letters to the editor

To the editor:

I don’t think of L3 as a compromise, or second best. I understand it to be the best choice for Lincoln, and for our children. This is based on personal value judgements, but they are value judgements that I think many of us share and make without realizing it. 

Much of the potential in L3 has to do with the L itself.  Not only is preserving and reusing the existing building a sustainable choice, it is a sensible one: it acknowledges the connection of the school to the land, to the roots of modernism in Lincoln, and to the values of the town and the reason many people choose to live here. The L is Lincoln.

A lot has been said about the way the L sits on the land, how it is viewed from the outside, how it is nestled into the landscape and tucked into the trees. Very little has been said about the view from the inside to the outside, and I am not sure people have focused on how much this matters with respect to how we feel inside a building. 

The L, and all of those hallways—which, with some creativity, can be lively, dynamic spaces in their own right—are the reason there is something to see from both sides of the building. The L offers a long, uninterrupted view of the fields and conservation land beyond. And there are mature trees that dot the campus, many of which will be lost if we condemn the L. The central spot on the L, which would become the central gathering space in a new school, also happens to have the best view. A new commons facing out to the conservation land would be a very special thing, drawing you outside, again, from the moment you step through the door. The L preserves the beautiful, underappreciated courtyard on the Brooks side of the building. The Smith art studio is thoughtfully positioned to face north and out. The Smith gym, with soaring wooden beams, would be preserved and smartly surrounded by classrooms to take advantage of the view.

By contrast, the X of the compressed shape of C dictates that in both wings the exterior views, on one side, are to the other side of the building. The other views from C are to parking lots, and the new Smith gym—windowless and monolithic—can’t be surrounded by classrooms to take advantage of any views because of the new parking lot. In C the art and science rooms for both elementary and middle school face a driveway. 

The interior spaces can shift, but we are voting on the perimeter, and the perimeter dictates the views. Drawing a visual distinction between L3 and C means giving points for unobstructed views, and if you were to hold one against the other, you would discover that L3 offers about twice as much visual connection to the land. 

Some people will brush this off as silly, frivolous stuff and say that aesthetic concerns shouldn’t play a role in our thinking. And yet, aesthetic choices are fundamentally what make us happy to be somewhere, especially for long stretches of time (11,000 or so hours for a child who starts in pre-K and is there through eighth grade). There is tremendous value—educationally, environmentally, emotionally—in feeling like you’re actually part of the surrounding environment. This is a value judgement, and one that hinges on the subconscious, but there is a reason we prefer the apartment with a view over the trees to the one with a view of an air shaft. We would rather look at a field than a parking lot. We would rather sit in a garden than sit in a warehouse.

So much flows from simply feeling good about where we spend our time, and I truly believe that L3 can and will be spectacular. Look at any thoughtfully renovated modernist building to understand what is possible. None of that magic is possible in a compressed school that looks inward, rather than outward. 

Sincerely,

Lis Herbert
28 Lincoln Rd.

---

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

To the editor:

I appreciate the many folks who have argued so well for choosing either options L3 or C on Saturday. I wholeheartedly agree. Although our kids are past the Lincoln School stage, we want to support the best educational outcomes for those who follow. A building with hubs and other flexible-use spaces (C and L3) best supports differentiated learning, cross-grade activities such as “reading buddies” and other educational best practices.

I believe our teachers will actually take advantage of such spaces: Hanscom experience demonstrates it can be done, and superintendent McFall supports the same for the Ballfield Road campus, so I trust additional teacher training will be provided as necessary. The building alone doesn’t guarantee best practices, but it enables them.

Net zero energy usage (L3 or C) is also important. Human-caused climate change is the biggest environmental, moral, and human rights issue of our time, and time is of the essence in trying to avoid its worst possible effects. So now is not the time to backtrack on the commitment the town made its energy bylaw.

How to choose what’s better between L3 and C3? Though many considerations have been mentioned, I would argue that the two main and potentially competing considerations are aesthetics versus education.

As to aesthetics, some apparently like the look of the familiar, sprawling “L” much more than that of a more compact, two-story building (C). They of course are entitled to their opinion. However, as a longtime user of the Ballfield Road campus who cares about visual design, I nevertheless feel no nostalgic attachment to the old buildings, and no aesthetic preference for their L-shaped arrangement. I think a new compact building, with more green space around it, could look great. Let’s recognize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

In terms of educational function, I think C beats L3. The more compact design allows shorter travel times, which makes certain kinds of beneficial interactions more feasible and more likely to happen. These include for example differentiated learning sessions in a hub mixing kids from different grades; “reading buddies” and similar mixed-grade activities; and collaboration by teachers across grade levels to continuously facilitate the above.

