I have been an ardent supporter of new high schools since the conversation began in 2018 and remain so. My last child graduated from Pilgrim in 2020, so I suppose I could have thrown up my hands and said ‘It’s someone else’s concern now’. But I didn’t because I believe I need to pay it forward as a responsible member of my community.

The timeline here is relevant. In November of 2022, 59% of the voters approved this bond. It wasn’t until Sept 2023 that the City released the funds after a mutually-agreed-to review of our figures was completed. Again, the School Committee and City Council agreed to this and no one was under any illusions that this would not have an impact on costs. At last week’s October 23 forum, criticisms were leveled at the project that I feel compelled to address, because as John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things.” I invite you to watch that meeting on the Warwick Public School’s YouTube channel, ‘WPS Videos.’

The criticisms leveled were varied so I’ll try to break them out below:

Bait and Switch

The ‘bait and switch’, ‘hoodwinked’, ‘Lexus to Kia’’ argument may sound good to some but, in my opinion, are silly. As has been said many times - publicly - the original design proposals were conceptual or schematic designs, not final designs. No one ever said or hinted otherwise and we were very clear that changes would be made during the process – because this is a process, and a long one, from concept to actual design. The conceptual designs included solar panels for which we were criticized by some when they were presented - and then criticized by some when they were removed.

AC / Tempered AIr System

The air conditioning / tempered air criticism is, for me, the most odd. Should the bond resolution have specified two high schools with a “refrigerant-based air conditioning system”? Of course not. The engineer who’s designing the system and who’s designed dozens of them, spoke at our August 2024 public forum about how these systems work. It’s the same system East Providence has in their new high school, the same system installed in Warwick Neck and Greenwood, and the same system going into virtually every new school being built in RI. They require less electricity, are less expensive to maintain, and, most importantly, they work. But I guess that isn’t good enough.

Windows

Criticism was also leveled at the reduced amount of window area in the revised designs, even though the buildings must comply with both RIDE regulations and the requirements of the Northeast Collaborative for High Performing Schools, both of whom regulate this to ensure generous amounts of natural lighting in the building. The original concept contained more than what was required so I guess that was a bad thing? In truth, the vast majority of the 200+ revisions made were on the ‘constructability’ side of the equation - things like reducing the amount of granite curbing; reducing ceiling height by a few inches; moving Toll Gate’s location to reduce ledge removal, and, yes, removing square footage, etc - all the types of things that virtually every single new school project goes through. And yet, it was said that because of the changes made to the conceptual designs, these schools would no longer be ‘state of the art’. That is absolutely and utterly absurd.

RIDE

While we're at it, let’s talk about the criticisms of RIDE and the ‘...who the heck are they to tell us...’ line of thinking. In simple terms, they’re the governing educational authority in the State and they’re paying for half of the project, so of course they’d have some say in this. Plus, they’ve been reimbursing 35-40% on every other project that's been done in our schools since passage of bonds in 2016 and 2020. So, yes, they’re going to have a say.

Student population

Critics mentioned a declining school population to question the need for two schools. Part of this process required a 3rd party, demographic study which was done in 2022 and is a public document. That study shows our school populations remaining stable through 2032 - which means that high school populations will remain at approximately 1100 students. Moreover, there is a building boom occurring in Warwick. Who will buy 3 bedroom ranches, capes, and colonials? Retirees? Doubtful. Basic common sense says that it’ll be mostly folks who have, or will have, children. And using school population figures from the ‘70’s, ‘80’s, ‘90’s and even the ‘00’s (when we had three high schools) to try to defend not needing two schools shows either a gross misunderstanding of that study or of not having read it at all.

Athletic Fields

The criticism alleging that the new schools will have fewer athletic fields and facilities than currently is an outright falsehood, if not a lie. Ask any Toll Gate athlete or coach if they'd like to be able to play their home games at their home school under the lights. It’s a complete and total embarrassment that for fifty years - fifty years!!! - after Toll Gate was built, they still can’t do that. Or ask if they'd like to be able to practice on their own fields and not have to tread over to CCRI. Also, read what the Beacon & ProJo high school sports reporters say about Morry Field at Pilgrim (‘playing in the shadows’ to paraphrase). Of our students who go out of district via Career & Tech Pathways programs, 60% go to North Kingstown and Ponagansett, both of whom have successful sports programs and...wait for it... much better athletic facilities (essentially the same that are designed into the new schools). This may not be the main reason we lose those students but you have to suspend disbelief to say it isn’t a factor.

