Report Inappropriate Comments

Ah, No. At a high level, nowhere does Ms. Dambruch argue that new schools will result in improved student outcomes, improved instruction, improved teacher qualifications, or improved ANYTHING. In fact, the word "improved" appears nowhere in her editorial. Let's take it point by point.

Point 1: Essentially, Ms. Dambruch argues that we should build two new schools because someone else will pay for half. This is hardly a compelling argument to hamstring Warwick's taxpayers.

Point 2: "Students are currently attending schools in other districts due to the condition of our facilities." Actually, students are fleeing the city's schools due to inferior instruction and a parental recognition that better instructional options exist elsewhere. It's not the buildings. It's what goes on inside the buildings.

Point 3: Ms. Dambruch suggests that students "...will benefit" but fails to say How. More specifically, she fails to give us any sense of instruction options that will be available in a new school that are currently not available. Apparently, "will benefit" is good enough.

Point 4: My personal favorite. Buckle up, Warwick. The median value of a Warwick home is between $350k and $360k, not the $300k Ms. Dambruch references. Openly distorting existing data is never a good look, though understandable if you don't work in the dreaded private sector. If the school department wishes to erect a shining new thing, so be it. But the notion that new schools will alter any student outcomes or quality of instruction is truly the biggest "Myth".