My name is Michael Misovich. I live in the Farrington Grove Elementary attendance district, and my daughter attends there because we believe in neighborhood schools.
Two weeks ago, this board voted to close Crawford School. Several of you expressed the opinion that spending money to renovate a school with such a small number of students was not cost effective.
According to the Crawford School Study, the renovation cost was estimated at just under $4.1 million by Chief Financial Officer Tom Thornton and about $5.26 million by architect John C. Riley. Dividing these numbers by the official enrollment, 154 students, results in an average cost between $26,400 and $34,200 per student. We Crawford supporters dispute these high cost numbers and low enrollment numbers, but we will play by your rules tonight and use them.
In the January 23 Tribune-Star, information provided by the school facilities planning committee indicated the cost of building projects at Franklin, Consolidated, and Fayette Schools would be in the range of $30 to $35 million. Dividing these numbers by the total of the official enrollment figures for these three schools, 754 students, results in an average cost between $39,700 and $46,500 per student.
I repeat: Using the numbers provided by the school administration and the facilities planning committee, renovating Crawford will cost between $26,400 and $34,200 per student. The proposed building projects at the other schools will cost between $39,700 and $46,500 per student.
Students at Franklin, Consolidated, and Fayette deserve better facilities. My point is not to deny them that opportunity. It is that the even the inflated costs for Crawford renovation in the official study still result in a cost effective alternative for the taxpayers of Vigo County.
Mr. Schuster, I believed you last month when you said you agonized over this decision. Ms. Mell and I still lie awake at night thinking about it. You said your vote was based on the conviction that you must provide the best possible education in the most economical fashion. I do not dispute your sincerity. But I ask you now: After seeing these numbers, would you consider seconding Mr. May's motion to delay the Crawford closing pending the complete study?
Mr. Shike, you chair the planning committee that provided these estimates. Now that you are aware of the cost effectiveness of keeping Crawford open -- based on the numbers in the study -- would you consider voting in favor of Mr. May's motion to delay the Crawford closing?
I will remind the board members again that I am using the numbers in the study, which I believe greatly inflate the actual cost of keeping Crawford open. Using these numbers, keeping Crawford open is still significantly more cost effective, in average dollars per student, than the building projects that are being proposed. I believe Ms. Mell, the other Crawford supporters, and myself have refuted the arguments for closing Crawford based upon educational reasons, upon access to facilities, and now, based upon cost effectiveness. I realize that the vote was taken and you need provide no further reasons. But I believe that Supt. Tanoos, Dr. Goeller, Mrs. Correll, Mr. Thornton, and many others do an excellent job of providing leadership for the school corporation and of educating our children. If this decision truly was necessary, I cannot understand why none of them have been able to provide a compelling reason.
We have an excellent school corporation, but even excellent institutions sometimes make mistakes. Ms. Mell and I have taken a vow to attend every school board meeting for the rest of our living days in Terre Haute. I look forward to the day where she and I do not feel the need to temper our praise of the diligent efforts of administrators, teachers, and staff, with constructive criticism. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.