 We only need one

Many say we should instead build just one ‘super’ high school. Sorry, but this is akin to showing up to the ball game in the 9th inning, not being happy with the score, and demanding to replay the first eight innings. A single high school was publicly discussed at length in the focus groups (which consisted of administrators, teachers, support staff, students, members of the public and elected officials) at the beginning of the process in 2018/2019 and was rejected for three primary reasons

1. A 2000+ student high school was not considered the best educational setting. (yes, there are some in MA and throughout the country but none in RI)
2. Site. We’d need 50-60 acres to build a building large enough to accommodate 2000+ students and staff, fields, parking spaces etc. (sorry folks, the Vets land isn’t large enough)
3. Traffic. Go and observe drop-off and pick-up at Vets or Pilgrim - both with roughly 1100 students - and then imagine what traffic would look like at a school double that size.

Student test scores

It was also insinuated that our student test scores were too low to justify building new schools. To that I’d ask, exactly how many rungs up the achievement ladder would we need to climb before we can consider new schools? This reminds me of the expression "the beatings will continue until morale improves".

Reimbursement Dollars

Perhaps the most crucial issue - literally ignored by the critics - is the reimbursement dollars from the State that are guaranteed in this project, some of which will disappear if the project is killed or delayed to the point where it can’t be completed on time. Currently, we’re guaranteed reimbursement of $173 million (plus interest). Of that, $63 million is from bonus incentives. While I don’t care for the term ‘buy one, get one free’, I think that anyone who bought two 85” flat-screen televisions and got a rebate check for one of them, would proudly proclaim to their friends that they bought one and got one free. But I digress.

Those bonus incentives were not extended by the General Assembly, meaning that if we ‘start over’ we’ll only receive our 35% base reimbursement rate. So those hoping to delay or kill the project for something else need to consider the following:

• Major remodeling of both schools (which was our original ‘Plan A’) will cost north of $300 million with a 35% reimbursement - taxpayers will pay back about $195 million - $20 million more than the current project.
• Build one new school and remodel the other. Conservatively, this is a $250-$275 million project with a 35% reimbursement - taxpayers will pay back between $162-$178 million - on par with the current project but we still end up with one 50 or 60 year old building. Oh, and who gets the new and who gets the remodel?
• Build one and promise to build the second later - who gets the new school and who gets the promise and how much support will the latter give to this idea?

The above are fiscally dumb and would simply be ‘cutting our nose to spite our face’.

What’s in it for me?

We heard people essentially say, ‘I have no kids in the schools so I don’t benefit’’. This is interesting as it seems to imply some kind of an ‘a la carte’ idea of property taxes where you only pay for what you use. It may work for Liberty Mutual auto insurance, but a city? Warwick has good, comprehensive city services, and that comes with a price. Since my family is not using the public schools or the senior center, does that mean our taxes should be pro-rated until we do?

Conclusion

I've said all along that we cannot let the 'Perfect be the Enemy of the Good' and that's the roadwe're in danger of going down. Prudence dictates that we lay out a plan to provide two schools at $350M and as close as humanly possible to the designs presented in August. If it's found that more funding is needed to accomplish that, then we need to work together with the city to explore options - and there are options. Chris Speigel from Left Field, our OPM, said that we're roughly 40% through the design process so it may be too early to adopt the overage figure as some kind of metaphysical truth. I am confident that we can find a way through whateverobstacles that may arise. Every other city and town has found a way to do that and so can we.

But we need to stay the course and break ground. Failure to do so will cost taxpayers (of which I'm one) significantly more money in the future and would be fiscally and educationally irresponsible. And if that happens, what line would the critics then use to decry the increased costs that they've brought on?

David Testa
Warwick School Committee - at large