Over this next week our community
should be receiving their ballots to vote on a school district bond lasting 20
years with the hefty price of $244,000,000. For most home owners in our
community this bond will mean an average school property tax increase of 50% in
2016 over what we paid in 2014. I write this editorial with the
intent to shed light on what really is being asked by the school board with
this bond proposal. I am a firm believer that schools are the foundation
of a community; however, I am also a proponent of responsible fiscal spending
since homeowners are footing the bill.
I’ve spent a lot of time studying
this particular bond issue over the last two years. Initially I was
excited for a new school, but as I started to look deeper into the proposal I
realized we are spending far too much without getting the biggest bang for our
buck (and we’re talking a lot of bucks!). I decided to make a more
thorough evaluation of the requirements, future needs, and the current
proposal—the following is what I found:
Elementary School
There is a strong need for another
elementary school. In fact it increases annually as enrollment
projections continue to reflect our growing community. Currently, our
elementary schools are so overly crowded that over 30% of students are in
portables, and roughly 200 children are bussed to elementary schools outside
their own city. Soon the state will be funding lower class sizes for K-3
and full day kindergarten, but the district elementary schools literally have
no classrooms to be able to make those reductions. Superintendent, Joel
Aune, stated this past August that the need for an additional elementary school
“Is a critical, critical priority. On a scale of 1 to 10 it’s a 9.”
We need an additional elementary school to meet the immediate overcrowding
issues. Unfortunately, at $35 million the elementary school is a
relatively small portion of the bond proposal.
High School
The largest portion of the bond
proposal is for the rebuilding of Mt. Si High School at roughly
$190,000,000. It is glaringly obvious that a rebuild will not support the
long term solution required in our growing community, and will only result in
more money needed in a few years if it is not properly addressed. Let me
break down my concerns:
NEW HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY INCREASES ONLY BY 200 STUDENTS: Currently Mt. Si
High School & FC has the capacity for 2,100 students vs. the new high school’s
absolute maximum capacity of 2,300 students (no room for any portables).
This is only a 200 student increase, and to my calculations that works out to
be about $950,000 per student.
NEW SCHOOL WILL LIKELY BE AT CAPACITY 8 YEARS AFTER IT OPENS: The
districts own demographer has projected that upon opening day in 2022, the new
high school is estimated to have 2,100 students enrolled. He then added
that by 2030, a mere 8 years later, that new high school will reach its maximum
capacity of 2,300 students enrolled.
ONE AND DONE…. I DON’T THINK SO: What happens when this new high school
reaches capacity 8 years after opening? The tax payers will be pressured
to fund another mega bond to fix this shortsightedness. Ideally the
school board would be planning for a true long term solution that will take our
high school needs into consideration for another 30+ years.
IF IT AIN’T BROKE…: Structurally the Mt. Si High School building is
sound. In fact, 2/3rd of it was rebuilt in the early 1990’s, and
currently it was reported that the building still has another 30 years of life.
Could some areas benefit from a bit of refreshing? Sure, whose property
wouldn’t every few decades? The exception here is that I don’t tear down
my house when it starts to show its age, it’s not economical unless the
benefits overwhelmingly justify the costs.
WHAT DO THE TEACHERS THINK?: This past spring a presentation explaining the
bond was made to the staff in our school district to try to get a feel for
their support or non-support of this proposal. The feedback from the
teachers at the high school was overwhelmingly against the bond. This
speaks volumes to me about this bond not being the right solution.
MOVING THE FRESHMAN 1 BLOCK: One of the arguments in support of the bond
is the idea of getting the freshman back on campus so they can have a “real”
high school experience. To date, the Freshman Campus (FC) has been a big
success within the community, and especially with parents of students who’ve
actually experienced it. The original design for the new high school had
the freshman fully integrated back into the school with all grades in one
building, but after gauging public support for the FC, and hearing the
principal testify as to the student successes, the board (some of whom were
quite vocally against the FC from the get go) has decided that the addition of
a separate building on campus, just for the freshman, would appease the
public. Wait, don’t we already have a building by the high school for
this exact purpose, and didn’t the district just spend a few million dollars on
that project? The answer to both these questions is “yes”, so why
spend $190,000,000 to essentially move it over one block?
FLOOD PROOFING: My only question to this issue is “You want to spend
$190,000,000 to rebuild a school in a flood zone?” Hmmm….
