Dawn Epstein says a ‘yes’ vote will allow the school district the maintain the reputation it has built.
What does it mean to be a resident of Cherry Hill? What do we value? Who do we want as neighbors?
In my mind, these are the questions that are at the heart of the upcoming bond referendum vote. After learning all the specifics of this bond and thinking about these questions, the only conclusion I can come to is to vote ‘yes’ on all three questions.
Cherry Hill has a wonderful reputation for having fantastic schools. But the physical infrastructure of our buildings does not match the quality of the education that goes on inside those walls.
I did not grow up around here. I moved to Cherry Hill because of its reputation for good schools. Before I had children, I was very underwhelmed by the appearance of the schools and grounds.
But now that I have children in the schools I’ve been overwhelmed by the quality of their education! Amazing, caring teachers. Innovative learning. Warm community.
And yet, I’m still underwhelmed by the buildings. The schools need repairs, that is not up for debate, and fundamentally what this bond is about is how to pay for those repairs. Do we as a community pay for them over the course of 20 years? Or do we force the district to pay for them out of the operating budget and sacrifice class size, programs, and staff?
Earning a reputation as a town with poor schools hurts everyone — regardless of whether or not you have children in school. Property values will fall and people will move away.
Which option has a better outcome for you? Your neighborhood? Our community? Our future neighbors?
I’m voting to maintain the reputation Cherry Hill has spent decades building. The reason I moved here from a hundred miles away. I’m voting ‘yes’ on all three questions.
Dawn Epstein