So I suggest you ask yourself what’s more important to you—maximizing educational outcomes or preserving the “L” look? For me, it’s educational outcomes.

The last major consideration—and it’s a crucial —is what can the town get passed when the final vote happens this fall? If I thought C would fail and L3 would pass, of course I’d support L3 for that reason. But we don’t actually know that is the case.

So let’s use the Town Meeting to get a better gauge on that. When we take the first vote Saturday morning, if you like C best, don’t stand up for L3 just because you think it might have a better chance of passing. Instead, stand up for C, and let’s find out how many people feel the same. I expect there would be time to coalesce around L3 in a later vote on Saturday, if that looks to be necessary.

Thanks very much to the volunteers and professionals who have put so much time into helping tee up these options for decision.

Sincerely,

Paul Shorb
99 South Great Rd., Lincoln

---

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published

To the editor:

What follows is my personal perspective.

Lincoln has always been committed to a progressive education, and generations have spent untold hours and dollars to provide that education in this town. I want us to choose a school that the current parents of this town embrace for their children, so I canvassed many of them to understand their perspective. Two key elements are the school’s disrepair and the progressive educational infrastructure that hubs provide to kids. These hubs provide an innovative, collaborative, configurable environment for learning.

Many of today’s parents have kids who started school around the time Town Meeting voted down a new school in 2012. Those same parents will not see their kids in this new/renovated school, even if we vote for and bond a school option at the end of this year. I am impressed by the parents’ remarkable commitment and determination with no or limited benefit coming to their children from this school project. They are primarily thinking about the next wave of children to pass through the school.

I thought about option C, but it felt too similar to the design that Town Meeting did not support in 2012.

Through a number of friends with an eye to the architectural beauty and preservation of our structures, I also was influenced by the unique way our school campus nestles into the fields and forest surrounding the buildings. We barely notice that we are entering school grounds in a car or on foot from the trail system as the trees tower over the structure. Educators and kids look out from numerous vantage points at the natural setting which provides natural light.

So I thought about the L options that would maintain and upgrade this vision for our school.

I don’t know why it took so long to see the light, but earlier in May, the picture started to unfold. I listened as many in the town shared what they were looking for in their visions. The hubs and L design were the clear requirements for consensus between these two groups. L3 is the least expensive of the original three hubs options and the most expensive of the L options. It encompasses Lincoln’s commitment to progressive education and sustainability. New families are the lifeblood of a town and also a valuable demographic that I clearly support.

Please join me in voting for option L3 on Saturday morning in the ballot vote and again in the afternoon in the standing vote(s).

Sincerely,

Peter Watkinson
9 Wheeler Rd.

To the editor:

This Saturday we face a tough day of decision-making. I believe that there is only one proposal up for consideration that has the potential to satisfy the range of expressed aspirations and that checks enough boxes to get us to “yes” in December. That is L3.

Over the course of the development of these proposals, it seems to me that there are a number of points at issue, not necessarily competing, that are driving choices:

1. Educational vision

• Flexible spaces and classrooms organized around rooms/hubs that facilitate collaboration and smaller spaces to allow for individualized instruction
• Dining area (and kitchens) that are multi-use and close enough to classrooms to reduce time spent getting to and from lunch
• Common space for larger gatherings

2. Environmental concerns

• Achieving net zero
• Appropriate sizing and location of solar panels
• Minimizing demolition
• Intelligent reuse/recycling/repurposing where possible

3. Aesthetics of the campus

• Preservation of the unique landscape of buildings surrounding the center ballfield
• Respect for the value of Lincoln’s architectural heritage
• Concern regarding radical change in campus appearance

4. Shared space/community use

• Preservation of easily accessible spaces for voting and hosting Town Meeting—Smith Gym and Donaldson Auditorium, a.k.a. Brooks auditorium
• Creation of common area(s) and kitchen(s) for community use after school hours

5. Community/rec center

• Concern that most expensive project will dim prospects for a community/rec center

6. Budget

• Concern with increase in taxes
• Perception of unnecessary “frill” expenditures
• Spending close to bonding limit—“maxing out the credit card”

For some, budget is a serious issue that will drive decision-making. Town boards and committees talk about what is affordable for the town, and what are responsible and prudent investments. But what is deemed affordable, prudent, and responsible for the town may not seem so for individual homeowners/taxpayers.

Budget-driven decisions are legitimate and should not be dismissed or deemed irresponsible.
All of the choices are expensive, running from $49 million for R/Repair to $94.3 million for C/Compact. Tax impacts will be appreciable. While some seniors thankfully can use the array of senior tax relief programs offered by the town, the majority do not. Some will be digging deep.