ADEQUATE LAND: To build a new high school a district needs 40 to 50 acres to allow for the necessary space required
to accommodate the buildings, parking, and sports fields. Now take into
consideration that with this current bond plan the 30 acres that Mt. Si
High School sits on will be expected to service 2,300 students (a much larger
than average sized high school) and that leads to two major issues (see next
two bullets).
PARKING DILEMMA: Not often mentioned, but still another consideration, is
the issue of parking. The parking situation at the site will only allow
for a 2,100 capacity school – not negotiable. Currently the district is
looking for solutions, but last I checked hadn’t found one. When I am in
the high school area I see a lot of residential houses around the school but no
real adequate land for the additional acre needed to meet the required parking
mandate.
WHAT ABOUT SPORTS: I remember a while back at a board meeting when the
designer of the new high school cautioned the board about building a school
beyond 2,100 students, due to the parking issues and our small sports
fields. Our current sports fields are inadequate to allow the number of
students and teams needed to support a mega high school sports program.
Again, the land surrounding the school is all residential homes in the
floodway, not allowing for any expansion of the fields.
IF YOU REALLY VALUE QUALITY EDUCATION: Having followed this bond
discussion closely I have heard a few board members try to justify the size of
this mega high school by rationalizing that “other districts are moving to this
larger high school model”. I take exception to this sort of rationale by
board members who claim to value education. Study after study report that
smaller schools do better in the areas of safety, teaching conditions, and
higher academic performance[1].
Students at smaller schools:
- Outperform students in large schools on standardized
tests.
- Have more opportunities for participation per capita in
co-curricular activities – with a larger percentage of students
participating and in more kinds of activities.
- Engage with a broader cross-section of students,
reducing social and racial isolation.
- Lower incidents of fighting.
- Feel more connected to their school and teachers and
are less likely to drop out.
- Have more opportunities for and participation of
parents within the school – a critical factor in student success.
- Experience a greater sense of efficacy by both teachers
and students – that they really have a say.
If the school board really values
education, why introduce a plan that would put our high school students in an
environment that is proven[1] to hinder actual education?
Proposed Solution
There is no doubt that our district
is rapidly growing and right now the pain is really being felt at the
elementary schools and middle schools. We can address these two issues by
building an elementary school, middle school, and include necessary capital
improvements throughout the district for roughly $140 million--that’s a savings
of $100+ million over the current bond. This would give all of our
schools a bit of breathing room in half the time it takes to build a high
school and it would give the board more time to examine a better long term high
school solution.
Should this bond fail, the school
board will likely run another bond this year; probably an altered version of
the current proposal. I hope, when this happens, they will listen
to the community and acknowledge the need for an elementary school is too
urgent to continue attaching it to a controversial high school component and
run the elementary school on its own.
This bond does not present the right
solution if we want to maintain and to improve our student’s academic
learning. The proposed bond is a very expensive, short-term band aid for
a larger issue, which requires a long term plan (greater than 8 years) that
takes into consideration those of us who will bear the increased tax
burden. This is why I invite you to join me in voting NO on this bond.
[1] REFERENCES
Bryk, A. S.,
& Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual
influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National
Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED302 539)
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED302539
Fouts, J,
Abbor, M, Baker, D. (2002). The Influence of District Size, School Size and
Socioeconomic Status on Student Achievement in Washington: A Replication Study
Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Washington School Research Center. Seattle
Pacific University, Lynnwood, WA. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470668
Howley, C.
& Bickel, R. (2000). When It Comes to Schooling...Small Works: School Size,
Poverty, and Student Achievement. ERIC. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED447973&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED447973
Husbands, J.,
& Beese, S. (2001). Review of selected high school reform strategies. Paper
presented at The Aspen Program on Education’s Workshop on High School
Transformation, Aspen, CO. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED476306
Mitchell, S.,
(2000). Jack and the giant school. The New Rules, 2, 1–10. http://ilsr.org/jack-and-giant-school/
Nguyen,
T.S.T. (March 2004). Study of High School Restructuring. High schools: Size
does matter.. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/hsns/FinalReportYr4.pdf
Slate, J. R.,
& Jones, C. H. (2005). Effects of school size: A review of the literature
with recommendations. Essays in Education http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol132005/slate.pdf
