Imagine walking into a school and wishing you could take the classes. That’s exactly how I felt after curriculum night at LHS: energized, curious, and impressed.
In just two hours, parents got a glimpse of what our kids experience every day—running between classes, bumping into familiar faces, navigating crowded halls, and pausing at the central Quad.
The Quad isn’t just open space. It’s the heart of LHS: a place to eat, relax, and connect. Surrounded by four academic buildings, it ties the campus together like a university green. Students have written passionately about its importance—see “The Quad Is in Peril”. Preserving it preserves the culture and spirit of the school.
But the real highlight wasn’t the campus layout—it was the teachers. The best classrooms radiated energy and curiosity, making parents wish we could sit down and learn again. That’s what sticks. That’s what matters.
A few teachers seemed less confident. That only underscores where investment should go: mentoring, professional development, and support. Strong teachers matter far more than shiny walls.
Nobody left curriculum night talking about heating, ceilings, or walls. When a teacher captures your attention, you forget the building around you. What makes school memorable isn’t concrete—it’s inspiration.
Lexington does need modern STEM labs—but there’s already space behind the Language building for a four-story STEM center with a cafeteria. This targeted solution improves what’s lacking without tearing down what already works.
The choice is clear: spend hundreds of millions on concrete, or spend smarter—on the teachers who shape our children every day and on facilities that genuinely expand their opportunities. A new building doesn’t spark curiosity. A great teacher does.
My daughter was in third grade at Bowman the year of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. This was the topic of discussion at the next principal’s coffee hour for parents. The principal explained that it was relatively easy to restrict access to one entrance at the elementary schools and the two middle schools and to fortify those entrances. With the California campus, this is not possible at the high school. Hundreds of students cross the quad in between classes every day. This makes the current high school a security sieve. Although I support Bloom for all of the reasons that have been given, I would be supporting it on the security issue alone.
“Life is scary”—I agree, Avram. But we don’t keep our kids locked up in a tall tower until they turn 18 🙂
At one of the LHS forums, a building security professional explained that any new structure or upgrade would meet the most stringent modern safety and security codes. That’s reassuring. However, he also noted that no design—open or closed campus—is ever completely risk-free. And if, God forbid, something were to happen, either model would inevitably be blamed with an “I told you so.”
Personally, I try to listen to both the students and the professionals, and to work through my own parental fears so that our kids can grow into independent adults—capable of adapting to an ever-changing world.
I actually talked with my high school student about this. He loves the open campus though he agrees it is too crowded. He actually feels the multiple entrances and exits make it safer, easier to evade a potential shooter. If a shooter gets in, and there’s only one to two exits, you are trapped inside with them. I’m still voting yes because the current building needs a replacement, but security isn’t the reason why.
I thought that there must be a lot more to the security question than a lay person like me could possibly think of on my own. So, I decided to ask some questions of the Chatbot: https://lexobserver.org/2025/10/01/lexington-high-school-building-project-chatbot/
Here are the answers–there is definitely much more to this than meets the eye!
The proposed Lexington High School building incorporates several safety and security features to ensure the well-being of students, staff, and visitors. Here are some of the key features:
1. Entry Sequence & Access: Controlled entry points and secure main entrances.
2. After-Hours Access: Specific procedures for after-hours access.
3. Lockdown Procedures: Defined lockdown
4. Security Glazing: Use of security glazing in critical areas.
5. Safety & Security Technology: Advanced technology for monitoring and response.
6. Site Security Features: Comprehensive site security measures.
7. Electronic Locks: Extensive use of electronic locks on doors.
8. Distributed Antenna Systems: Systems to ensure communication throughout the building.
9. Mass Notification System: A system for mass notifications in case of emergencies.
10. Fire Alarm System: An addressable voice evacuation fire alarm control panel with various detectors, manual pull stations, and connections to the Fire Department.
11. Fire Suppression Systems: Sprinkler systems and smoke detectors throughout the building.
12. Emergency Power Systems: A diesel emergency generator to support life safety and critical systems.
13. Video Surveillance: Comprehensive video surveillance supported by advanced analytics.
14. Halo Smart Sensors: Sensors for motion, vape, gunshot, and environmental monitoring.
15. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): Principles integrated into the security plan.
These features are designed to create a safe, efficient, and responsive environment for everyone in the school community.
For more detailed information, you can refer to the following documents:
• Safety & Security Features Presentation (Page 7)
• Safety-Security Focus Group Presentation (Page 16)
• Schematic Design Report (Page 93)
The proposed Lexington High School building is designed to comply with safety regulations that require multiple emergency exits. Specifically, each space in the building must have access to at least two exits or exit access doorways if the design occupant load exceeds certain values or if the common path of travel limit is exceeded.
For each story of the building:
• If the occupant load is 500 or less, at least 2 exits are required.
• If the occupant load is between 501 and 1,000, at least 3 exits are required.
• If the occupant load exceeds 1,000, at least 4 exits are required.
These requirements ensure that the building can be safely evacuated in case of an emergency.
