Monthly Archives: June 2024

H.S. Building – New Options from District – June 18, 2024

High School Building -  
New Options from District

June 18, 2024

The school district presented on June 3rd a few options for the  renovation or replacement of the existing middle and high school buildings. Below is a brief summary of the costs of the options. 

Details of the various plans were described during the school board meeting and can be seen on the
video provided by the school district. Also the meeting was reported in the June 6th edition of the Vermont Standard (online link to article not available at time of publication).

Summary of Options

Original Plan. The original plan to replace both the middle and high school buildings was priced at ($99 million in March 2024). That proposal was voted down by the public. Today that proposal has a cost of $105 million (5% more due to 1 year change of start date – if that plan were to be selected).

Modified Original Plan. The original plan was adjusted by reducing  the size or some of the features of portions of the building. That version of the plan resulted in a price tag of $100 million.

Renovate Plan. Another plan based on renovating the existing middle and high school is quoted at $101 million - $105 million (depending on options).

Hybrid Plan. A hybrid plan based on replacing the high school portion and renovating only the interior space of the middle school comes in at $92 million.

Graph of Building Cost Options

Below is a simple graph showing the  costs of the various options.


Related Posts


School Buildings – A Conversation with the Inner Skeptic – June 14, 2024

School Buildings -  
A Conversation with the Inner Skeptic

June 14, 2024

With all the discussion and questions a few months ago about the high school building and again a week or two ago; a bit of curiosity developed.

What’s happening with school buildings in other places? Not just in the next county but elsewhere in the US and other countries. It seems like an interesting question. It also seems like a big job to find out about that, doesn’t it?

Being short on time, this investigation had to be a small job. In fact, this is not so much an investigation. It's just a small effort. The point is to get a sense of what it’s like to develop a school building in other places.

There is one thing that could be said, even before starting this. Whatever is learned, will certainly have many parts that do not apply to our local set of circumstances. There is NO doubt of that. And on the other hand…

The schools built by others, whether located here, there, or elsewhere do have quite a few similarities. They have the environmental amenities (AC, heating, ventilation, sanitation, lighting). They are built to last a reasonable time and to accommodate a student population appropriate to the local needs, but not absurdly small nor overly large.

With those thoughts in mind. Would it be reasonable to say that the schools' circumstances though not perfectly aligned would be similar enough that we may learn a few significant things?

Overhearing the thoughts of the Inner Skeptic (everyone has one, right?) - “well, maybe, you might possibly learn something, argh”. Okay Inner Skeptic, that’s close enough, let’s run with it.

Digging In

Online articles and data show a fair amount of information on school construction costs. After 30 minutes of weeding through the material, a couple of nuggets were discovered.

The Good Ol’ Days - 3 years ago

One reference (linked below) shows the average school building cost in 2021 (3 years ago). The costs are given for various cities (not rural locations) around the world. The chart (below) shows the cost per square meter. Not square foot as commonly discussed. We can easily correct for that by dividing by 10 to turn that number into dollars per square foot.

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/758120/global-school-building-costs-in-cities/

Taking the example of a school in New York in 2021. The average cost is $485 per square foot.

For comparison, the cost mentioned by the school district’s finance director during the meeting in February of this year is approximately $627 per square foot -
Barnard high school info meeting Feb '24 - See VIDEO at 1 hour 59 min.

 A Hockey Stick?

The graph below has nothing to do with hockey. But the shape of the graph unfortunately does looks similar to a hockey stick. The jagged line indicates the rising cost of constructing school buildings. It rises slowly from 2005 to about 2021 then rockets upward after that.

 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PCU236222236222

The graph is called the Producer Price Index. It’s maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. As the label at the top indicates, it shows the average for school construction costs from 2005 to 2024. The sharp increase started in 2021. The cause of the increase is generally given to the effects of COVID-19. Labor shortages and material shortages.

Hope on the Horizon?

After 1 hour of online digging, 2 ideas came to the surface. Have a look below, come to your own conclusions about the 2 particular ideas. But there’s more to this exercise than just that.

The bigger point is there may be more worthwhile ideas waiting to be found. But for the moment, have a look at the findings so far.

Saving Good Money

Modular home construction has been around for years. NOW, there’s modular school construction. Savings of 25% - 35% are claimed in the article referenced below. In cases where a fully modular building is not the right answer, there is a combination approach of modular and conventional construction. The article referenced was produced by a manufacturer of modular school buildings. But it shows projects that have actually been constructed. This idea may have some concepts worth considering. https://www.americanmodular.com/modular-school-construction-costs/

Saving Really BIG Money

Bundle multiple school construction projects and save money based on “volume” pricing. The article referred to a Maryland school system. For Vermont, this may be an idea appropriate at the state level. https://www.governing.com/finance/prince-georges-county-saves-big-by-bundling-school-construction

Conclusion: Take-away Message

This short article shows 2 things. One known. One (or maybe a few) that are new.

