To the editor:

Would someone please explain this bond issue to me in a manner that makes sense? Why are we being asked to accept the bad with the good?

I understand the need for the Alternative High School. But why do we have to close elementary schools in order to have it? If we have to close elementary schools to save money, then we are going to reduce the number of teachers. If that is the case, then won’t we be increasing the class size, especially for at-risk students? Isn’t that bad?

When Riverside School closes and sends 50 children to Deerfield School, based on district information, that school could have as many students as any junior high in town. Is that best for the children?

If one elementary school is closed to send children to another one that has less available land, and we build on the smaller site, taking away even more open play space, how is that a smart thing to do?

If the current funding situation is temporary due to shortfalls in state funding, then why are we responding with irreversible choices at the elementary level?

If the goal of school closing is to save money, but you increase class size, then you harm education. If the goal is to improve education and you keep teachers, then you don’t save that much money.

Elementary education is the foundation. If that is where the bad part of the bond is, then no amount of good at the other levels can make up for it.

Let’s not settle. Let’s get it right before we spend millions.

Brent Lamb

Lawrence