Why pit City High against its own neighbors?

At the school board’s work session earlier this week, it became clear that the board thinks that putting an addition on City High is more important than preserving Hoover Elementary, and that the board sees no palatable way to do both.   (Although the addition is unlikely to be built on the Hoover property, it will make it necessary to shift other functions – such as possibly parking or athletic fields – to the Hoover site.)  This decision, if the board votes to approve it, will be short-sighted and will needlessly undermine support for City High.

Pitting City High against its own neighbors cannot, in the end, be good for City High.  One reason we have a school board that is so supportive of City is that the east side was very united in the last board election.  The areas around Hoover voted heavily for the very board members that are now on the verge of tearing it down.  Sacrificing an entire existing elementary school, just to build a twelve-classroom addition onto City, will antagonize a big part of City’s own base of support.

The proposed closing will not happen for five or six years at the earliest, which means that this conflict will drag on interminably.  Apparently deaf to public opinion, the board seems to think that the Hoover area will passively accept this decision and move on.  Having spent the last two weeks talking to people in the neighborhood while struggling to keep up with the demand for “Save Hoover” signs, that is not at all what I am hearing.  There are a lot of angry east siders right now.

I have had to remind people that the board has not actually voted yet, and to encourage people to generate alternative ways to accommodate both Hoover and City’s goals.  This week, the conversation is about how City could expand without closing Hoover.  Once the board votes to close Hoover, though, the conversation will inevitably turn to why City needs an addition at all.  The most common question I have heard is: Why would City need to expand when we’re building a third high school elsewhere?

I have yet to hear an answer to that question that justifies closing an elementary school.  Do supporters of the addition really want to spend the next five years trying to win that argument?  Rather than alienating City’s own neighbors and triggering a years-long conflict, supporters of the City High addition should be looking for ways to accommodate Hoover while also building an addition on City.  This would not only be responsive to public opinion, it would also build, rather than undermine, the coalition that will enable continued support for City High.

Chris Liebig blogs about local and national education issues at A Blog About School.  You can also follow him on Twitter.