What is PEAK”s affect on district”s strategy?
Published 7:21 pm Monday, November 24, 2008
By Lori Hughes
Island Forum
In a recent day-long planning session, I participated in considering use of one of our Island’s most precious resources: our land. Specifically, a proposal to construct a Boys & Girls Club teen center/field house (PEAK) on the Mercer Island School District’s (MISD) North Mercer Campus.
There is no doubt that the proposed Boys & Girls Club/PEAK facility would benefit our community and children on the Island no matter where it is built. What the School Board must wrestle with is: Can PEAK be built on school property without jeopardizing improved education of our children? I commend the School Board in their consideration of it and do not envy this very difficult decision.
PEAK’s well-meaning proponents urge a rapid decision by the School Board before, in their words, the window of opportunity closes. The board needs ample time to fully consider the impact of the PEAK decision. The proposal was first presented to the current School Board members in fall of 2004.
On the other hand, a rapid decision might cause the window of opportunity to close on strategic issues. The MISD’s Strategic Initiative No. 2 lowers student-teacher ratios in our elementary schools to 18:1 from its current range of 21:1 and 26:1. This is far more on par with the National Association of Elementary School Principals’ recommendation of 15:1.
It is not yet known how PEAK would impact MISD strategy. I and others urge the board to proceed at a pace which allows cooperation of community pillars in identifying and if necessary mitigating key issues. Among them:
? How should we accommodate future state mandates, which easily might include all-day kindergarten, universal preschools, and extended course study?
? How should we accommodate material increases in student population? The MISD’s 2001-2006 Strategic Plan acknowledges the possible need to construct a new school building in the future.
? If we must build, which land should be used? There are currently only two viable ones: the old junior high building on the North Mercer Campus (next to PEAK’s proposed location), which has historically been the footprint for a new school, and the sports field between Islander Middle School and Lakeridge Elementary.
? If the sports field is chosen, what should be done to meet the community’s well-demonstrated needs for soccer, baseball, and lacrosse fields for our children?
? If the junior high is demolished, what should be done about the displaced childcare centers that currently lease the building? Collectively these centers care for approximately 300 young children between 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The MISD’s leases are a much-needed community service for working parents. There are no other options currently that are suitable, affordable, and available longterm. The Island already has a shortage of childcare inventory for children under 3 years old.
? To create an additional footprint for childcare, should MISD re-acquire the East Seattle property that it ironically sold to the Boys & Girls Club in 1984? Must it be the highest bidder, and should it incur demolition costs there while the Boys & Girls Club does not for PEAK?
MISD has long shown a cooperative community spirit by leasing buildings on the North Mercer campus to fabulous occupants such as Youth Theater, Mary Wayte Pool, and childcare centers. It would be tragic if circumstances later dictated the construction of another school building, forcing it to displace either the childcare centers or the sports field.
If we do not give the MISD the time and well-rounded community assistance it requires to understand PEAK’s impact on district strategy, we do it a disservice and place it in a future untenable position. We must recognize this now, not a few decades from now, just as we recognize that selling school district property in the past might not have been a wise longterm decision.
Lori Hughes is a Mercer Island resident.
