Looks cheap. And with the explosive growth in Chicago suburbia, I can't imagine what it is down there! My beef is with the over-the-top extravagance of the buildings. Inlaid oak flooring and brass hardware, etc. Spending thousands on what should cost hundreds. Ever wonder why districts complain they have no money for teacher salaries?
Parents are getting hip to bogus "My child...." bumper stickers.
They don't like it when their child needs remedial reading, writing and math in college.
They don't like superintendents getting $200K - $300K salaries and thousands more in benefits.
They don't like fancy schools with incompetent teachers manning the classrooms.
They don't like LIBERAL politics and social instruction invading their schools.
I'm with you on the extravagance of new buildings. Our school district has embarked on an ambitious plan (now 5 years into a 15 year plan) that essentially ensures that at the end none of their buildings are more than 20 years old. It's expensive, but with the transient nature of a college town, there hasn't been enough outcry.
On the issue of school population though, make sure they are giving you good numbers. Our town is one of the highest growth areas in PA, and our school district launched their building plan claiming they had seen a 20% growth in enrollment between 1990 and 2000. That was true, but the 90's followed the generation X years. What they didn't tell you was that they have NEVER reached the highest total enrollment they had at their peak in 1972. I got the data from the school administration office, and provided the data to the community in an editorial. They took a pause in their building scheme publicity for about 6 months, then said a review showed they really did need it because so many of their buildings had "outdated heating plants" and "leaking windows". They already have 3 more buildings than they did in 1972 for a smaller school population, yet they want to build, build, build. Our tax dollars at work...