Guilford is a historic community of approximately 20,000 persons on the Connecticut coastline, with over 3,800 students in the public school system. Guilford is blessed with a historic town green, an artistic community that borders the Long Island Sound, and a vibrant school system with dedicated teachers.

Guilford has long roots as an agricultural community, founded in 1639. It hosts one of the longest running agricultural fairs in New England, and people who have lived here for a generation may still be viewed as newcomers. In 1958 I-95 opened. The development of the schools can be seen to parallel the increase in population associated with this.

Guilford has a reputation for excellent school systems, and students consistently score well compared to state and national averages. However, Guilford has not invested enough in school infrastructure over the last several decades. While this is a national problem, we are significantly behind comparable school districts within Connecticut. Specifically, the Guilford High School and the Adams Middle School are undersized, outdated, poorly designed for learning, and in some cases unsafe and unhealthy for students.

Turnout by Guilford voters has not been good. In April 2008, only 16.9% of eligible voters participated in two bond referendums and the town budget.

But I have always heard "Guilford has great schools" -- isn't that true?
How bad is it?
Shouldn't we spend our money on books, not bricks?
Do school facilities affect academic outcomes?
How did it get this bad?
What happened in 2003?
What can be done now?
How much will this cost?
How do I get involved?

But I have always heard "Guilford has great schools" -- isn't that true?

Guilford is blessed with families from a wide variety of economic backgrounds, involved parents and students, and committed teachers and administrators. Guilford has built a reputation for excellent schools over many decades and this reputation persists. However, the inattention and underinvestment in infrastructure has the potential to undermine this, both in reality and perception. Continuing to ignore it will have long standing effects on the entire commmunity.

How bad is it?

For those of you who have been in the schools, have children in the schools, or had a chance to take one of the tours given by the Board of Education and the Community Task Force you either know the answer or found it out very quickly. The schools are outdated, cramped, unhealthy, and not conducive to learning.

Guilford High School (GHS) was built in 1958. There was a major addition in 1999, however as of 2007 GHS provided 158 square feet per student, the lowest of comparable schools in the area (East Haven 265 sqft, Branford 232 sqft, North Haven 232 sqft, Madison 182 sqft). In addition to being cramped, the facility is outdated and worn down. When asked how GHS compared to other high schools in CT, 74.8% of students stated it was inferior to other schools they had visited (see complete survey results). This is a direct result of investment: Over the last ~20 years Guilford has invested less per student on their high school than any comparable school in CT: $5,787 per student (average of 22 other schools $28,903, range $8,073-$55,680). See table of other CT school spending here.

At Adams, a school that has nearly 600 pupils, the cafeteria holds only 150 students, necessitating four lunch periods, the last running until nearly 2pm. Several of the classes have no windows at all, and climate control is jury rigged in multiple different ways depending on the location and existing heat/AC/ventilation. Flooding and mold continue to be challenges in the many classroom spaces in the basement. Portable classrooms placed after the flood of 2004 are still in place and are among the most popular for teachers and students alike due to air conditioning (and despite the lack of plumbing and bathrooms). Spaces for special activities (performances, orchestra, band, chorus, science, art) are either cramped or non-existent. Despite this infrastructure, Adams has a palpable culture of excellence and an amazing group of committed teachers.

Think what our teachers and students could do if they were given an adequate facility.

Shouldn't we spend our money on books, not bricks?

Within reason we should do both. Underinvestment in infrastructure may undermine other spending, and appropriate investment in adequate facilities may allow us to keep higher quality teachers at lower cost (skip to last paragraph).

It is important to understand that yearly expenditures (salaries and books) are separate from bond issues that address significant building projects. While it might make sense to spend or set aside a certain amount of budgeted yearly expenditure to infrastructure issues (and this is part of the Community Task Force long range plan), the yearly budget is consumed almost entirely by salaries and day to day expenses. The yearly budget vote (next one April 8, 2008) on the combined town and education budget covers operating expenses for the year but devotes no specific money to costlier, longer term projects. These are listed as separate referendums (of which there are two on the April 8th ballot).

As citizens concerned about education we should pay attention to this yearly budget, and vote to support reasonable expenditures. Major infrastructure projects are typically addressed as separate referendums, and will need to be paid over many years (typically 20-25).

While spending too much on infrastructure may impact the ability to pass the yearly budget, ignoring infrastructure may have as much effect as decreasing teacher salaries. During the tours many persons working in the schools commented repeatedly on the detrimental effect a markedly sub-par building has on teacher morale and recruitment. The last significant referendum on improvements to the Adams Middle School was put forth in 2003, and defeated (see below).

Do school facilities affect academic outcomes?

The short answer is, yes, to an extent. While moving from an adequate facility to a state of the art facility may provide less benefit, moving from an inadequate facility (the case with Guilford High School and Adams Middle School) can have a big effect. An excellent review of the scientific data on this was written by Mark Schneider in 2002: "Do School Facilities Effect Academic Outcomes", found on the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities website, another excellent resource on this issue.

How did it get this bad?

