The levy on the Feb. 8 ballot would not lock us in to the current plan of building a small secondary school rather than a fifth comprehensive high school. We still could, and should, change our minds on that point.

Five high schools is not too many. Going from four, three-year schools to five, four-year schools is still a net increase in students per school, even before factoring in the increasing student population in the years ahead.

The proposed school would specialize in science, technology, engineering, and math, and would lack performance spaces and sports facilities. It would, by design, attract some kinds of students and repel others. If students with different strengths are separated, they will both lose opportunities to appreciate each other’s abilities and to work as a team (for example, a theater production needs performers, set builders, light/sound engineers, etc). Students on both sides will have fewer chances to try something outside their comfort zone, and fewer cross-disciplinary friends to help them find the courage to do so.

The proposed school would draw students from all over the district. Distance matters. Students are more likely to stay after school for extra-curriculars, or to ask a teacher about something that came up in class that day, or to browse the school library, if they can walk or bike home and don’t have to worry about missing a ride. Students can more easily help each other study if they live near each other.

A student looking for an excellent science/math curriculum should not have to settle for a school that is otherwise second-rate and far away. The existing high schools should not have to lose many of their best math and science students and teachers and thus become less comprehensive.

A fifth full-size high school will be useful now and essential in 10 years or so. Let’s skip the stop-gap and just do it right. If a surge in levies is too much to bear right now, let’s issue some bonds and spread the levies over a longer period. Interest rates are low, so it’s a good time to borrow.

All of us, even those without children in public school, have an interest in a comprehensive public education for kids who will be voting soon enough. We must ensure that they learn to think critically on all topics and learn to cooperate with neighbors of all stripes.

Adam M. Costello, Redmond