To the Editor,

Bricks, mortar and fancy glassed-in entryways do not teach students.

I took a tour of the Henning School building on March 28 after school hours. A few of the things I wanted to see included the previous home ec room, the shop areas, some classrooms and the library. I then studied the plans on the OurSchoolOurHornets website. I then visited with Superintendent Sparks on March 30 with some questions regarding the new CTE, Wood Lab (shop) and Metals Lab (shop). I asked her if the intent was to have this addition at the same floor elevation as the rest of the school. She said it was. I then told her that with how the street is configured and where the addition would be standing, it would not work as the floor by the front of the present school would be about two feet above the street level as you go out of the side of School Ave. by the “Hollow,” the floor would have to be approximately four feet above the street. With these height differences, the school would not be able to have overhead doors to get projects in and out of the shops, such as the fish house that is currently in the school shop. Superintendent Sparks said no one had brought this up before and that she would speak to the architect about it. Also, a portion of the “Hollow” will have to be filled in with hundreds of yards of compacted fill with more than likely a reinforced retaining wall to provide a base for about half of the Wood Lab and about a sixth to a fifth of the Metals Lab. I also asked to see illustrations for the addition on the front of the building, as the architect was generous to give two depictions of the new entrance at the back of the school. Superintendent Sparks said that none were provided for that addition. This addition does not work in this area.

I have heard people say that we need to put a new entrance on the back of the school because no one knows where the main entrance is. While talking to some other residents, someone said “Why don’t they buy some $50 signs and put them up?”

I gave Superintendent Sparks my e-mail expressly so she could get back to me with square footage and measurements of the new addition and also let me know what the architect said about the addition and questions I had. At the time I am writing this, over a week later, I have yet to hear back from her. However, I did receive an e-mail on March 31 from a teacher. I have not spoken to the teacher so I won’t name him here. The e-mail was six plus paragraphs long and had little to do with the questions I brought up. The teacher says that with the new addition and remodeling that there will be more classrooms. I would dispute that, as I compare the 1995 project floor plan to the new floor plan, I would say there are either the same number of classrooms or possibly one less in the new plan. The teacher basically said that we just need to get this referendum passed and then if we need to we can adjust the plans afterwards. That is bull. We need to stop this referendum before it goes to a vote and get a workable solution prior to putting it to a vote.

The teacher also stated that we need to get this passed so that we can stay ahead of Battle Lake and Parkers Prairie and states “This is an awesome plan that I believe would draw students.” Pure speculation. So, we spend about $23 million or $27 plus million to get, maybe, one to six kids to transfer into our school. Or maybe we don’t get any to transfer in. What a joke! Another item I would like to know is if the current referendum tax implications take into account the changes in interest rates. Also, the tax implications that they show are only for the first year of taxes, they will go up as taxable values go up. 

I believe the architect should go back to his drawing board and develop a design that works within the constraints of what we now have. I believe the current main entrance can be upgraded to make it more secure and also the administrative office area can be redesigned, possibly using the school board/conference room for more office space. The school board has had this room for meeting since the 1995 project, but prior to that they met in the school library for many years. There is plenty of room in the library where they could have meetings against. Superintendent Sparks said they wanted to get the principal into an office with the main administration. I don’t think it’s a problem having the principal more centrally located in the school and may be better for interaction with the students. I discussed the old home ec room, which now is used for Spanish, with Superintendent Sparks. I inquired about moving a wall in that room to make more room for the shop CTE class in the old Ag room. She stated it would be too hard to move the wall. What about all the other walls needed to be moved for the renovations planned in this project. 

I believe there is a need for some of the repairs and upkeep items that have been neglected. Superintendent Sparks told me that the school board could levy for several of these items, without voter approval, leading me to wonder why that hasn’t been done yet. I believe the school district residents have been good to vote for operating levies that the school district has sought in the past and I’m sure the school district will be coming again, soon, to ask for more money through an operating levy.

When I was in school here, we had more than double the number of students as there are today. We will have about the same number of teachers as we had then, and possibly a couple more. The office staff and custodial staff are about the same. The big difference in staff is in the number of paraprofessionals, I believe 18-20, compared to the two teachers aides that we had. While other school districts are laying off teachers due to declining enrollment, Henning has kept about the same number of teachers and made the student to teacher ratio smaller as well adding all the “paras.”

The third gym is an unnecessary luxury that is not needed. The “old gym” prior to 1995 was about half the size of the gym that was built in the 1995 project and is able to be divided for multiple uses.

In my opinion, this is a wishful project that does not work. We need to vote this referendum down and have the school board come back with a more feasible plan. As Mr. Dan Olson stated in his January Letter to the Editor, “No Means No.”

Dale Koski,

Henning