Over the last ~20 years the Connecticut-wide average of infrastructure expenditures has been ~13% of per-pupil expenditures. Guilford has invested ~6%. This underinvestment in infrastructure has caught up with us. A referendum in 2003 to move Adams to a new site at Baldwin failed by a nearly 3:1 margin. While the 2003 referendum was proposed by people with good intentions, there were reservations on how it was approached and how the money was slated to be spent, and it failed by a wide margin (see below).

Support for appropriate investment in school infrastructure may be obvious to those with children in the schools, but it is also important for others to understand the impact underinvestment in schools can have on property values and community as a whole that affect all persons who live here, regardless of parental status. Guilford continues to have a reputation for excellent schools, and this makes it an attractive place to live and keeps property values relatively high. Unfortunately, if many prospective home buyers with children were to really see Adams and the Guilford High School (and know that the town had repeatedly voted against improving them) they may think twice about buying in Guilford and choose Madison, Woodbridge, or Cheshire, with a resultant loss of value for all property owners. We have been riding on a reputation built decades ago and stand to lose that reputation if we do not pursue reasonable investment in the infrastructure. It would be a shame if underinvestment in school buildings were to undermine the work of the excellent teachers and students we have here.

While it is unfortunate that citizens moving forward may have to shoulder a disproportionate share of infrastructure improvements, pushing it off to the future is not the answer. Future improvements will not be any cheaper, and will only have the effect of undermining the work of teachers and students in the meantime and damaging a reputation for good schools that has taken decades to build and will take decades to repair if it is compromised.

What happened in 2003?

While there are undoubtably many perspectives on what led up to the eventual outcome, a referendum was put forward on January 14, 2003 regarding improvements to Adams Middle School was defeated by a 3:1 margin, as detailed below.

Question #1: "Shall the town of Guilford approriate $50,150,000 for the middle school facilities project including improvements, renovationas and additions to Baldwin Middle School and construction adjacent to Baldwin Middle School of a new 7th-8th grade school with an enclosed connector joining the school buildings, and issue bonds and notes to finance the portion of the appropriation not funded from grants (an estimated net cost to the town of approximately $38,435,000)?"

Question #1 Yes votes: 1345 No votes: 3860

Question #2: "Shall the town of Gulford increse the appropriation and borrowing authorization for the middle school facilities project, if aproved by $4,490,000 to provide an approximately 775 seat auditorium and related facilities (resulting in an estimated net cost to the town for the aggregate project of approximately $4,160,000)?"

Question #2 Yes votes: 1278 No votes: 3799

Whole number of electors on the registry list: 14,356

Whole number of electors checked as having voted on the registry list: 5292

Voters who voted by absentee ballot: 162

This was a substantial defeat. Despite the fact that Adams needed improvement there were significant concerns about the propasla, the process, and the fate of Adams should it no longer be a middle school. While this resounding defeat set us back over four years the problems have not gone away, and solutions have only become more costly.

What can be done now?

There are many different possible options, any of which depend on support and input from the community. While these problems are urgent, it is important to remember that it takes time to investigate, vote for, fund, and build the right option--- as a community we don't want to fail by putting forth something too hastily. The Community Task Force for School Facilities has prepared an excellent publication on the options: Guilford School Facilities Needs and Solutions.

Of the options presented, the Board of Education intends to chose an option to move forward with that will then be presented to the Board of Selectman and Board of Finance for referendum. We believe the BOE will be making its decision by late summer of early fall. If you have a specific solution that you support, we urge you to write the BOE.

At this point GuilfordPACT is not endorsing a particular solution but intend to bring together citizens that support a strong solution. We are working to let the BOE know that citizens are behind a strong solution, something that was lacking in 2003 at least in an organized sense. By joining us or contributing you can help to influence this process.

How much will this cost?

Should we choose to ignore the school buildings, we will all pay the long term price in lost property values and degradation of the community. However, investing in schools is exactly that -- an investment of money over the long term for a long term return, and there are costs associated with this.

There are many different scenarios (see the Task Force web space), each with price tags that may at first glance seem insurmountably large. However, the cost of construction is bonded over 20-25 years and subsidized by the State at a fixed rate based on average household town income (31% for Guilford). In addition, local taxes are deductible against federal income tax. The cost per resident per year will depend on the property tax. While it is arguable that the property tax is a regressive tax, it is currently the only way for localities to fund their services. Additionally, it is important to realize that as these bonded funds come into repayment others will have been paid off in full, so the net increase in tax payments may be significantly less.

Guilford hosts one of the most comprehensive property tax freeze plans for senior citizens with income below $90,000. The Community Task Force on School Facilities website includes detailed information about options being discussed and their costs.

It is crucial to understand that voting against necessary and reasonable repairs or replacement may cause all of us to lose money (the value of Guilford housing and property IS a result of the reputation of the schools). It is also essential to understand that putting off necessary expenditures now may only delay future increased expenditures.

How do I get involved?

You are involved by reading this far. Continue to educate yourself. Attend a session given by the Community Task Force on School Facilities (see calendar) and give them and the BOE feedback on what the best option is. Talk to your neighbors friends, people you see at the Green with small children. Most importantly, vote. And get everyone you know to vote. If you want to please get more involved with this organization join us and contribute your time, expertise, or money to get this done. It is the right thing for Guilford.