Fill out an online survey with ideas on how Bellingham School District can save more money for the 2010-11 school year. The deadline is noon Friday, Dec. 18. Go to the school district web site, which will give more information about the survey, how the district makes budget reductions, and has a link to the survey itself.
The district is also forming a new District Budget Advisory Committee (DBAC), comprised of representative staff, students, parents and community members. Parents or community members can apply by noon Friday, Dec. 18. For a link to the documents, click here.
According to the district's web site, "This committee will meet beginning in mid-January to work with the input and criteria, and make a recommendation to the Superintendent, who will work with district leaders to draft the Budget Savings Plan. The Superintendent will share the plan publicly for additional input before it is presented to the School Board for action. Actions by the state Legislature will have an impact on the budget process and timeline. "
Monday, December 7, 2009
Bellingham School District update on Lowell reopening, plans for Whatcom Middle School
This Thursday, Dec. 10, the Bellingham School Board will hear a report on the "Management Action Plan for Reopening Lowell Elementary School."
In previous news updates, the district has also said that the status of Whatcom Middle School, which burned in early November, would be discussed before the end of 2009. Officials are awaiting information on how badly damaged the building is, and also discussing the placement of students -- currently at dispersed among four schools. From the district's update page on Whatcom Middle School, "Q: When will a decision be made about whether Whatcom Middle School students and staff will stay at their current relocation sites for the remainder of the 2009-10 school year?
A. Superintendent Sherrie Brown will make a decision based upon input from a variety of stakeholder representatives and communicate that decision before winter break."
Go to the Whatcom update page by clicking here.
In addition to regular agenda items, will administer the oath of office to newly elected school board members, Steven Smith and Scott Stockburger, and reorganize and elect new board officers.
The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. in the Roeder Adminstration Building, 1306 Dupont St.
In previous news updates, the district has also said that the status of Whatcom Middle School, which burned in early November, would be discussed before the end of 2009. Officials are awaiting information on how badly damaged the building is, and also discussing the placement of students -- currently at dispersed among four schools. From the district's update page on Whatcom Middle School, "Q: When will a decision be made about whether Whatcom Middle School students and staff will stay at their current relocation sites for the remainder of the 2009-10 school year?
A. Superintendent Sherrie Brown will make a decision based upon input from a variety of stakeholder representatives and communicate that decision before winter break."
Go to the Whatcom update page by clicking here.
In addition to regular agenda items, will administer the oath of office to newly elected school board members, Steven Smith and Scott Stockburger, and reorganize and elect new board officers.
The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. in the Roeder Adminstration Building, 1306 Dupont St.
Friday, October 23, 2009
View video of City Council hearing on BSD's capital facilities plan
The portion of the Oct. 19 City Council meeting
hearing on capital facilities plan begins about half-way through the video.
In the end, the Bellingham City Council voted to have staff prepare an ordinance for the council to adopt by the end of the year. But the discussion by council members is important for the public to know about.
City Council members questioned the rate of growth used in the Bellingham School District's plan (which guides the district for the next six years), and questioned whether the district would be overbuilding infrastructure for an overly optimistic population estimate.
Louise Bjornson questioned if there was a plan to get rid of portables, and Assistant Superintendent Ron Cowan's response was, possibly, at Happy Valley and Birchwood elementaries ....
Stan Snapp asked why the district's plan didn't fit with the city's comprehensive plan, saying the city wants more infill, and noting that Wade King elementary doesn't feel like a neighborhood school. He also questioned if the planned Aldrich elementary could be a neighborhood school.
Cowan said he doesn't know how you would define a neighborhood, but the Aldrich site has a 300+ parcel possible development to the south, and a park to the north.
he refered to Parkview Elementary's 50th anniversary, and that when the school was built it looked like it was carved out of the forest ...
Mayor Pike said he'd like to work with the state to find alternative sites for new schools, so they wouldn't necessarily need to find 10 acre parcels. Bjornson noted that other cities might be interested in state changes too, because they value neighborhood schools too, that don't have 10 acres.
New links on this site, under "City of Bellingham documents," include the video of this meeting,and the meeting materials, which include minutes from the planning commission meeting Aug. 20 and written public comments.
hearing on capital facilities plan begins about half-way through the video.
In the end, the Bellingham City Council voted to have staff prepare an ordinance for the council to adopt by the end of the year. But the discussion by council members is important for the public to know about.
City Council members questioned the rate of growth used in the Bellingham School District's plan (which guides the district for the next six years), and questioned whether the district would be overbuilding infrastructure for an overly optimistic population estimate.
Louise Bjornson questioned if there was a plan to get rid of portables, and Assistant Superintendent Ron Cowan's response was, possibly, at Happy Valley and Birchwood elementaries ....
Stan Snapp asked why the district's plan didn't fit with the city's comprehensive plan, saying the city wants more infill, and noting that Wade King elementary doesn't feel like a neighborhood school. He also questioned if the planned Aldrich elementary could be a neighborhood school.
Cowan said he doesn't know how you would define a neighborhood, but the Aldrich site has a 300+ parcel possible development to the south, and a park to the north.
he refered to Parkview Elementary's 50th anniversary, and that when the school was built it looked like it was carved out of the forest ...
Mayor Pike said he'd like to work with the state to find alternative sites for new schools, so they wouldn't necessarily need to find 10 acre parcels. Bjornson noted that other cities might be interested in state changes too, because they value neighborhood schools too, that don't have 10 acres.
New links on this site, under "City of Bellingham documents," include the video of this meeting,and the meeting materials, which include minutes from the planning commission meeting Aug. 20 and written public comments.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sudden Valley school site discussed
The Bellingham School Board will hear a report Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009, about a possible site for a new school in Sudden Valley. The area recommended, at the old airport site, will make it a real neighborhood school for Sudden Valley, which currently sends its kids by bus to Geneva Elementary.
We very much support a new school for the Sudden Valley community, and the report includes good ideas for making it work in a challenging area (wetlands, geography, etc.)
Read the report by going to
Board Docs, on the left, select "10/22/09 agenda," then "Reports."
The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. at the Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont St.
We very much support a new school for the Sudden Valley community, and the report includes good ideas for making it work in a challenging area (wetlands, geography, etc.)
Read the report by going to
Board Docs, on the left, select "10/22/09 agenda," then "Reports."
