Your Letters for March 14, 2025

Bond issue

Transparency for voters! What a novel idea. Just weeks before a new bond issue comes before voters, the Saint Joseph School District admits using a private, yet tax funded, e-mail account to “advise” recipients of information about the 2024 bond. How many times has this happened and not reported? Simple transparency!

The most important part of the 2024 bond, which would enrich all three high schools, was it would increase the district’s ability to write a bigger bond. Never reported! Simple transparency.

If Central’s enrollment is increasing, as the district is reporting, while Benton’s and Lafayette’s are decreasing, the midtown must be exploding with new residents.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just redistrict the student enrollment to where the students actually reside? Much more fiscally responsible than new schools. Schools don’t teach! Let the true teachers teach and get out of their way! Simple transparency.

As a taxpayer, I demand transparency and accountability! Could the school district trim some excess top tier employees to enrich teachers? With so many administrators, why are enrollment and student scores down? Someone is not doing their high salary job.

John Byrne

St. Joseph

This high school matter

Regarding the high school situation currently under debate, when this matter first came under serious scrutiny, I was among those who favored retaining the three high schools we presently have. I place great value on tradition and the legacy we leave for future generations. These are important. Many families in this community have attended these venerable institutions for generations. That history carries weight. The current dilemma requires us to balance the cost and practicality of maintaining aging, inadequate facilities against the changing demographics of our city — particularly the shifting distribution of our population.

First, we must acknowledge a fundamental reality: families today are having fewer children. Regardless of where our schools are located, it is undeniable that we need fewer of them. The baby-boomer generation has completed its education. Our enrollment numbers reflect that. Combine this with our population shifts and then apply Occam’s razor. We arrive at two inescapable conclusions: (1) we have fewer students, and (2) our existing school buildings are not in the right locations. That’s just reality. Neither denial nor nostalgia will change it.

The two-high-school solution is inevitable because it is the only solution that is a solution. Any other proposal avoids an undeniable reality — one that cannot be wished away, no matter how much some may try. I, too, have had to reconsider my position and accept the facts at hand. The two-school model is our only viable path forward.

However, one critical aspect of this discussion has been overlooked — an aspect that deserves front-and-center consideration. Look at the high school buildings we currently use. Though worn and inadequate for modern instructional needs, they have lost nothing of their stateliness, grace, and grandeur. These are buildings that have inspired generations of students, and they continue to do so.

In the proposed rendering of the new school, aesthetic inspiration is absent — almost as if deliberately ignored. (News-Press, Feb. 21) What we see is a structure of uninspired cubes linked together in a stark monument to utilitarianism, exuding minimalism to the point of banality, and embodying the philosophy of “we’ll-build-whatever-barely-gets-us-by-ism.” That it lacks artistic innovation is an unfortunate understatement.

Almost prophetically, the design itself speaks its clear message: Unlike past generations, we no longer care about our students’ educational environment. We built this school not out of a desire to create something meaningful — we did it because we had to. And we did it in the most pragmatic way possible. In fact, if it doesn’t work out, the design conveniently allows for a quick repurposing — perhaps into a big-box store, and that, likely at a profit. Do applaud us for our foresight!

Do we no longer have architects capable of designing buildings that inspire? The aesthetic of a student’s surroundings is as vital to his education as any other consideration.

Let this be a criterion for judging the worthiness of any building: if it were to be demolished a century from now, would people experience profound sadness, regret, or a sense of loss as it disappeared? The Central, Benton, and Lafayette buildings would evoke those responses, I sincerely believe. Would this proposed monument to mediocrity do the same? I doubt it.

If the two-school solution is indeed the only viable option, may we at least ensure that what we build reflects some measure of grace, beauty, and character? Or have we moved beyond such aspirations entirely? Whatever we build will answer that question decisively.

Timothy P. Murphy, M.D.

St. Joseph