(sorry this is a bit off topic, but schools are infrastructure too)
I have a three month old son, and I’ve been walking him around the neighborhood near my house, looking at the beautiful old buildings that were built around 100 years ago, when my house was built. Here’s a little tour.
This is the high school he could have attended:
This is the Queen Anne High School, probably the most beautiful school I’ve seen. It’s brick and stone with intricate detailing and a 180 degree view of the city. But our underfunded or poorly run school system has decided he doesn’t need these amenities, and sold the building as condos. Instead, he may go here:
Ok, this is just a stock office photo. But I couldn’t find a photo of the Center School, the closest high school to my house. This school is located above the food court of the Seattle Center and looks like a run-down office. Upon entering you expect cubicles rather than classrooms. The Center House building it is housed in was designed as a temporary structure over 40 years ago. The lunchroom is the Seattle Center food court.
This is the middle school he could have attended:
This is the West Queen Anne Public School. It’s another beautiful brick building designed to last at least 200 years. But it was also sold as condos. Instead, he’ll probably go here:
Built in the 60′s, this cheaply constructed mess of concrete and brick facade looks run down already.
This is the elementary school he could have attended:
Not brick, but still a beautiful building. It hasn’t been sold as condos yet, but isn’t being used as the elementary school. Instead he’ll probably go here:
Ok, this one’s a bit nicer than the others. But then it’s new – we’ll see how it holds up in a hundred years or two.
Where did we go wrong? How come we used to build great monuments to our children designed to last hundreds of years and now build cheap, short term classrooms? Were previous Seattlites just much more wealthy than we are, or did our priorities change? Imagine what our schools would look like if spent our road building taxes on our children instead.
I think all manner of public buildings were “built to last” back in the day. I guess all buildings in general were, for that matter. Part of that is probably because the cost of construction was relatively expensive in the days before the comubstion engine and electricity.
There are still some beautiful schools in Seattle: Stevens Elementary, Garfield HS, Franklin HS… just to name a few off the top of my head.
And, of course, at the end of the day, the real crisis in education is what goes on inside the classrooms, not the bricks on the facade. But I think what you’re saying (and I would agree) is that our priorities have shifted away from venerating public education, both inside AND out.
Just take a look at Washington Middle School… Then take a look at what used to be there.
It’s true that what happens inside is far more important than what a building looks like outside, but I believe there’s a strong link. A sense of pride and self-esteem must be hard to generate when teaching at or attending a run-down school. The beauty and construction of a good school sends a direct message to both the students and teachers about how much society values them.
You have to wonder if teachers and community members were excited at the time. Maybe the old classrooms were drafty, or a bit too small, and everyone was excited about a new modern building. But then after a few rounds of value engineering…
It’s especially sad, since I’ve seen beautiful old schools remodeled into comfortable modern buildings without resorting to a complete tear-down.
I think it is about attitudes of society. I don’t have a citation, but I’ve heard that when adjusted for inflation old buildings actually cost more to build than even high quality new ones because of transportation and financing used back then.
You might enjoy reading some of the introduction and looking at some scanned pictures from SPS archives in my wife’s thesis:
A Poor Mans Friend? A Study of Seattle Public Schools Alongside the Diary of Helen McMicken, 1880-1900 (large PDF). Or, maybe it would just make you feel more depressed.
Here’s a tidbit: “In January of 1882 a mass meeting was held in Yeslers Hall to discuss the future of Seattle Public Schools. The message was urgent: We have had saloon booms and real estate booms, and now, for Gods sake, let us have a school boom.1 In the name of public schools being a poor mans friend, the reform began with a push for buildings to house Seattles bursting population of young children. Leaders crafted arguments that equated quality buildings with quality education. They believed that daily bringing the young away from their private families and into quality public school experiences would be good for society.” [1: Seattle School Board, Minutes 1 (8 February 1882): 5. Seattle Public School Archives.]
Another source is Bryce Nelson’s Good Schools: The Seattle Public School System, 1901-1930, though he’s a little over the top crazy about superintendent Frank Cooper.
I’m thinking the half-life of excitement about any building or technology is about 80 years–which is what car culture just reached. 1940s was when people started thinking cheap boxy buildings and houses were awesome for things other than warehouses.
We should also look at this from a demographic perspective. A lot of these schools were built during a time of phenomenal growth in Seattle (both immigration and births). Then in the 1950s there was the baby boom and they just didn’t have enough space.
Unfortunately roughly 1960-1990 families fell in love with the suburbs. Cities were left with fewer kids but lots of buildings to maintain because of the baby boom. Selling off property seemed like a good option or maybe the lesser of evils. Meanwhile school capital money and private contributions were going to new “big box schools” in the suburbs, which for various reasons couldn’t or wouldn’t use the existing buildings in the cities.
Today SPS has to figure out how to deal with budget cuts, lower enrollment in South Seattle, and growing enrollment in North Seattle (and Queen Anne!), plus the current trend toward specialized schools. A coworker at UW was just complaining about how he likes his son’s program at Garfield but it’s a big pain to get down there for events and the bus takes forever. It’s a mess without even getting into curriculum wars.
Then there’s those stairs they built around the portables at McClure that look like they’ll outlast the school itself.
100 years ago tranist was run by private companies. Today Metro has an operating budget 20% greater than Seattle Public Schools (yes Metro is county not just city but the majority of tranist is within city limits or design to bring people into the city). Government has always funded the roads without which transit (and the entire economy) wouldn’t function.
People have a choice whether to take transit or drive. You have a choice whether to use Seattle Public Schools or one of the many fine private schools in the city. A voucher system would be nice, as would merit pay for teachers, allowing principles to make personnel decisions and removal of any number of road blocks the State throws up to meaningful reform.
Seattle Public School District is ranked 100th out of the 251 in the State. Not bad, not great and there are a number of fantastic programs (very competitive to get into). However, six of the top ten districts are suburbs of Seattle. The Seattle School board has done a good job with what they have to work with but as they say, “you can’t fight City Hall” which is why so many families moved out of Seattle in the first place and even though population has rebounded suburban schools continue to be a draw for families with school age children.