The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. at the Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont St.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Board approves plan to reopen Lowell
The Bellingham School Board voted unanimously Thursday, Oct. 8, to approve the management plan to reopen Lowell Elementary school in fall 2010. The district sent out this news release as the meeting ended.
After what we've all gone through this last year, what a breath of fresh air. From the news release:
"Our district and School Board wanted to plan to reopen Lowell as soon as our economic outlook would allow," says Acting Superintendent Sherrie Brown. "We have a clearer picture now of our budget situation for next school year, having recently settled multi-year bargaining agreements with some of our larger labor associations. Based upon the most recent state economic forecast for next school year, we currently anticipate the need for continued budget reductions for 2010-11. However, our School Board is making the commitment to reopen Lowell, to keep all of our current schools open in 2010-11, and find the budget savings elsewhere."
Click here to read the approved Lowell management plan. The board asked acting superintendent Sherrie Brown to provide updates regarding the progress of the plan, which is broken down month by month.
The board confirmed Lowell's principal will be Missy Ferguson, who was recognized at the meeting for her current school, Columbia Elementary's, consistent academic success.
The board voted to begin gathering community feedback regarding the search for a new superintendent.
This is all good news. Please, stay involved, participate in the superintendent search process, and continue to let the school district know how important these neighborhood schools are for the whole community.
After what we've all gone through this last year, what a breath of fresh air. From the news release:
"Our district and School Board wanted to plan to reopen Lowell as soon as our economic outlook would allow," says Acting Superintendent Sherrie Brown. "We have a clearer picture now of our budget situation for next school year, having recently settled multi-year bargaining agreements with some of our larger labor associations. Based upon the most recent state economic forecast for next school year, we currently anticipate the need for continued budget reductions for 2010-11. However, our School Board is making the commitment to reopen Lowell, to keep all of our current schools open in 2010-11, and find the budget savings elsewhere."
Click here to read the approved Lowell management plan. The board asked acting superintendent Sherrie Brown to provide updates regarding the progress of the plan, which is broken down month by month.
The board confirmed Lowell's principal will be Missy Ferguson, who was recognized at the meeting for her current school, Columbia Elementary's, consistent academic success.
The board voted to begin gathering community feedback regarding the search for a new superintendent.
This is all good news. Please, stay involved, participate in the superintendent search process, and continue to let the school district know how important these neighborhood schools are for the whole community.
Make Larrabee a preschool? Here's what school board candidates said at forum
Listening to the school board candidates speak Wednesday night was very informative, and offered stark contrasts for voters: the candidates for position 4, Rogan Jones and Steven Smith, offered opposing views on some key topics.
Rogan Jones supports keeping schools open, and making budget cuts more broad based across the district. He disagrees with the district’s decision to delay Lowell’s reopening for a year, and with the district’s process for budget cutting. He wants to work with Olympia to get the state to better fund its mandate to provide K-12 education.
Steven Smith agrees with the decision to keep Lowell closed this year, and once it opens he says Larrabee elementary is threatened. He wants to “repurpose” this neighborhood elementary school into a pre-K or at risk program. He also thinks these aren’t neighborhood schools, because the boundaries have been adjusted over the years to include outlying areas. He repeated many of the statements the current school board has made over the past year, like Lowell being “low hanging fruit” that was easy to cut, and that keeping schools open will mean more teacher positions will be eliminated and class sizes will get bigger. This is how the current school board scared people into accepting a scapegoat for the current budget.
The school board candidates’ forum, hosted by the South Hill Neighborhood Association and Fairhaven Neighbors, was attended by about 50 people. Two of the candidates (both seeking position 5 on the Bellingham School Board) were out of town and unable to attend, but sent representatives to speak on their behalf: Sean Stockburger stood in for his brother, Scott Stockburger, and Paula Weaver stood in for Michael Jay. The representatives offered opening statements, and answered questions as best they could, but it would be unfair to evaluate these candidates based on their representatives’ responses. Read their web sites, email them with questions, but we’ll have to wait for the next forum to hear a discussion on the issues.
However, Jones, a native Bellinghamster, businessman and member of the 2005 bond/levy committee, and Smith, a WWU accounting professor, made clear statements. Here are some of the community’s questions and the candidates’ answers (this is not a transcription, some answers are paraphrased).
Question: How do you feel about former superintendent Ken Vedra’s push to let individual schools brand themselves … some schools embraced it, some rejected it.
Smith: If each neighborhood has its own characteristics and culture, then the school should reflect that too. It’s OK for some schools to not be specialty schools, but a lot of teachers are excited about it.
Jones: Having centers of excellence and creativity is good, but tracking kids before their 10 is dangerous to me. We’re seeing Seattle moving away from this. We don’t want elementary magnet schools.
Question: What are some critical things that a successful superintendent candidate should have?
Jones: We need someone who will move here and be part of our community, who’s familiar with our values. Some more extroverted will help with communication, and we should look for the best candidate we can get.
Smith: I thought Vedra was good for the district. His family didn’t move here. We should be looking for someone who will push the envelope, in how students achieve.
Question: What do you know about the process of allocating money this last year?
Jones: When the budget came out, they thought they would be $4 million short, but they were only $500,000 short, and huge reason for this was no teacher raises.
Smith: Each school has a fixed cost, regardless of its size, which is about $400,000 to $500,000 per school. Each school also a discretionary fund, like for theses for schools, and some schools get Title 1 money.
Question: What do you know about reopening Lowell, and the future of Larrabee school?
Smith: The School Board will share its plan tomorrow night. If you look at the numbers, (last year) was a short blip. The $500,000 saved by delaying Lowell’s reopening paid for rehiring 63 teachers. I don’t think there was ever an issue of Lowell reopening.
Jones: Regarding the budget cuts, we have to consider that the state’s economy may continue to decline. These deep cuts are really divisive in our community. There are winners and losers, and the community started attacking each other. If we have to cut again, we need it to be a “thin layer of cheese” cut, more equitable. I’m going to speak up for that.
Smith: Do you agree it was the best decision to keep Lowell closed?
Jones: I would never have done cuts the way they did that. A lot of districts did broad-based cuts; cuts should be handled more broadly. I thought closing Lowell was a terrible decision.
Question: School Board members have been abrupt with people commenting, and they hide behind their computer screens. How will you handle that?
Smith: Board meetings are business meetings. It’s not really a forum for discussion. We need a venue, with a non-quorum of the board, to have a more give and take discussion.
