NEW CASTLE —
So now what?
Last week’s vote by the New Castle school board to kill the Lockley school consolidation project — followed by the decision of superintendent George Gabriel to resign — leaves a lot of questions in the city school system.
And it leaves a fair amount of anger, frustration and confusion.
For a couple of years now, the district has been moving haltingly toward a major expansion and renovation of the Lockley elementary school. The project would coincide with the closing of other elementary schools in the district, essentially creating a single elementary facility in New Castle.
A key factor in this proposal is the deteriorating condition of the district’s elementary schools. Members of the administration have said that based on funding formulas and assorted expenses, it would be more cost effective over time to pursue new construction at Lockley and close the other schools than to make repairs and renovations.
But this plan never enjoyed unanimous public — or board — support. Considerable skepticism exists over the notion of building a new school in New Castle, where student population has experienced a long decline with no reversal of this trend in sight.
Plus, there are still residents who are unhappy with the decision to demolish and replace the old New Castle High School. The new structure is now running at about 60 percent of capacity, which adds to doubts about additional construction.
Final approval for the Lockley plan hit a snag when bids came in higher than anticipated. After the project was massaged a bit, a second round of bidding brought back numbers closer to the mark at roughly $23 million.
But this failed to impress a majority on the board. And by a 5-4 vote last week, the Lockley project was rejected.
In reaction to that — along with indications some board members were looking for a change at the top of the administration — Gabriel submitted a pre-written letter of resignation. Without fanfare, the same five members who shot down the Lockley plan accepted Gabriel’s departure, effective Jan. 31.
So is the Lockley project truly kaput? That’s difficult to say. While some board members have been adamantly opposed to it, others have been inconsistent. Maybe they’ll switch again. Maybe not.
What I do know is the Lockley opponents now constitute the majority on the school board. And they owe it to the public to explain where they stand and what’s going to happen now. They were oddly silent on these matters at least week’s meeting.
Whatever one thinks of this proposal, last week’s vote was a big deal on very serious and expensive matters. The district has spent about $1.5 million on architectural and other preparatory work leading up to the actual construction. The vote vaporizes this money.
What do taxpayers think about that?
Obviously, if the project was not to be pursued, this money never should have been spent. It represents poor planning and poor leadership.
Speaking of which, I think blame for the current mess can be spread around. Only token efforts were conducted by the administration and construction supporters to bring the public or the larger community into the fold. Five votes on the board were deemed to be sufficient.
So now we have a divided, angry board and a divided, angry public. And because matters pertaining to the New Castle school district are steadfastly avoided by other local officials and entities, I’m wondering where the leadership is going to come from to resolve this mess.
Any ideas?
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak on Your Schools: Lockley vote leaves major mess
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
