Litchfield at the Crossroads — A Quality of Life and Property Value Issue

This essay was developed by Andy Thibault, Chairman of the Facilities Committee of the Litchfield Board of Education. Its theme was approved by the board and the administration.

Before Jack Welch dragged General Electric to the top of the corporate heap, he was just another public school kid. Before Dick Ebersol rose to the top of NBC Sports, he was just another Litchfield High School kid. And before she locked up infamous wife beater Buck Thurman as a prosecutor and rose to become a Justice of the Connecticut Appellate Court, Anne Dranginnis was just another local public school kid.

Education is the investment the older generation makes for the future. It's the same investment our ancestors made for us. In Litchfield, however, it seems we skipped a generation. Our facilities are state of the art—for the 1950s and ‘60s. Our science labs have antiquated equipment and limited counter space. Inadequate ventilation requires teachers to conduct some experiments outside, unless it is raining or snowing. Then there are no experiments.

The school-age population in Litchfield is increasing. The current three schools are not big enough to accommodate the growth in student enrollment. This problem is most severe at Litchfield High School, where 629 students are currently attending classes in a building with capacity for 560.

At the Intermediate School, enrichment classes are conducted in converted locker rooms under a gym, which doubles as a cafeteria. Somehow, enrichment goes on in a room with no windows and little ventilation. A capable and hard-working custodial staff is fighting mold and dampness in a 34-year-old concrete building. The dampness and mold issues would be resolved under the renovation and construction plan that will soon go before the voters.

Over-crowded classrooms make a big difference in the quality of education. Sure, some great teachers could get the job done regardless of the setting. However, most workers, teachers and students know that productivity is affected by working environments. Good facilities boost the morale and performance of both students and staff. Poor facilities contribute to the underperformance of students and to the attrition of a good teaching staff. We lose too many of our best teachers after five years not only because they get $10,000 to $15,000 raises from high-performing school systems elsewhere, but also because of the poor quality of our facilities. Other school systems and taxpayers reap the benefit of our training.

When buildings are over-crowded, teachers meet with students in rooms that were not designed for the subject matter: for example, science class in half of a former art room. As enrollment increases, basic components of the curriculum have been downsized. Our youngsters need more math teachers, but there is no place to put them. Up to a dozen teachers are virtually homeless, many of them using carts to travel from room to room.

Some students must eat lunch at 10:30 a.m. because space limitations hamper scheduling. There just aren't enough seats in our small cafeteria. It has become impossible to separate high school students from the seventh- and eighth-graders.

Over the last 20 years the Litchfield Public Schools have lost 17,000 square feet of space, while adding more than 50 required programs and services. Twice as many students participate in the music program.

Can anyone honestly call this a competitive environment in which our youngsters will develop skills to succeed in the 21st century? Will these youngsters be as able to take care of themselves and us as they might if we gave them at least as good a shot as our parents and grandparents gave us?

Perhaps more importantly, for taxpayers, does anyone really think property values will go up or even stay level with an inferior school system? Is this the way to attract employers to expand the tax base? Wondering about the re-sale value of your home? You should be. In towns that keep their school systems in good shape, property values go up.

In other towns, from Terryville to Suffield and throughout Connecticut, there are school building projects with price tags from $50 million to $70 million. The Litchfield proposal, which will cost about $24 million after state reimbursement, is modest—designed to come in at a comparatively low cost. It could all come down to a question of pay less now—or pay more later. Certainly it is noteworthy that the accrediting agency for schools—the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Inc.—has put our intermediate school on notice. Our continued accreditation is on the line. A progress report to the accrediting agency on building and renovations is due in April.

Someday, the buildings of the Litchfield Public Schools will be worthy of our hard-working students and all the good citizens and taxpayers of Litchfield. Let's make that someday start to happen this year.