Jones: Board meetings are set up that way, and are not democratic. But public meetings (held by the school board) didn’t allow public comment either. It was a big mistake. There needs to be a conversation.
Question: Class sizes have increased because of the budget; what would you do to keep class size small?
Smith: It’s a function of teachers vs. students, not space. We have enough space. The money for reducing class size, the state took away. There’s a lawsuit going on right now, which we’re all watching closely.
Jones: We’re watching Olympia for what will happen with that funding. The state spent 10 years figuring out how to make education better, and then didn’t fund it.
Question: What about using capital budgets to put additions on existing schools, instead of building new schools or adding portables?
Smith: Not sure about reshifting capital funds. But we’ve had an average half percent to 0.8 percent increase in students each year, with Geneva “busting out” and the northside schools, too, so Aldrich is needed. He said southside schools won’t be “busting out” once Lowell reopens.
Jones: All three southside schools will be at capacity when Lowell reopens. Aldrich was supposed to be built before Wade King. Aldrich is almost in the Meridian district, so it is possible they’ll get enrollment from Meridian.
But the intent of the 2005 levy was to preserve existing neighborhood schools.
Smith: Since 2003, we’ve added 250 students.
Jones: But when we passed the levy, we thought we’d have 1,000 more kids.
Question: What about building more, and smaller, elementary schools? Maybe Lowell and Larrabee aren’t “bursting” because they’re the right size.
Jones: The state requires 500-student new elementary schools. Our district follows that guideline, but it would be nice to break that rule and build a small school in Sudden Valley. The state rules are designed for finances, not students, and should be addressed.
Smith: The state developed a model school for funding and it is biased against small schools.
Question: What about Lowell reopening, and do you foresee problems for Larrabee?
Smith: When Lowell reopens, Larrabee will be threatened because it won’t have enough students. One thing is, Lowell’s attendance area pulls from the York neighborhood (near Carl Cozier elementary). So is Lowell a neighborhood school? You have a kid going to Lowell, but their neighbor is going to Carl Cozier.
Larrabee doesn’t fit the definition of a neighborhood school — with students from a 1-mile radius — because it pulls students from all the way down Chuckanut.
We should retask Larrabee, and make it a pre-Kindergarten program. We could get Title 1 funds for pre-K, and it would be the biggest bang for the buck. Or, turn it into a K-8 program for kids who don’t fit into the regular program.
Larrabee is at risk.
Jones: I really disagree. The southside’s demographic issue is Wade King. Lowell parents need to get with Larrabee parents. This is a big issue. Larrabee graduates great kids every year. I will fight to keep Larrabee open. Pre-k is supposed to be integrated at all the schools.
Smith: We don’t have the money. It’s a $100 million budget and we have to choose wisely. I’d love to keep small schools open, but we can’t afford it. I’d love to take a vacation to Europe every year, but I can’t afford that either.
Closing statements:
Jones: Let’s not close schools to balance the budget. Don’t balance the budget on the backs of kids. I support broad based cuts across the district, and I oppose repurposing Larrabee.
Smith: If we want broad based cuts, it’s going to be in teachers and bigger classrooms.
Rogan Jones supports keeping schools open, and making budget cuts more broad based across the district. He disagrees with the district’s decision to delay Lowell’s reopening for a year, and with the district’s process for budget cutting. He wants to work with Olympia to get the state to better fund its mandate to provide K-12 education.
Steven Smith agrees with the decision to keep Lowell closed this year, and once it opens he says Larrabee elementary is threatened. He wants to “repurpose” this neighborhood elementary school into a pre-K or at risk program. He also thinks these aren’t neighborhood schools, because the boundaries have been adjusted over the years to include outlying areas. He repeated many of the statements the current school board has made over the past year, like Lowell being “low hanging fruit” that was easy to cut, and that keeping schools open will mean more teacher positions will be eliminated and class sizes will get bigger. This is how the current school board scared people into accepting a scapegoat for the current budget.
The school board candidates’ forum, hosted by the South Hill Neighborhood Association and Fairhaven Neighbors, was attended by about 50 people. Two of the candidates (both seeking position 5 on the Bellingham School Board) were out of town and unable to attend, but sent representatives to speak on their behalf: Sean Stockburger stood in for his brother, Scott Stockburger, and Paula Weaver stood in for Michael Jay. The representatives offered opening statements, and answered questions as best they could, but it would be unfair to evaluate these candidates based on their representatives’ responses. Read their web sites, email them with questions, but we’ll have to wait for the next forum to hear a discussion on the issues.
However, Jones, a native Bellinghamster, businessman and member of the 2005 bond/levy committee, and Smith, a WWU accounting professor, made clear statements. Here are some of the community’s questions and the candidates’ answers (this is not a transcription, some answers are paraphrased).
Question: How do you feel about former superintendent Ken Vedra’s push to let individual schools brand themselves … some schools embraced it, some rejected it.
Smith: If each neighborhood has its own characteristics and culture, then the school should reflect that too. It’s OK for some schools to not be specialty schools, but a lot of teachers are excited about it.
Jones: Having centers of excellence and creativity is good, but tracking kids before their 10 is dangerous to me. We’re seeing Seattle moving away from this. We don’t want elementary magnet schools.
Question: What are some critical things that a successful superintendent candidate should have?
Jones: We need someone who will move here and be part of our community, who’s familiar with our values. Some more extroverted will help with communication, and we should look for the best candidate we can get.
Smith: I thought Vedra was good for the district. His family didn’t move here. We should be looking for someone who will push the envelope, in how students achieve.
Question: What do you know about the process of allocating money this last year?
Jones: When the budget came out, they thought they would be $4 million short, but they were only $500,000 short, and huge reason for this was no teacher raises.
Smith: Each school has a fixed cost, regardless of its size, which is about $400,000 to $500,000 per school. Each school also a discretionary fund, like for theses for schools, and some schools get Title 1 money.
Question: What do you know about reopening Lowell, and the future of Larrabee school?
Smith: The School Board will share its plan tomorrow night. If you look at the numbers, (last year) was a short blip. The $500,000 saved by delaying Lowell’s reopening paid for rehiring 63 teachers. I don’t think there was ever an issue of Lowell reopening.
Jones: Regarding the budget cuts, we have to consider that the state’s economy may continue to decline. These deep cuts are really divisive in our community. There are winners and losers, and the community started attacking each other. If we have to cut again, we need it to be a “thin layer of cheese” cut, more equitable. I’m going to speak up for that.
