The emerging flap over interior improvements at public preschools is really a matter of perspective.
The elected Manhattan school board last month approved those improvements, to the tune of $250,000, so as to make Eugene Field and College Hill preschools more little-kid-friendly. They involve wood appliqués depicting trees, birds, bears, wolves, bees, some furniture, built-in fixtures and murals. Essentially the project will spiff up interior walls, hallways and entry spaces; the cost also includes design, shipping and installation.
This is essentially the final finishing touch of the fix-up of those preschools, paid for by a voter-approved bond issue of $129 million. That total included many, many other larger projects, including a substantial expansion of Manhattan High School so as to bring 9th-graders into the main building.
Anyway the project in question is two-tenths of one percent of the total approved by voters.
Still, as local retired architect Ken Ebert pointed out in comments to the school board this month, most people would never spend that kind of money on their own homes. An itemization provided by the firm that’s doing the project shows, for instance, a $25,000 price tag for a tree. That seems, just on its face, ridiculous.
But it’s also intellectually dishonest to compare the interior design of two preschool buildings to, say, a fresh coat of paint in your living room. One is industrial scale, dealing with public spaces, intended to last for 30 years, to be used by thousands of people.
And while I’d think I could cut out some wood-figure giraffes and glue them to the wall for a helluva lot less, I have to concede that I have no idea what I’m doing. The school district had multiple committees review the project and approved it, and administrators supported it when they brought it to the school board. Six members of that board voted in favor; one, Christine Weixelman, voted against. More power to her, in terms of her willingness to question and oppose. But I’ll also say that I can’t just dismiss the wisdom of everybody else involved in the process up to that point — including the other elected board members who give serious thought to these matters.
Mr. Ebert’s critique is going to gain more currency, and the issue is liable to resurface in this fall’s school board elections.
It’s certainly worth further thought and discussion, but I’d encourage you not to jump to conclusions either way just yet. Perhaps the best way to judge will be in a couple of months, when the buildings hold an open house.
