we want to expand a building to serve 900 students — a building that previously served more than 1,100. Admittedly, the cafeteria is too small, but the solution is unlikely to prove as difficult or as important as educating children.

It is possible, perhaps likely, that years from today, our students will find themselves unable to hold a job or be promoted because they can’t read, write or understand geometry, and the fault will be ours. But it is almost certain that none of our students will have their lives unfavorably altered by chipped paint in the middle school’s third-floor hallway.

Richard Sabine, Lewiston