A very Special Town Meeting
In just over a week, Phase 1 of the campaign for a new Wakefield Memorial High School will be complete.
On Saturday, Jan. 28, the Special Town Meeting will be called to order and hundreds of people will pack the high school field house to hear school administrators and other town officials drone on at length about the dire need for a new high school.
Most of those present will have never attended a Town Meeting before and likely never will again. They will be there at the behest of the local education lobby, which has put out an urgent call for warm bodies to come out and vote “Yes for WMHS” on Jan. 28.
For a few hours, an audience consisting mainly of parents of young schoolchildren, current and former “educators,” town officials and fans of higher taxes will try to stay awake as the old, familiar arguments are trotted out one more time.
We’ll hear once again about the grave deficiencies at the 60-year-old current high school building – deficiencies that threaten the school’s very accreditation! It will be noted in somber tones that the school has been placed on “warning” or “probation” or something, with the implication that it could face loss of accreditation altogether!
In truth, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which provides accreditation services, is a voluntary, nonprofit, membership organization. They aren’t in the business of losing members by pulling their accreditations. And even if they did, losing NEASC accreditation has been likened to flunking a test that doesn’t count toward the final grade.
As a private organization in which membership is voluntary, NEASC has no authority to close schools or require improvements. According to its own web site, NEASC gladly supports schools “wherever they are on the continuum of improvement and/or transformation.”
School officials will assure Town Meeting that a new school will result in improved educational outcomes. Does that mean that students at the newer Dolbeare School are getting a better education than pupils at the 126-year-old Greenwood School? If so, where’s the “equity?”
Speaking of equity, is a new high school necessary in order to continue teaching a CRT-infused curriculum and proselytize on the “problematic” nature of gas stoves?
It will be stressed at Town Meeting that a new high school will increase your property value. That’s great if you’re planning to sell. If you’re planning to stay in your home, higher property values just mean higher taxes.
You’ll be told that new schools attract new residents to town. Of course, they will have to be the caliber of people who can afford the aforementioned higher property values. Some of those well-heeled types will move on to even greener pastures as soon as their youngest is handed his diploma. You’ll be left with the bill.
Of course, if you’re attracting all these new families to town, they’re going to need places to live. Lately, we hear nothing but complaints about all the new housing development in town. Better get used to it if you want a new high school.
Then there’s the old reliable, “If we don’t build it now, it will only cost more later.”
No kidding. Everything always costs more a few years from now. I need a car, but the new Lamborghini I want is out of my price range. Should I go ahead and buy it anyway because it’s only going to cost more later?
At some point at the proceedings, Town Meeting attendees will get their turn at the microphone.
An endless parade of “stakeholders” will “lean in” and profess their support of the new high school plan. They will be well-prepped by the Central Committee with talking points, all designed to foster the impression that absolutely everyone is in favor of a new high school. Everyone, that is, except a few anti-progress, anti-education townies who are too stingy to fork over another $1,300 a year for the children.
Don’t be surprised if the new high school plan easily passes at Town Meeting after the “Yes” organizers pack it to the rafters with supporters. A truer measure of public sentiment may come at the Special Election that will follow if the new high school is approved at Town Meeting.
Remember what happened last time, when people were given the opportunity to vote by secret ballot on the Warrior logo?
Only this time, it’s about their wallets, not a school logo. And this time, the results will be binding.
—
[This column originally appeared in the January 19, 2023 Wakefield Daily Item.]
Filed under: Columns & Essays, Humor, News, Opinion, Politics, Wakefield | 8 Comments
Tags: accreditation, Central Committee, Climate Change, cost, Critical Race Theory, CRT, curriculum, development, Dolbeare School, education, educators, Greenwood School, home values, housing, Mark Sardella, natural gas, NEASC, Opinion, Politics, School Committee, schools, special election, students, taxes, teachers, Town Meeting, voters, Wakefield Daily Item, Wakefield MA, Wakefield Memorial High School, Wakefield Warrior Logo, WHS, WMHS, Yes for WMHS
Flickr Photos
Mark Sardella 
Where did the rotary come from Nahant, Farm and Hemlock??¿? Traffic night mare!
It was incorporated into the plan to address “traffic and safety.” But since it has no direct educational connection, the state won’t pay any part of it, so local taxpayers are on the hook for all the extra road work.
“Who gets to teach our children and what are they teaching them” is far more important than hugely expensive buildings. Plato, thousands of years ago.
Hi Mark,
You only present a few of the immediate issues relating to the new WMHS, but don’t mention any of the positives except increasing property value – which will happen with/without a new school.
I am a 60 year resident of Wakefield, with two kids who graduated from Wakefield Schools. Of course I do not want taxes raised, nobody is a fan of higher taxes as you stated.My wife and I live on some pensions and SS.
However there are many positive benefits for a new school. Two stand out: better, safer education environments for students and teachers, and a huge improvement in energy efficiency over the old school, which BTW does not have AC, the new school will, and still will have much better energy efficiency.
The fossil fuel energy used by the old school will skyrocket every year, while the all electric new school will continue to save on energy costs over the 50 year operational term. To say nothing of helping the environment.
There are also many other benefits from the new school if you just look for them…
Could you give specific examples showing how the curriculum followed by the Wakefield Public Schools is ‘’CRT-infused’’? I would like to see an example of a lesson that was actually taught by an actual teacher before actual students.
The Heritage Foundation article you provided a link to repeats the sophistry that people who maintain that racism has been and still is a part of a American life are the ones who see people as members of races and not as individuals — and thus help make racism possible. I would argue that pointing to the existence of a problem (such as racism) is not what makes the problem possible, but it is a necessary first step toward solving the problem.
Part of the problem is that one side still believes that we have yet to take “the first step” toward solving the problem of racism. The refusal to acknowledge any progress in this area perpetuates race conciousness and does little to incentivize further progress.
I’m still waiting for specific examples of crt-infused lessons that have been taught in the Wakefield public schools.
I don’t understand what you mean when you say that refusal to acknowledge progress perpetuates race consciousness. What is ‘’race consciousness’’ other than a journalistic (sorry) buzzword?
Other than being pithier, how is the term “race consciousness” different from “seeing people as members of races and not as individuals?” If it’s a “journalistic buzzword” it’s a new one to me.