Suggesting that we do not have to pick any of the options offered, including the R/Repair option, ignores reality. Our buildings have not had substantial repairs and/or upgrades since our last building project in 1994. We have made repairs, we have done the basics. Systems are old and need replacements. Undertaking the major repair projects triggers state code requirements and adds expense. That is why the comprehensive R/Repair option is on the table. We simply cannot do piecemeal repairs spread out over years. Building codes do not allow us to take this path. Doing nothing is irresponsible. Doing nothing is NOT an option.

The R/Repair option will proved a completely rehabilitated facility with an anticipated life expectancy of 30+ years, but it offers little else. It offers no programmatic/educational enhancements. It offers no ability to achieve net zero.

Getting to “yes” in December will require a coalition and compromise. Only L3 meets the most substantive concerns that will translate into community support so that we can reach a “yes” vote on December. It may not be the ideal solution for everyone, and certainly not for those driven by budget concerns alone, but it is not the most expensive option, and local experts in design construction and energy applications say there may be ways to bring the cost down in this option while maintaining hubs, educational enhancements, and programs, potentially allowing savings to be shifted to a community/rec center. L3 is more flexible and “forgiving” than C, and will allow the town to come together to get to “yes.”

The passion we have been reading on Lincoln talk is good—it means we care. Let’s sustain the passion and ensure we continue respectful debate with open minds. At the end of Town Meeting, we as a town must feel whole. We should see that our debate and decisions reflect sensitivity to our entire community. We must be mindful that decisions made today are an investment that will benefit Lincoln for generations to come.

See you on Saturday… and please consider L3 as a wise choice for now and for our future.

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
Conant Rd.

To the editor:

As the “town educators” group (we spoke at the April 25 School Building Committee Meeting), we wanted to offer a few thoughts before the upcoming June 9 vote. We see the opportunity for our town’s children to benefit enormously from choosing either school option C or L3. Here is why:

As we survey the educational landscape, we see a world of learning that is becoming increasingly dynamic, interconnected, and flexible. If schools of the past have been labeled as egg crates—every classroom of equal size with teachers and students isolated from one another—schools of the future (and leading schools today) have rooms of varying sizes and purposes—rooms that are separate but also can be connected.

Leading school models today have small breakout rooms, large rooms that can accommodate projects, maker spaces and engineering labs, and, most of all, flexible spaces that can be converted to a variety of different uses. These schools also seek to create beautiful as well as functional spaces—many have an abundance of natural light and use warm touches (couches, bean bag chairs, rugs, lamps) to try to combat the institutional feel of most schools and to enable informal work spaces.

With those criteria in mind, from an educational vantage point we think that either C or L3 are viable options. Both provide hub spaces to carry out a forward-looking educational vision, and both include smaller breakout rooms as well as larger spaces for project-based work. C is potentially the most flexible option; with new construction and a compact design, there are lots of opportunities to design in forward-looking ways. At the same time, we also see advantages to L3: potentially more natural light and a more seamless connection of all parts of the building to the natural surroundings, Hallways can, if well-designed, be places for displaying high-quality student work and can include couches, nooks, and places for students to work and otherwise be part of a 21st-century design.

In contrast, R, L1, and L2 do not offer this flexibility, and thus do not meet the demands of 21st-century education.  

We also see the new building as an opportunity to rethink education in forward-looking ways. It is true, as many citizens have noted, that good learning can happen anywhere; one of us can remember teaching in a converted storage closet. However, educational expectations have changed and will continue to evolve in response to our changing world. As responsive citizens, we hope to provide the kind of learning that equips our students for a 21st-century world, whether that be through differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all learners or through activities that foster adaptability, hands-on learning, problem solving, innovation, initiative, teamwork, and self-awareness. The goal should be to create spaces that facilitate powerful and up-to-date learning and teaching, not inhibit it.

The opportunities these spaces provide should be paired with opportunities for teachers to learn how to take advantage of the new design. One approach, encouraged by some of our colleagues, would be to set aside 0.5 percent of the budget to support teachers to learn how to use the new spaces well. In our case, we already have a significant amount of professional development time that could be used for these purposes and a leadership team committed to a forward-looking educational vision. We are excited by the combination of the people, space, and time, and expect our town’s children will be the beneficiaries for decades to come.

As citizens, we recognize the enormous cost of the project and urge the town both to continue to find ways to mitigate or defer the costs of the project for those on fixed incomes or those unable to pay. This might include tax deferment options or the creation of a hardship fund. Our job as a community is to find a way to develop a school that prepares the next generation of learners and leaders and also works for all of our residents. At the same time, we do not think it is wise to put a huge sum of money into what is essentially yesterday’s school model.

We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in and look forward to the discussion on Saturday.

Sincerely,  

Jal Mehta, Jen Holleran, Liz City, Cathie Bitter, and Mia Chung-Yee