Smith: Do you agree it was the best decision to keep Lowell closed?
Jones: I would never have done cuts the way they did that. A lot of districts did broad-based cuts; cuts should be handled more broadly. I thought closing Lowell was a terrible decision.
Question: School Board members have been abrupt with people commenting, and they hide behind their computer screens. How will you handle that?
Smith: Board meetings are business meetings. It’s not really a forum for discussion. We need a venue, with a non-quorum of the board, to have a more give and take discussion.
Jones: Board meetings are set up that way, and are not democratic. But public meetings (held by the school board) didn’t allow public comment either. It was a big mistake. There needs to be a conversation.
Question: Class sizes have increased because of the budget; what would you do to keep class size small?
Smith: It’s a function of teachers vs. students, not space. We have enough space. The money for reducing class size, the state took away. There’s a lawsuit going on right now, which we’re all watching closely.
Jones: We’re watching Olympia for what will happen with that funding. The state spent 10 years figuring out how to make education better, and then didn’t fund it.
Question: What about using capital budgets to put additions on existing schools, instead of building new schools or adding portables?
Smith: Not sure about reshifting capital funds. But we’ve had an average half percent to 0.8 percent increase in students each year, with Geneva “busting out” and the northside schools, too, so Aldrich is needed. He said southside schools won’t be “busting out” once Lowell reopens.
Jones: All three southside schools will be at capacity when Lowell reopens. Aldrich was supposed to be built before Wade King. Aldrich is almost in the Meridian district, so it is possible they’ll get enrollment from Meridian.
But the intent of the 2005 levy was to preserve existing neighborhood schools.
Smith: Since 2003, we’ve added 250 students.
Jones: But when we passed the levy, we thought we’d have 1,000 more kids.
Question: What about building more, and smaller, elementary schools? Maybe Lowell and Larrabee aren’t “bursting” because they’re the right size.
Jones: The state requires 500-student new elementary schools. Our district follows that guideline, but it would be nice to break that rule and build a small school in Sudden Valley. The state rules are designed for finances, not students, and should be addressed.
Smith: The state developed a model school for funding and it is biased against small schools.
Question: What about Lowell reopening, and do you foresee problems for Larrabee?
Smith: When Lowell reopens, Larrabee will be threatened because it won’t have enough students. One thing is, Lowell’s attendance area pulls from the York neighborhood (near Carl Cozier elementary). So is Lowell a neighborhood school? You have a kid going to Lowell, but their neighbor is going to Carl Cozier.
Larrabee doesn’t fit the definition of a neighborhood school — with students from a 1-mile radius — because it pulls students from all the way down Chuckanut.
We should retask Larrabee, and make it a pre-Kindergarten program. We could get Title 1 funds for pre-K, and it would be the biggest bang for the buck. Or, turn it into a K-8 program for kids who don’t fit into the regular program.
Larrabee is at risk.
Jones: I really disagree. The southside’s demographic issue is Wade King. Lowell parents need to get with Larrabee parents. This is a big issue. Larrabee graduates great kids every year. I will fight to keep Larrabee open. Pre-k is supposed to be integrated at all the schools.
Smith: We don’t have the money. It’s a $100 million budget and we have to choose wisely. I’d love to keep small schools open, but we can’t afford it. I’d love to take a vacation to Europe every year, but I can’t afford that either.
Closing statements:
Jones: Let’s not close schools to balance the budget. Don’t balance the budget on the backs of kids. I support broad based cuts across the district, and I oppose repurposing Larrabee.
Smith: If we want broad based cuts, it’s going to be in teachers and bigger classrooms.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Seattle to reverse course, return to neighborhood schools
Here's an interesting development in Seattle, that we should pay close attention to here in Bellingham. Read
Proposed school boundaries would return Seattle to a neighborhood-based system in the Oct. 6 Seattle Times.
Seattle tried turning elementary schools into specialty magnet schools, encouraging families to send their kids far from home, and are now having to reverse directions. They are rediscovering the value of neighborhood based schools.
Let's not continue down the same path -- let's reverse course in Bellingham now, and decide NOT to create these specialty magnet schools, and instead provide high quality education for every neighborhood school. We can avoid the mistakes and expenses if we take action now.
Attend tonight's (Oct. 7) school board candidate forum, at 7:30 p.m. at the Fairhaven Park Pavillion, hosted by South Hill Neighborhood Association and Fairhaven Neighbors.
Attend Thursday's (Oct. 8) 7:30 p.m. Bellingham School Board meeting, and remind them we don't want to be making the same mistakes Seattle made.
Proposed school boundaries would return Seattle to a neighborhood-based system in the Oct. 6 Seattle Times.
Seattle tried turning elementary schools into specialty magnet schools, encouraging families to send their kids far from home, and are now having to reverse directions. They are rediscovering the value of neighborhood based schools.
Let's not continue down the same path -- let's reverse course in Bellingham now, and decide NOT to create these specialty magnet schools, and instead provide high quality education for every neighborhood school. We can avoid the mistakes and expenses if we take action now.
Attend tonight's (Oct. 7) school board candidate forum, at 7:30 p.m. at the Fairhaven Park Pavillion, hosted by South Hill Neighborhood Association and Fairhaven Neighbors.
Attend Thursday's (Oct. 8) 7:30 p.m. Bellingham School Board meeting, and remind them we don't want to be making the same mistakes Seattle made.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Lowell plan, superintendent search on School Board's Oct. 8 agenda!
The Bellingham School District posted the Oct. 8 board meeting agenda and attachments today. Included under action items:
Management Action Plan for Lowell Elementary School,
prepared by acting superintendent Sherrie Brown, is a preliminary draft for reopening Lowell Elementary School. The plan includes five objective areas: Budget, Enrollment Projections, Staffing, Communications and Logistics.
It includes moving items from storage, into the school, in December!
While this is exciting, it is also important to know that the process includes "evaluating" the impact of reopening Lowell on Happy Valley and Larrabee elementary schools.
Let's make sure this evaluation really is for staffing purposes, and not another attempt by the school district to pit school communities against one another. We need to continue to support all of our elementary schools as neighborhood schools.
The draft plan also continues to use the term "small schools" -- which has been code for "unnecessary." These southside schools are not small. Lowell had more than 300 students, and Happy Valley is supposed to have about 280 students when it is not hosting a second student body. And Larrabee has more than 200 students.
