When architects sifted through what Iola teachers and staff said they would like for Iola Middle School and its three elementaries, a few things rose to the top, including that they be:
1. More safe in terms of natural disasters and those caused by man;
2. More adaptable and flexible to better accommodate evolving teaching and learning styles;
3. Better able to meet the needs of those with handicaps and special needs as well as those who fall ill during the school day;
4. More accessible in terms of parking and picking up and dropping off students;
5. More comfortable in terms of having consistent temperatures and natural light, and
6. Better able to provide dedicated spaces for SAFE BASE, the district’s after-school program; SEKA, a program offered by Southeast Kansas Mental Health Association, and for classes such as woodworking, clothing construction and foreign languages.
“There’s a lot of need in the district,” Shannon Bohm, an architect with the Wichita firm of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey, told a large group assembled Monday night at IMS. “And you’re probably not going to be able to address it all at one time. As a committee, you’ll need to list your priorities.”
About 60 area citizens attended the session that reviewed the needs assessments completed by area teachers, staff and administrators. The evening began with a tour of the middle school. Besides sloping floors and cracked walls, its main challenge is its heating and cooling system distributed from one large unit atop the three-story building.
“There can be a 25-degree difference between classrooms across the hall from one another,” said Brad Crusinbery, IMS principal.
“Teachers tell their students to bring their coats to class. They shouldn’t have to do that,” he said.
The school was last renovated in 1994.
Classrooms average 750 square feet, though some are as small as 600 square feet. The ideal size for 20 students is 850 square feet, “but that’s not an impossible hurdle,” Bohm said. “Maybe there’s a way to add some storage,” to free up space. Out in the hallway sits a four-foot square charging unit used for the students’ Chromebooks.
With the current attendance — grades 5 through 8 — the school should be half again as large, from its current 80,000 square feet to 121,940 square feet, according to the architects.
In discussions among steering committee members Ryan Sparks posited whether the middle school could be just for seventh- and eighth graders.
“Would the middle school then be of adequate size?” he asked.
That’s certainly something to consider, Bohm replied.
“Is there anything with this facility that is worth working with?” asked Ray Maloney, LaHarpe. “It sounds as if it needs to be torn down. That’s going to be a hard sell in this community. It seems like a nice building.”
Bohm welcomed Maloney’s comment as a way to clear up any misconceptions as to the architectects’ purpose.
“I want to make clear we are not saying you need to tear down your schools. We are here to look at your facilities to see how they meet your needs and to see how you can best utilize the existing spaces.”
Maloney pressed. “So does this building meet our needs?”
“You have a nice gym,” Bohm replied, that comes close to the ideal size. The commons area also is a welcoming space, she said, although its acoustics are a challenge.
Bohm asked participants to remember the information they are gathering from teachers and staff is helping them design a “roadmap for the district. Do not think we are saying this is not a useful space. The idea is not that we’re asking you to walk away from your existing buildings, but to see how they can best meet district needs.”
“What you determine as the district’s priorities will also help direct how we move forward,” she said.
Retired educator Joe Hess said that while he supported the widely defeated 2014 bond issue to build new schools, he’s come to the conclusion that the majority of district voters would still not be in favor of building new schools.
In light of that, Hess said “we ought to make all the effort that’s possible to create the best schools we can in the facilities we now have.”
“I would encourage the development of a staged bond issue where improvements are done incrementally over the next 10 years,” he said. “That’s obviously going to cost more than building a brand new school, but that’s what the voters said they wanted. I would go first class, so that the schools can meet all these requirements.”
ITCHING to get beyond the talking phase, Maloney said, “I don’t have a problem with building all new schools, but we need to get a plan as to how we’re going to sell or repurpose the existing buildings so we can convince the public that new schools would be better for our kids.”
Bohm put on the brakes.
More assessments by teachers and staff still need to be discussed before design concepts can be drawn up to address specific requests.
“It may mean you’ll want to walk away from these buildings, or maybe not,” she said.
Chuck Apt asked for clarification on the information presented and whether it dictates the scope of new schools.
No, replied Bohm. The numbers presented Monday reflected the needed changes to existing buildings. Where 600-foot classrooms exist, for example, perhaps walls need to come down to create larger learning spaces.
As for new schools, those specifications, including costs, will be provided if committee members say that’s a direction they want to pursue.
THE STEERING committee will next meet Feb. 19.
PHOTOS: Iolan Joe Hess speaks Monday at a steering committee meeting at Iola Middle School. The committee is investigating each of the district’s school buildings. Below is a picture of rust and corrosion that have built up on the school’s aging lockers. REGISTER/SUSAN LYNN