For more detailed information, you can refer to the following documents:
• Evaluation of Existing Conditions (Page 59)
• Evaluation of Existing Conditions (Page 61)
The entrances to the proposed Lexington High School building are designed with multiple security features to ensure the safety of students, staff, and visitors. Here are the key elements:
1. Secure Vestibules: The main entrance includes a secure vestibule where visitors can request access through a video intercom. Staff inside the campus monitor office can remotely unlock the perimeter door to allow visitors into the secure vestibule. Visitors are then vetted through a transaction window and provided with a visitor ID badge before being allowed further access.
2. • Credentialed Access: Staff members can use card readers at the outer and inner vestibule doors for unrestricted access.
3. • Perimeter Surveillance: The site perimeter will be monitored with high-resolution, low-light, and infrared cameras equipped with video analytics, including motion detection. Cameras will cover driveways, parking areas, and outdoor gathering areas.
4. • Call for Assistance Stations: Strategically placed call for assistance (CFA) stations will offer immediate help and integrate with the CCTV and intercom systems.
5. • Controlled Entry Points: All entry doors, including those for the LABBB program and student drop-off areas, will be electronically controlled by contactless card readers and monitored by cameras.
6. • Emergency Egress: Exterior doors not used for normal entry but for emergency egress will have hardware on the interior side only, door position switches, and alarms for unauthorized access.
7. • Delivery Access: A designated entrance for delivery vehicles will be controlled through the access control system and a video intercom.
8. Interior Security: Card access will be employed at various interior doors, including administrative suites and sensitive areas. The system will allow for lockdown capabilities and integration with the fire alarm system.
For more detailed information, you can refer to the following documents:
• Schematic Design Report (Page 94)
• Schematic Design Report (Page 95)
A replacement doesn’t have to break the town — financially or spiritually. Overcrowding could be solved in 2 years by building a top-notch STEM center on campus. The old facilities could be renovated in phases. Eventually, we might even expand the field house and add a swimming pool for the town and the kids. Same money, same time — but so much more.
If voters are uncertain whether the current LHS facility is in need of replacement, please consider the following LHS student and administrator perspectives:
1. The Letter to the Editor published in these pages today, Oct. 9, eloquently written by a current LHS 11th grade student, which clearly explains how negatively the current LHS facility impacts student learning and mental health on a daily basis:
https://lexobserver.org/2025/10/09/letters-to-the-editor-lhs-junior-asks-for-your-vote-on-dec-8/
2. At a meeting with LHS parents this morning, Principal Andrew Baker described four incidents so far this school year – only 6 weeks in! – in which a facility problem at LHS created major disruptions to the school day:
– Yesterday, a drainage pipe on the roof failed, flooding the elevator shaft in the main building, and setting off the alarm. This delayed the start of classes by ~25 minutes while students waited outside in heavy rain. As a result, the only elevator in the main building was out of service for a day and a half, putting disabled students and students on crutches at risk while using the stairs instead.
– a gas leak in the building
– a hot water pipe burst in a science storage room, causing flooding and disrupting breakfast service
– a steam pipe leak filled an area in the basement with steam, setting off the alarm
It is a losing battle to continue spending taxpayer money patching up these failing buildings – replacement is the only answer. It is well past time to invest in a modern facility for our students, faculty, and community as a whole. It’s a challenging work environment for our talented educators, especially when one considers the appeal of newer high schools in nearby towns. But most importantly, the current conditions take a toll on student learning and well-being every day.
Our kids deserve better. Our community deserves better. Please vote YES for a new LHS on December 8th.
And we should expect 100x more facility emergencies over the next 5–6 years until BLOOM is done — or longer if it turns into a Big Dig on a swamp. For half the price, we could build a brand-new STEM wing + cafeteria in 2 years and actually relieve overcrowding. Just saying.
Building a new STEM wing only adds new STEM space. The kids would still be stuck in the old buildings that are in need of constant repair for all the rest of their classes. Even it turns out to be half the price, this idea doesn’t solve even half of the problem. We’ll have to spend a lot more to continue fixing a failing facility, and still build stage 2 later…? I can’t see how that could possibly be cheaper in the long run.
I completely agree that great teachers are what make LHS so special, but even the best teachers need healthy buildings to do their best work. Our facilities aren’t just a backdrop, they are part of the learning environment that shapes how teachers teach and how students learn every single day.
Air quality, natural light, temperature control, and noise levels all have measurable impacts on student performance, and attendance, and teacher retention. When classrooms are overheated, poorly ventilated, too noisy, or can’t be accessed because of a facility breakdown, teachers lose critical time, students lose focus, and learning suffers. That’s not about “shiny walls,” it’s about health, safety, and the ability to concentrate and thrive.
Investing in a healthy building isn’t about choosing concrete over people, it’s about creating spaces that help both students and teachers bring their best selves to school. A well-designed, sustainable building supports the same inspiration and curiousity we all want to protect at LHS – it doesn’t replace it.
We should absolutely invest in teachers AND in the kind of healthy, future-ready environment that lets great teaching and inspired learning flourish for decades to come.
This is PUBLIC money and PUBLIC land. Is BLOOM a must-have — or just nice to have? There are other ways to improve the environment, both at LHS and across town. Too bad those options aren’t being seriously considered.