Also on the agenda under action items: "The Board of Directors of Bellingham School District #501 will take action to initiate a search for a new superintendent that includes a process for input from community, staff and students."
We hope this process will allow for new school board members to participate, since they'll be the ones working with the new superintendent.
Please make an effort to be at the school board meeting this Thursday,
7:30 p.m., 1306 Dupont St. Big decisions are being made, and it is very important that the school board, the new acting superintendent Sherrie Brown, and the school board candidates who have been regularly attending these meetings understand how much we value and support our neighborhood schools.
Management Action Plan for Lowell Elementary School,
prepared by acting superintendent Sherrie Brown, is a preliminary draft for reopening Lowell Elementary School. The plan includes five objective areas: Budget, Enrollment Projections, Staffing, Communications and Logistics.
It includes moving items from storage, into the school, in December!
While this is exciting, it is also important to know that the process includes "evaluating" the impact of reopening Lowell on Happy Valley and Larrabee elementary schools.
Let's make sure this evaluation really is for staffing purposes, and not another attempt by the school district to pit school communities against one another. We need to continue to support all of our elementary schools as neighborhood schools.
The draft plan also continues to use the term "small schools" -- which has been code for "unnecessary." These southside schools are not small. Lowell had more than 300 students, and Happy Valley is supposed to have about 280 students when it is not hosting a second student body. And Larrabee has more than 200 students.
Also on the agenda under action items: "The Board of Directors of Bellingham School District #501 will take action to initiate a search for a new superintendent that includes a process for input from community, staff and students."
We hope this process will allow for new school board members to participate, since they'll be the ones working with the new superintendent.
Please make an effort to be at the school board meeting this Thursday,
7:30 p.m., 1306 Dupont St. Big decisions are being made, and it is very important that the school board, the new acting superintendent Sherrie Brown, and the school board candidates who have been regularly attending these meetings understand how much we value and support our neighborhood schools.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Candidates interviewed in Cascadia Weekly
Cascadia Weekly's Tim Johnson did a great job interviewing the candidates running for two open Bellingham School Board seats. Read the article in the Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009 edition here:
Challenges face Bellingham schools, candidates say
Forums coming up
Several forums are coming up for the candidates to speak and answer questions. This is what we have confirmed so far:
* South Hill Neighborhood Association and the Fairhaven Neighbors Association will have its event at 7:30 p.m. Oct. 7, at the Fairhaven Park Pavillion. Candidates or their representatives will make a short statement, and then it will be opened up for questions from the audience.
* League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County is partnering with American Association of University Women to put together a joint forum on ballot issues that will cover I-1033 and Ref. 71, as well as the Whatcom Library Levy, and the Bellingham School Board Candidates, 9:45 a.m. to noon Oct. 17, at the Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St.
Challenges face Bellingham schools, candidates say
Forums coming up
Several forums are coming up for the candidates to speak and answer questions. This is what we have confirmed so far:
* South Hill Neighborhood Association and the Fairhaven Neighbors Association will have its event at 7:30 p.m. Oct. 7, at the Fairhaven Park Pavillion. Candidates or their representatives will make a short statement, and then it will be opened up for questions from the audience.
* League of Women Voters of Bellingham/Whatcom County is partnering with American Association of University Women to put together a joint forum on ballot issues that will cover I-1033 and Ref. 71, as well as the Whatcom Library Levy, and the Bellingham School Board Candidates, 9:45 a.m. to noon Oct. 17, at the Bellingham Senior Activity Center, 315 Halleck St.
Friday, September 25, 2009
District to plan Lowell's reopening
The Bellingham School Board unanimously passed a motion Thursday, Sept. 24, 2009, to direct Acting Superintendent Sherrie Brown to bring a "management action plan for the reopening of Lowell" to the next board meeting, Oct. 8, 2009.
The district sent out an e-blast immediately following the meeting, with more details. Read it here:
Enrollment and facilities update September 2009
This is great news, and the slide show of the work being done at Lowell shows the school will be remarkable when it does reopen.
Also at Thursday night's meeting, members of SEIU Local 925, the union representing custodians, food service and maintenance employees of the district, spoke during the public comment period, and submitted a letter to the district, requesting reinstatement of staff who had been cut during the budget process. They say they lost jobs, hours, reduced substitute support and agreed to no pay raise till 2011, but that the district is giving previously unbudgeted wage increases to other employees at the same time.
Their point: clean, healthy schools should be a priority, and they're asking for positions to be reinstated. Hopefully, the new administration will consider their request.
The district sent out an e-blast immediately following the meeting, with more details. Read it here:
Enrollment and facilities update September 2009
This is great news, and the slide show of the work being done at Lowell shows the school will be remarkable when it does reopen.
Also at Thursday night's meeting, members of SEIU Local 925, the union representing custodians, food service and maintenance employees of the district, spoke during the public comment period, and submitted a letter to the district, requesting reinstatement of staff who had been cut during the budget process. They say they lost jobs, hours, reduced substitute support and agreed to no pay raise till 2011, but that the district is giving previously unbudgeted wage increases to other employees at the same time.
Their point: clean, healthy schools should be a priority, and they're asking for positions to be reinstated. Hopefully, the new administration will consider their request.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
School Board news
The next Bellingham School Board meeting is Thursday, 7:30 p.m., Sept. 24. On the agenda are reports on summer maintenance and bond projects, which will include updates on Lowell and Larrabee elementaries. Minutes from the Sept. 10 school board meeting note that assistant superintendent Ron Cowan plans to talk about both neighborhood schools.
From the Sept. 10 minutes, here is the statement in context, under School Board Directors’ Reports:
"Ann Whitmyer reported the Board has held additional meetings to discuss releasing Dr. Vedra from his contract and appointing Sherrie Brown as acting superintendent.
During the first day of school, Ms. Whitmyer visited Transportations, Options High School, Fairhaven Middle School, and Happy Valley and Columbia elementary schools. Whitmyer asked how much of our higher enrollment can be attributed to students moving from private schools. She also requested an update on facilities, including the status of Lowell Elementary School, which remained closed for the 2009–10 school year as part of the budget reduction process. During the 2009–10 school year, additional work is scheduled at Lowell prior to reopening for the 2010–11 school year.
Assistant Superintendent Row Cowan confirmed that he will present a facilities update to the Board at the September 24 School Board meeting, including updates on Lowell and Larrabee elementary schools, Shuksan Middle Schools play fields, and the ongoing work at Whatcom Middle School."
