Mel’s Musings – Whether a new high school?

Mitchell High School (MHS) was first opened for use in the fall of 1962. There was an addition added on the first floor on the east side of the building (what is now the business wing and the east teachers’ lounge), along with an elevator to the second floor just prior to school year 1982-83. One more addition was added in the 1990’s to provide more math and science classrooms, again on the eastern side of the building – this time on the second floor. These additions were necessary because the folks in 1960 didn’t have a crystal ball and because they were trying to save money – penny wise and pound foolishly as it turned out.

The MHS that was built in 1962 was at least the second or perhaps the third permutation of plans. Old timers in Mitchell told me, back in the 1980’s, that more than one attempt at a bond issue had been made in the 1960’s and that all of the cuts were made in the auditorium/performing arts spaces to get the bond issue down to an amount the public would accept. Now it is sixty-one years later, and we are at least four school years away from a new high school. Even if the Board votes to have a bond issue, practicality suggests that having a vote in June of 2023 won’t be enough time to get ducks in a row in terms of the specifics of the bond as well as mounting a public relations/informational campaign to make a bond issue successful with the voters. If the past is any guide, more than one attempt will be necessary before a bond issue is accepted by taxpayers. Then, there are construction schedules subject to the availability of subcontractors etc. as well as South Dakota winters to contend with so a new school may take two school years before students grace its halls. I don’t think the freshmen of 2023 will spend one day in a new MHS.

The current plan is to make the MCTEA building an integral part of a new MHS’ future. That’s nuts, plain and simple. MCTEA became operational as Mitchell Tech back in 1968. MHS has lasted for sixty plus years. We assume any new building will have the same life span, so the thinking is MCTEA is going to be around for 120 years as a part of a new high school campus!?! That’s utterly ridiculous. The School Board is making the same mistake that the school board in the 1960’s made. I’m not advocating closing MCTEA tomorrow, just don’t make it crucial to the plans for going forward in the future.

The Board voted to authorize $45 million (in round figures) for construction of a new high school. That’s about $20 million short of what would be ideal. The Board is considering asking taxpayers for an additional $17 million in a bond issue to make a new high school a reality. The $45 million is money saved or earmarked from current revenue sources and DO NOT require any new taxes. It is the extra $17 million that the Board is, potentially, asking taxpayers for over and above what is currently assessed for schools on the property tax rolls.

The alternative is the Board does not build a new school and puts good money after bad in fixing up a building that is near the end of its life. We’ve all seen elderly buildings on Main Street succumb to fire and age, imagine that happening during the school year with a building full of students. The fact is the current MHS is dying. It’s no one’s fault. It’s not negligence, poor maintenance or bad management it is simply time, weather and use that’s brought this grand dame to its current state.

Another alternative is that the School Board use the $45 million to build a school that is not fit for purpose, that no one will be proud of and that will make Mitchell the laughingstock of the State. Under this scenario, the old MHS would continue to be used, heated, lit etc. for the gym and weight room space while a new high school would be constructed for classrooms. This is moronic to the nth degree.

The fact of the matter is that every half century or so, those alive at that time are asked to pay for the future of upcoming generations of children and grandchildren. People did it during the Kennedy Administration for the generations that followed. It is our turn now.

The School Board needs to make the case that spending more now will save tax dollars later; for example, not needing expensive additions in the future – like the two that MHS went through in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They need to make the case that continuing to use the current building actually costs money rather than saves any. The School Board must make the argument that if a town is going to spend millions of dollars on a new public facility, while it doesn’t need to be the Taj Mahal, it should be something folks will be proud of.

No one can predict the future. However, one need not be a rocket scientist to avoid the mistakes of the past or to see the folly of some of the current options that the School Board is considering under the guise of frugality. Whatever is decided, a strong campaign of information and education about the new building must be carried out and that will require funding. Simply having public meetings with the already convinced – for and against – are required but not enough. An appeal to public spiritedness is good but inadequate. Hoping common sense will prevail is a formula for failure. Rushing to a bond issue without sufficient education and campaigning is a recipe for disaster and that education will require funding to generate educational materials and place ads in the media outlining the whys, wherefores and positives of the plan.

We need a new high school and one fit for purpose long into the future. It won’t be cheap, but it is necessary. When we embark on this new project, let’s be sure it is sufficient to meet the needs of education for the coming generations that will use it and that it is an edifice we can be proud.