To the Editor:

The arguments about the proposed $130 million construction bond for Princeton public schools are about two things, the cost to Princeton residents and the value of the investment return to students. Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber in his 2018 commencement address said: “the upfront cost of education is real, large, and very easy to measure. The returns are equally real and even larger, but accrue over a lifetime, are hard to measure, and vary from person to person. It is tempting to wish you could get more certainty at lower cost.” On the other hand the failure of public education was cited by Derek Bok, former Harvard president, in reply to a question about his book on the trouble in America.

From the cost point of view, New Jersey allocated more than $6 billion for school construction in the year 2000, primarily in poor school districts. Has all this been used up? Is there a measurable return on this investment? Maybe we need to compare district construction costs. Hamilton, with 24 schools and three times the number of students, last year approved a $56 million bond for construction, $22 million in credit coming from the state. Would it not be possible to reduce construction costs if the two districts worked together?

In terms of the return on investment, student progress is measured by tests and does vary from person to person. But that depends more on the input of the parent and teacher in time more than place of learning. There is data missing from the discussion that makes it difficult to justify such a large expenditure. Perhaps because it is based on the archaic method of funding schools with real estate taxes that always keep going up. We need to find out who really gets the lion’s share of the money and who benefits the most.

Louis Slee

Spruce Street