Also on the agenda is a report on enrollment. Should be interesting!
The agenda, and documents that will be presented at the meeting are online. Go to
http://www.bham.wednet.edu/, click on "district and school board," "school board meetings, agendas and minutes," then "enter public site" and at left agendas and attachments are listed by date.
From the Sept. 10 minutes, here is the statement in context, under School Board Directors’ Reports:
"Ann Whitmyer reported the Board has held additional meetings to discuss releasing Dr. Vedra from his contract and appointing Sherrie Brown as acting superintendent.
During the first day of school, Ms. Whitmyer visited Transportations, Options High School, Fairhaven Middle School, and Happy Valley and Columbia elementary schools. Whitmyer asked how much of our higher enrollment can be attributed to students moving from private schools. She also requested an update on facilities, including the status of Lowell Elementary School, which remained closed for the 2009–10 school year as part of the budget reduction process. During the 2009–10 school year, additional work is scheduled at Lowell prior to reopening for the 2010–11 school year.
Assistant Superintendent Row Cowan confirmed that he will present a facilities update to the Board at the September 24 School Board meeting, including updates on Lowell and Larrabee elementary schools, Shuksan Middle Schools play fields, and the ongoing work at Whatcom Middle School."
Also on the agenda is a report on enrollment. Should be interesting!
The agenda, and documents that will be presented at the meeting are online. Go to
http://www.bham.wednet.edu/, click on "district and school board," "school board meetings, agendas and minutes," then "enter public site" and at left agendas and attachments are listed by date.
Some new links
We've added some new links to the side panel of the blog. First, fall elections approach, and two positions are up for election on the Bellingham School Board, positions 4 and 5. As candidates get their web sites up and running, we will add links to their sites. We hope to set up a forum for candidates to shares their views with the public in the near future. Stay tuned ....
New media links are two articles that appeared this month in The Bellingham Herald. First, the announcement that Superintendent Vedra is leaving the district, and Sherrie Brown will be acting superintendent. That begins October 1. Hopefully, more change is in the air. Also, stay tuned ....
Second, an article in Sunday's edition lauds new programs in Bellingham schools. It does point out that the expense of these programs was questioned during the budget cutting process. What you can find out by reading closely, and also viewing the reader comments, is how these specialty programs at the elementary level are tearing apart neighborhoods, with parents choosing to move their kids to schools outside their area to either avoid programs, or to take advantage of special programs. Already, 80 families are driving to Wade King Elementary from outside the attendance area. This is not what Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan calls for -- the city values neighborhood schools, to give all kids in every neighborhood equal opportunity, and to strenghthen each neighborhood community.
Again, this is the time to speak up -- we have the opportunity to choose a new school board, a new superintendent, ask the city council to seek a new capital facilities plan and protect our Bellingham values!
New media links are two articles that appeared this month in The Bellingham Herald. First, the announcement that Superintendent Vedra is leaving the district, and Sherrie Brown will be acting superintendent. That begins October 1. Hopefully, more change is in the air. Also, stay tuned ....
Second, an article in Sunday's edition lauds new programs in Bellingham schools. It does point out that the expense of these programs was questioned during the budget cutting process. What you can find out by reading closely, and also viewing the reader comments, is how these specialty programs at the elementary level are tearing apart neighborhoods, with parents choosing to move their kids to schools outside their area to either avoid programs, or to take advantage of special programs. Already, 80 families are driving to Wade King Elementary from outside the attendance area. This is not what Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan calls for -- the city values neighborhood schools, to give all kids in every neighborhood equal opportunity, and to strenghthen each neighborhood community.
Again, this is the time to speak up -- we have the opportunity to choose a new school board, a new superintendent, ask the city council to seek a new capital facilities plan and protect our Bellingham values!
Monday, September 21, 2009
City sets hearing on schools' facilities plan
Bellingham City Council will have a public hearing at 7 p.m. October 19, 2009, to hear your opinion of the Bellingham School District's request to add its new capital facilities plan to the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan.
The School District needs the city's OK on this six-year plan so it can collect impact fees from developers, and use that money to provide facilities for new housing. But the problem is, the six-year plan is riddled with inaccurate numbers class sizes at 22 students through fifth grade?), false assumptions (population growth of 14 percent, while enrollment the last six years was flat?) and a lack of necessary information (a re-opening date for Lowell Elementary, and a commitment to neighborhood schools, a component of the city's comprehensive plan).
This is it -- the City Council has said it supports neighborhood schools, and has encouraged the school district to keep its neighborhood schools open. This is the only time the city has a say in how the school district operates. The planning commission agreed that there were problems in the plan, but also made the assumption that the school board knows how to run its district. There was no public process before the school board passed this capital facilities plan ... the document was published online on a Tuesday in the summer, and passed two days later.
Tell the city you want these problems in the plan fixed -- if the district wants to collect money, it should have to follow the rules of the city it is in.
Read the documents ... the city has a great link to them through the planning commission's agenda packet: go to www.cob.org, under "public involvement" click on "Boards and Commissions," then "planning and development commission," then on the right look for "meeting materials." They're under the Aug. 20 meeting.
The information also will be posted and available as a City Council agenda packet. For more info, call Greg Aucutt, city senior planner, at 778-8344 or email gaucutt@cob.org.
You can submit a written comment before Oct. 14, and it will be included in the council's packet; email ccmail@cob.org.
The School District needs the city's OK on this six-year plan so it can collect impact fees from developers, and use that money to provide facilities for new housing. But the problem is, the six-year plan is riddled with inaccurate numbers class sizes at 22 students through fifth grade?), false assumptions (population growth of 14 percent, while enrollment the last six years was flat?) and a lack of necessary information (a re-opening date for Lowell Elementary, and a commitment to neighborhood schools, a component of the city's comprehensive plan).
This is it -- the City Council has said it supports neighborhood schools, and has encouraged the school district to keep its neighborhood schools open. This is the only time the city has a say in how the school district operates. The planning commission agreed that there were problems in the plan, but also made the assumption that the school board knows how to run its district. There was no public process before the school board passed this capital facilities plan ... the document was published online on a Tuesday in the summer, and passed two days later.
Tell the city you want these problems in the plan fixed -- if the district wants to collect money, it should have to follow the rules of the city it is in.
