The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item. Received September 22, 2026.
Philip Devlin’s recent article in the HK News states that “more than a dozen building projects in the district from 1948 to present is just over $40 million.” However, he has not adjusted that number for inflation, making his statement nonsensical. For example, his first building expense listed was $395,000 for the original “Junior High” in 1958 (the 1948 cost of HES or KES is not provided for some reason). Corrected for inflation, that would be $4.58 million today. Burr School cost $1.6 million in 1969, which is $14.6 million today. The 1975 cost of the junior-Senior high school in 1975 was $12.9 million, or $80 million today. And even the most recent addition, the HK Middle school cost $48.3 million in 2007, which would be $77.8 million today! And he also doesn’t address the additional increase in building costs resulting from today’s tariffs on building supplies.
Yes, we’re being asked for a lot of money to remake our high school. But it is far from the “almost two times the total cost of all school construction work from 1948 to present.” Not even close!
Scott MacDonald, Higganum
There is no historical record available in newspaper archives that can be found regarding the local cost of either HES or KES in 1948. However, if one were to do simple math, we do know that the known local cost after state reimbursement for the original junior high was $220,000 and the local cost of Burr was $900,000—figures stated in my first paragraph. That is a total of $1,220,000. Note that I estimate the total local expenditures on school construction from 1948-1970 in paragraph two to be approximately $1.5 million—that is $280,000 more than $1,220,000, a number that includes an estimate for the probable local cost of the construction of both HES and KES and the known 1967 land purchase from the Waibels. In retrospect, maybe I should have flatly stated that I was including an estimate for the likely local cost of HES and KES in that higher number. I falsely assumed that most people reading those two paragraphs could easily note the difference between the stated $1.2 million and $1.5 million. Clearly, at least one person did not. My bad.
If you add up the total local cost of all the school construction/reconstruction/addition projects in the district from 1978 to the present—a period of 78 years—the total is just under $41 million dollars. The total estimated local cost of the current high school renovation proposal is about $77 million. To note the huge discrepancy between those two figures is simply a statement of historical fact that shows the alarming increase in costs that have occurred. When I was in high school, the average cost of regular gas was 29 cents per gallon, quite a contrast with today’s average cost of $4.40+ per gallon. In August of 1962, I was present with my dad when he had our 1,000-gallon heating oil tank filled. It took 900 gallons, and he paid Mr. Rockwell $90—a dime a gallon. Now heating oil is $5.89 per gallon and rising—quite a contrast. Again, to note the huge price discrepancies in the past—whether it’s gas, heating oil or school construction costs–is just interesting, anecdotal history.
If I wanted to, I could take those low fuel figures from yesteryear and use an inflation calculator easily found on the internet to adjust that to inflation, but that’s not what I was trying to do. It’s just an historical document noting how much things have changed. If someone would like to write an article and subject all of those individual school figures in an inflation-adjusted way, that would be interesting to read. I would ask that person, however, not to use the more commonly found consumer CPI inflation software but to use software that specifically adjusts costs to the construction industry. Such software does exist.
Speaking of inflation, it would be interesting to subject the current renovation proposal made last January to an inflation-adjusted figure and to speculate about how Trump’s imposition of 50% tariffs on Canada would affect those estimates. We get about 68% of our aluminum from Canada and just over 1/3rd of our wood—especially plywood—from Canada. Chances are the nearly 10-month-old current estimate are significantly higher now, yet another reason to question the wisdom of voting for this proposal.
“Nonsensical” you say? Your letter of support for the referendum states that HKHS “now faces a loss of accreditation.” That statement is truly nonsensical. Consider what the Office for Legislative Research (OLR) has to say about that issue. OLR researchers are charged with being objective and non-partisan: “While several schools have faced warnings or been placed on probation over the decades (such as Hartford Public High School in 1997, which ultimately avoided losing its accredited status), the NEASC and the Connecticut General Assembly confirm that no operational public high school in the state has actually been stripped of its accreditation. Accreditation membership is voluntary for public schools in Connecticut, and none have had their status terminated.”
NEASC ACCREDITATION By: Hendrik DeBoer, Research Fellow for Connecticut General Assembly. “Neither state nor federal law mandates that schools be accredited by NEASC or any other accrediting agency. State law does require that the board of education for any public school that is NEASC-accredited disclose the accreditation reports to the public (C.G.S. § 10-239j).”
HOW MANY HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE LOST THEIR NEASC ACCREDITATION? “Although some schools have been placed on probation, no high schools, other than those which have closed, have lost their NEASC accreditation in Connecticut within the last 20 years, according to the NEASC.”
A final thought: The other day I was pumping some gas over at Jaspers. I was commiserating with the guy on the other side of the pump about the current high cost and said that when I was in high school the price was 29 cents. Next time I see that guy I should apologize for my failure to inflation-adjust that 29 cents—so misleading!