  1. Construction costs are much higher than just 3 years ago.  
  2. One hour of online research with an open mind resulted in the discovery of 2 cost-saving ideas that are perhaps worth consideration.

Imagine what might happen with a few more motivated folks and a bit of time.

Final words from the Inner Skeptic


“Alright, alright. You made your point. Those ideas; they were okay. I’ll dig around a little more. If some smart ideas do the job AND save me bucks - I’m in…”


Related Posts


A Public Education Vermonters Support and Value – June 11, 2024

COMMENTARY

A Public Education
Vermonters Support and Value

Margaret Maclean

June 11, 2024

Over the past 14 years Vermont has enacted three sweeping school district consolidation laws. The overarching goals of Act 153, Act 156, and Act 46 were to be achieved “at a cost that parents, voters and taxpayers value.” Are consolidated districts delivering on this promise? 

A big picture look says no. Consolidation has not saved taxpayer dollars and has eroded Vermonter’s support for public education.

An examination of state per pupil spending data from 2018 compared to 2024 shows (see chart below) that Act 46 consolidated districts have not delivered in terms of cost savings. In this time the percentage of consolidated districts doubled, and costs continued to increase. Today consolidated districts cost more per pupil PK-12 than single-town school districts.

 Further, consolidation has eroded public confidence and engagement. At town meeting in March 2024 school budgets in town school districts passed at more than twice the rate of those in consolidated districts— 83% vs. 38%.

No evaluation of consolidation has taken place. The Agency of Education was required to develop reports on Act 46, but the 2020 and 2021 reports have yet to materialize. We cannot afford to compound mistakes or overlook successes by moving forward without a comprehensive analysis. A moratorium on additional consolidation should be in place until a full independent evaluation is completed.

Education spending in Vermont needs to be addressed. But solutions in Montpelier are scarce, apart from calls to double down and “right size” the education system with additional consolidation. Higher per pupil spending and failed budgets in consolidated districts raise legitimate questions about this strategy. We need to take stock.

The legislature has developed a Commission to focus on the Future of Public Education in Vermont. The last time Vermont did this well was in 1968 with the Vermont Design for Education. This document was developed from the bottom up, engaging schools and communities throughout the state.

A new vision for the Future of Public Education should also put the public front and center. The commission needs to emphasize engagement, and incorporate elements that are crucial to the success of public education, including:

  • A focus on equity. Equity benefits our society as a whole. Rather than pitting rural schools against their larger neighbors in a zero-sum battle, we will benefit from a vision that includes Vermonters from all backgrounds. An outcome that honors the Brigham decision with an equity focus will be better for all.
  • Democracy matters. When he testified to the Vermont Senate during the creation of what became Act 46, Marty Strange, the Policy Director of the Rural School and Community Trust, proved prescient. Strange warned about a loss of public support for education as an outcome of consolidation. Based on experiences across the U.S., Strange testified,

    “Shrinking the public role in school decision making means more failed budgets, more internecine arguing over where the money goes and whose school gets closed by which voters and reduced public support for public education.”

    Voters’ ability to take part in community-scale school budget deliberations at town meetings may be a key element to local budgets receiving stronger voter support than vast multi-school consolidated budgets.
  • Rural voices. Any vision for a thriving Vermont education system must work in rural communities as well as in more densely populated areas. It should be shaped and supported by communities, not imposed upon them. Schools are the beating heart of rural communities and an essential foundation for our youngest children. The commission must fully understand the links between schools and community development and examine what happens in a town when its school closes.
  • Best educational practices at a cost Vermonters can afford. A vision for the future of Vermont education needs to keep children front and center while striving for affordability. Dollars spent with a direct impact on learning should be prioritized over increasingly centralized bureaucracy. Community schools for our earliest learners are a key part of the vision; few Vermonters would say that our younger children should be traveling two hours a day on a school bus. However, sensible changes can take place at the middle and high school level, and the time might be right to revamp secondary and technical education. Additionally, the commission can identify the worthy, but non-education-related services provided within our education system and find funding for them outside of the property tax.

    Vermont can do better. The Commission will have an opportunity to study education systems internationally. Faced with many of our same issues, Scandinavia, New Zealand, and other places have been decentralizing educational governance to the school/community level since the 1990s. How can these school systems inform our vision?

    The Commission needs to develop a vision that is grounded in what works for our children, that builds on our communities’ strengths, and brings Vermonters together: A vision we collectively develop, at a cost that hardworking Vermonters can afford.

    Margaret MacLean has been an educator for 50 years, working as a teacher, school principal and consultant both in Vermont, the United States and internationally. Margaret lives in Peacham, Vermont.

Vermont Design for Education 1968

Budget data compiled by VASBO. 

Per pupil data compiled by the Agency of Education


Related Posts


Top
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.