Read the documents ... the city has a great link to them through the planning commission's agenda packet: go to www.cob.org, under "public involvement" click on "Boards and Commissions," then "planning and development commission," then on the right look for "meeting materials." They're under the Aug. 20 meeting.
The information also will be posted and available as a City Council agenda packet. For more info, call Greg Aucutt, city senior planner, at 778-8344 or email gaucutt@cob.org.
You can submit a written comment before Oct. 14, and it will be included in the council's packet; email ccmail@cob.org.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Planning Commission OKs facilities plan
While the city Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend the city adopt the school district's new capital facilities plan, it did so with a lot of good discussion.
The Aug. 20 meeting will air on BTV 10 Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 8 a.m.
Good questions and statements were voiced, such as: "Why isn't a reopening date for Lowell School in the six-year plan" and "Why isn't the school district using the state's projected enrollment for planning (Meridian school district is using the state's numbers), since it seems to be accurate for Bellingham?" and "It seems that portions of the district's capital facilities plan are working against the city's coimprehensive plan."
The school district sent a consultant as its representative at the meeting: She said she strongly urged the district to put an opening date for Lowell in the plan, but district administrators didn't want to, and said they'd revisit Lowell's future in the spring.
The commission went down a list of criteria to decide if it should recommend the city accept this plan; many of the criteria were vague, stating that things had chnaged so a new plan was needed. The commission agreed that things had changed, while also voicing that they didn't necessarily agree with HOW they had changed, and stated that it was really up to the school board to run its district.
The problem with this is, the district isn't adhering to the goals and values of the city that it is in, and this is one of the very few ways the city can actually make an impact, and require the school district to do something: set a reopen date for Lowell, maintain and operate its existing schools, and locate schools within neighborhoods.
The commission recommended that the school district work closely with city leaders to make sure these things happen.
Now, we need to contact City Council members, and let them know we don't want them to accept this capital facilities plan, and we do need their help in keeping our neighborhood schools open.
Here is the text of the Neighborhood School Coalition's statement to the planning commission, submitted by Melissa Schapiro:
The Planning Commission probably doesn’t hear too many protests of school districts’ capital facilities plans. Normally, it’s just updating some numbers, to make sure developers are providing support for the public facilities their buyers will require. However, this Bellingham School District capital facilities plan, for 2009-2015, and the accompanying proposed amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, do call for protest. The plan is a continuation of actions the current School Board and district administration have set in motion during the past year, which are in opposition to the city’s stated goals and values.
The school district, as part of its budget cutting process, is keeping a newly renovated elementary school – with a capacity for more than 300 students – closed this year, saying it doesn’t have money to operate Lowell Elementary. The district is choosing to keep the students in seven portables at another school. Voters were promised those portables would disappear this school year, with the opening of the new Wade King Elementary. At the same time, the district is moving forward with building another new elementary school on the northern limits of the district’s boundary, on Aldrich Road, saying it needs to get kids out of portable classrooms. Enrollment has been flat the past six years. In order to fill this additional school and to pay for its operating expenses, the district will have to shut another school.
The district’s actions are shutting schools in existing neighborhoods – where families choose to live, where children can walk or bike to school, where parents are more involved because of proximity and the community that these neighborhood schools build. These actions are contrary to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which values maintaining these neighborhood schools as part of the glue that holds the community together.
Building new, as yet unneeded schools in unpopulated areas, and closing these established schools, creates sprawl, traffic and pollution, and very quickly pulls apart residents’ relationships to one another.
The capital facilities plan, and the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments before you tonight, present information that is overly optimistic about the future:
• It predicts a 14 percent increase in enrollment in the next six years. During the last six years, a time of economic prosperity and a building boom, enrollment remained flat. We all know that with developers going bankrupt, properties being foreclosed and jobs disappearing, people are moving out of the community.
• It includes Lowell Elementary in its stated student capacity, without including a reopen date. The district has been ambiguous about stating this: The school’s reopening has been “delayed,” possibly for one year; the superintendent stated there is no promise it will reopen next year.
• It shows a drop in capacity at the middle school level, when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall. Is the new school smaller than the old one?
• It shows a “service standard” of 22.5 students per classroom for grades K through 5. Not one class at Happy Valley Elementary had so few students last year. How can capacity be based on this number, when most of these classes had 26 to 30 students?
The Mayor and City Council have made it clear, in a resolution formally passed in May, that the city supports reopening Lowell this school year, and protecting two other elementary schools the district has on its list to be studied for possible future closure: Larrabee and Columbia. The school district responded with its own resolution, telling the city that if it valued these schools, the city should pay to operate them because the school district didn’t have the money to do so.
The school district has made it clear that it does not value these neighborhood schools, and that it is unconcerned about the impact it has on the community when it closes these schools, and builds new schools in remote areas that require busing.
These proposed amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan are the city’s opportunity to require the school district to conform to the values of the city it is in. Require the school district to maintain and operate these neighborhood schools. Require the district to show responsibility for what it already has, before it can move forward with building unneeded new schools that it can’t fund. Require the school district to be consistent: either it is keeping its reserve fund at 4.4 percent this year — well above its policy of 3 percent minimum — because it expects more bad years to come, or it is expecting boom times that require more schools.
Bellingham is a wonderful place to live, because of its many distinct, strong neighborhoods, with schools at their centers. Let’s not look back, six years from now, and wish we still had these schools. You can do something right now.
The Aug. 20 meeting will air on BTV 10 Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 8 a.m.
Good questions and statements were voiced, such as: "Why isn't a reopening date for Lowell School in the six-year plan" and "Why isn't the school district using the state's projected enrollment for planning (Meridian school district is using the state's numbers), since it seems to be accurate for Bellingham?" and "It seems that portions of the district's capital facilities plan are working against the city's coimprehensive plan."
The school district sent a consultant as its representative at the meeting: She said she strongly urged the district to put an opening date for Lowell in the plan, but district administrators didn't want to, and said they'd revisit Lowell's future in the spring.
The commission went down a list of criteria to decide if it should recommend the city accept this plan; many of the criteria were vague, stating that things had chnaged so a new plan was needed. The commission agreed that things had changed, while also voicing that they didn't necessarily agree with HOW they had changed, and stated that it was really up to the school board to run its district.
The problem with this is, the district isn't adhering to the goals and values of the city that it is in, and this is one of the very few ways the city can actually make an impact, and require the school district to do something: set a reopen date for Lowell, maintain and operate its existing schools, and locate schools within neighborhoods.
