OPINION: Bigfork High School levy is not the answer to better education

On Sunday, Aug. 30, Maureen Averill, who was chairman of the Bigfork School Board for several decades up until a couple of months ago, made some comments in a letter to the Inter Lake.

She stated, “Our student population, as our community, has grown, but we have not renovated our high school to accommodate that growth or the educational requirements that have come with a changing world.”

Wait! The population of the high school is shrinking! In 1995, when she was on the school board pushing the failed $14 million levy for a new school, there were 365 students and Bigfork was a class “A” school. The economy was booming! The administration insisted it would have 420 students by 2004. That never happened! In July, I was told by Mr. Jensen, Bigfork’s superintendent, that the high school enrollment is at or slightly less than 300 students and is a class “B” school. So how can the problems be greater now with a much smaller enrollment? The school was originally built for 265 students, so we are talking about an overpopulation of 35 students.

Also the portable units that housed three classes were sold and when the 2007 levy failed, at which time Mrs. Averill was chairman of the board, three classes of high school students had to go to the grade school to have classes as a result. Why was this building discarded when it was still needed? I totally agree that the school needs a few new classrooms, but do we need a new tournament grade gym, new offices, new library, large commons area, new parking lot, elimination of bus maintenance building only to have to buy a new site and rebuild? Absolutely not.

Would all of that be nice and make the school look like a million bucks? Sure! Actually like 14 million bucks!

Zach Anderson, a board member and member of the levy committee wrote this in the Inter Lake on July 26: “this bond proposal is a sound proposal founded by input from a broad spectrum of 25 local community members.” I have a copy of the list and there are actually 26 names on it! I suppose “broad spectrum” could be viewed in many ways; however I found that most of the people on the committee are somewhat connected to the school through working there, coaching, athletics, related to former athletic directors, coaches, principals, etc, or are friends according to a look at Facebook, members of the booster club, employed by people connected to the school, etc. In other words, most seemed “like minded” in regard to the school and sports at least.

This might explain Zach’s comment about only one concerned comment from an individual “suggesting spending money wisely on necessities and not frivolous exterior “cladding.” They should have listened to that individual! This might explain why it took only “three full days” to wrap up a levy of this magnitude with everybody completely satisfied. I am not sure how the use of the “Disabilities Act” went from the leverage to repair the inclined entry to the gym into building a whole new gym. Maybe brainstorming gone wild?

John Little’s opinion letter was in both the Eagle and the Inter Lake. John was a teacher, wrestling coach, and MEA union boss locally, and a member of the levy committee. John made the statement, “We strongly believe this plan does provide our students with major improvement in their education and will significantly increase their opportunity for success in the future.”

That is an interesting statement; however, I question how much more successful students will be if taxpayers spend $14 million on a remodeling job! I have never heard anybody say, “I became successful because of the excellent building I went to school in!”

What is the “major improvement in their education”? I do not equate quality learning with the exquisite configuration of the buildings. A quality teacher could teach students in a closet if he/she/ze needed to.

It was obvious to me from my very first visit with Mr. Jensen that he intended to exempt absolutely nothing from this $14 million levy and intended to run the gauntlet with it. If it fails, we might hopefully see an accurate account of what is actually needed in another levy in the near future. That’s how it works.

It is difficult to know what is fact and what is fiction for most voters because many do not know the dynamics of how the school functions completely. Bigfork High School is not in shambles even remotely, and with a logical evaluation much less costly options will become visible. The original plans that were drawn up when the school was built pave the way for the necessary classrooms if the administration will simply study them and act accordingly.

The lofty vision of those who think education is going to significantly improve for the 21st century in Bigfork when enough money is spent on ritzy buildings seems to lack an understanding of how children are educated. Teachers are the key, not bigger classier buildings! Administrators who spend time daily visiting classrooms, observing and evaluating what is happening is necessary in order to have an effective system. Once a year is unthinkable!

With all of this said, please consider what is needed and whether this levy is what it is advertised as being, and then vote.

Saari, of Bigfork, is a retired industrial education instructor at the Bigfork High School.