Wonders what part he’s missing on Dressel

To the editor:

I was confused after reading the recent article about Dressel School in the Lindbergh School District.

The interpreted read goes, we sold the property, we bought the property back because it had been well-maintained and got it at such a good price and now we want to tear it down. It shouldn’t take a world-class economist to realize that if you already own something, isn’t it better to keep it, than to sell it off, then buy it back, probably for more than you sold it for years ago?

How could the District Growth Committee’s brainstorming originate this logic?

And then to quote one of the committee members: “There’s no other solution in our group that we think we can do and meet the criteria set before us.”

I’ve witnessed some outstanding renovation projects throughout the district, at Sappington, Concord and Long schools.

Why isn’t that option at this location?

Or what has changed that Dressel isn’t a workable facility, as it had been touted as “well-maintained” when the property was repurchased in 2011.

Another puzzling issue is the use of terms, “Exceeding the capacity or nearing capacity of the current schools.” Drawing from memory, it seems I’ve heard ideal class size goals are currently usually 15 or less students. I’m not sure where these magic numbers originate, maybe from more brainstorming.

Having grown up through the baby boomer years in South St. Louis City, my class size was 47 students, plus or minus two or three from first grade through eighth grade.

All eight of the classrooms were in the same building with only one teacher per class. Not one of us is in prison or on welfare. Go figure.