Arlington High School has received its report card: Teachers and staff get top ratings, but the building, its oldest part nearing a century, fails.

Bottom line, key School Committee members say, is to pursue state funding for a rebuild or addition. Down the road, that would mean an override.

“I would like to see a unanimous vote of the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen” to seek state funding for an AHS project, Jeff Thielman told his School Committee colleagues Thursday, Sept. 26. “It’s a community decision.”

Citing “severe needs,” member Paul Schlichtman supported Thielman’s view and said that if the building issues are not addressed, the high school might not be accredited in the next round.

Arlington High has its accreditation status reviewed every decade by the New England Association of Schools & Colleges (NEASC). The latest letter from NEASC’s current review is dated Sept. 16. Read it here >>

Concerns must be addressed by January

In brief, the 10-year report card on AHS delivers high marks for the school’s educational effectiveness and teaching. It also expresses a list of concerns, which must be addressed by next January.

“Given these concerns,” the NEASC report says, “the Committee voted to place the school on warning for the Standards for Accreditation on Curriculum and Community Resources for Learning.”

The Jan. 14 does not mean every item listed must be repaired, but a plan is expected to be in place to pursue repair. A committee at the high school has begun to discuss these issues.

Superintendent Kathleen Bodie told the committee Sept. 26 that some of the issues are already being address and that she favors preparing a Statement of Interest, the first step to seeking state money from the state School Building Authority. Those funds would cover half of whatever the cost turns out to be.

She said a statement of the needs for Arlington High would be submitted to the state between January and April. A potential override would be much farther down the road.

“We’re looking for a renovation or an addition, not a patch job” Thielman said.

He noted that an earlier plan to rebuild the high school, from 1991, was not acted on. In the mid-1970s, voters turned down a plan from that time. The original school building went up in 1914, with various additions in subsequent years.

For accrediting body, the building is the issue

“To a person,” Bodie said, the NEASC committee focused its concerns on the state of the building.

“There were days we did not heat last year,” Bodie said, noting that a boiler replacement is expected before winter.

“Science labs are not recommended sizes,” she said.

Earlier in the meeting, Matthew Janger, the new principal of AHS, was introduced and acknowledged some of these issues.

Member Cindy Starks told Janger that she thought a recent parents’ night was a success, but the building’s shortcomings were clear — and her view of a classroom was not. In a science lab, she could not see around a pole, something students experience every day.

“We have to look ahead and think about the kind of building we want,” Janger told the committee. “We need to think 10, 20, 50 years into the future.”

Bodie said an enrollment study, underway, would look at school populations 20 years from now.

The committee took no vote, but no member expressed opposition to seeking state funds.

A look at the report’s pluses, minuses

In its letter of Sept. 16, NEASC reported the following upside — and downs — following its two-day April review of Arlington High School.

Some of what impressed the committee were (see all of them here >>):

— A set of values, called ICARE, embodied by the majority of students and staff that affects positively school culture;

— The ongoing development of a common curriculum template through the use of Atlas Rubicon;

— Teachers are committed to delivering high-quality curriculum to all students;

— Teachers’ emphasis on depth of understanding and application of knowledge through inquiry, problem-solving, higher-order thinking;

— Teachers’ specific, timely feedback to ensure students revise and improve their work; and

— The renovated library media center that provides students with the opportunity to achieve 21st-century learning objectives.

The NEASC committee also identified concerns, and here are some of them:

— Insufficient number and size of general classrooms and art classrooms;

— Layout and design of classrooms with columns and posts that limit students’ vision and obstruct their movements;

— Need for the increased availability of a full range of technology;

— Poor condition and lack of cleanliness of the building the lack of handicap access and egress to the facility;

— Closure of a classroom due to environmental concerns the falling ceiling tiles;

— Worn, broken and poor condition of desks and tables, and lab supplies that are not up to current standards;

A progress report must be submitted by Jan. 15 providing initial plans to address:

— All health and safety issues, including science labs and studio arts areas, egress plans for evacuation and handicap accessibility; and

— Improve the overall cleanliness of the facility.

All accredited schools must submit a required two-year progress report, due Oct. 1, 2014.

This story was published Saturday, Sept. 28, 2013.