The commission recommended that the school district work closely with city leaders to make sure these things happen.
Now, we need to contact City Council members, and let them know we don't want them to accept this capital facilities plan, and we do need their help in keeping our neighborhood schools open.
Here is the text of the Neighborhood School Coalition's statement to the planning commission, submitted by Melissa Schapiro:
The Planning Commission probably doesn’t hear too many protests of school districts’ capital facilities plans. Normally, it’s just updating some numbers, to make sure developers are providing support for the public facilities their buyers will require. However, this Bellingham School District capital facilities plan, for 2009-2015, and the accompanying proposed amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, do call for protest. The plan is a continuation of actions the current School Board and district administration have set in motion during the past year, which are in opposition to the city’s stated goals and values.
The school district, as part of its budget cutting process, is keeping a newly renovated elementary school – with a capacity for more than 300 students – closed this year, saying it doesn’t have money to operate Lowell Elementary. The district is choosing to keep the students in seven portables at another school. Voters were promised those portables would disappear this school year, with the opening of the new Wade King Elementary. At the same time, the district is moving forward with building another new elementary school on the northern limits of the district’s boundary, on Aldrich Road, saying it needs to get kids out of portable classrooms. Enrollment has been flat the past six years. In order to fill this additional school and to pay for its operating expenses, the district will have to shut another school.
The district’s actions are shutting schools in existing neighborhoods – where families choose to live, where children can walk or bike to school, where parents are more involved because of proximity and the community that these neighborhood schools build. These actions are contrary to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which values maintaining these neighborhood schools as part of the glue that holds the community together.
Building new, as yet unneeded schools in unpopulated areas, and closing these established schools, creates sprawl, traffic and pollution, and very quickly pulls apart residents’ relationships to one another.
The capital facilities plan, and the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments before you tonight, present information that is overly optimistic about the future:
• It predicts a 14 percent increase in enrollment in the next six years. During the last six years, a time of economic prosperity and a building boom, enrollment remained flat. We all know that with developers going bankrupt, properties being foreclosed and jobs disappearing, people are moving out of the community.
• It includes Lowell Elementary in its stated student capacity, without including a reopen date. The district has been ambiguous about stating this: The school’s reopening has been “delayed,” possibly for one year; the superintendent stated there is no promise it will reopen next year.
• It shows a drop in capacity at the middle school level, when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall. Is the new school smaller than the old one?
• It shows a “service standard” of 22.5 students per classroom for grades K through 5. Not one class at Happy Valley Elementary had so few students last year. How can capacity be based on this number, when most of these classes had 26 to 30 students?
The Mayor and City Council have made it clear, in a resolution formally passed in May, that the city supports reopening Lowell this school year, and protecting two other elementary schools the district has on its list to be studied for possible future closure: Larrabee and Columbia. The school district responded with its own resolution, telling the city that if it valued these schools, the city should pay to operate them because the school district didn’t have the money to do so.
The school district has made it clear that it does not value these neighborhood schools, and that it is unconcerned about the impact it has on the community when it closes these schools, and builds new schools in remote areas that require busing.
These proposed amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan are the city’s opportunity to require the school district to conform to the values of the city it is in. Require the school district to maintain and operate these neighborhood schools. Require the district to show responsibility for what it already has, before it can move forward with building unneeded new schools that it can’t fund. Require the school district to be consistent: either it is keeping its reserve fund at 4.4 percent this year — well above its policy of 3 percent minimum — because it expects more bad years to come, or it is expecting boom times that require more schools.
Bellingham is a wonderful place to live, because of its many distinct, strong neighborhoods, with schools at their centers. Let’s not look back, six years from now, and wish we still had these schools. You can do something right now.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Democrats to endorse School Board candidates
The Whatcom Democrats will meet this Thursday, Aug. 20, and are expected to endorse candidates for the two open positions on the Bellingham School Board.
This is another great opportunity for your voice to be heard: attend the meeting, and support the candidates who support high quality education, small town values, and neighborhood schools.
7 p.m. at Norway Hall, 1419 N. Forest St., Bellingham
And then, stay tuned for School Board candidate debates this fall.
Thanks!
This is another great opportunity for your voice to be heard: attend the meeting, and support the candidates who support high quality education, small town values, and neighborhood schools.
7 p.m. at Norway Hall, 1419 N. Forest St., Bellingham
And then, stay tuned for School Board candidate debates this fall.
Thanks!
Monday, August 17, 2009
City has a say on Capital Facilities Plan
It's been a hot, busy summer, but now it's time to start thinking about school again. While the Bellingham School Board approved its Capital Facilities Plan back in July, it's just coming before the city's Planning Commission this Thursday night, 7 p.m. August 20, at city council chambers, 210 Lottie St.
On the agenda: "Consideration of an amendment to the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan to adopt by reference a new six-year capital facilities plan for the Bellingham School District."
It then has to go to the City Council.
The planning commission includes time for public comment at its meetings. This is a great opportunity for us to let the city know how they can help protect neighborhood schools.
As it is, the Capital Facilities plan the district is presenting doesn't include a reopen date for Lowell Elementary, it includes a provision to buy MORE PORTABLES, to continue building a new school in the middle of farmland, and to plan for another new school in the next six years, all while the district says it doesn't have money to operate the schools it has now, and enrollment is flat.
Click here to read what the school district wants the Planning Commission to approve and to read the district's 2009-2015 Capital Facilities Plan:
Proposed amendments to city's Comprehensive Plan
The district needs the city to incorporate the capital facilities plan into its Comprehensive Plan, in order to collect impact fees from developers.
The city can pressure the district regarding this plan. Let them know you want them to! Come to the meeting Thursday night. If you can't make it, submit a written comment to the city through: Heather Aven, 360-778-8300, or e-mail planningcommission@cob.org.
Here's the link to the report being presented to the Planning Commission:
Bellingham School District request re: Capital Facilities update
This hasn't been well publicized, and so far the city has received no comments. Let's change that!
On the agenda: "Consideration of an amendment to the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan to adopt by reference a new six-year capital facilities plan for the Bellingham School District."
It then has to go to the City Council.
The planning commission includes time for public comment at its meetings. This is a great opportunity for us to let the city know how they can help protect neighborhood schools.
As it is, the Capital Facilities plan the district is presenting doesn't include a reopen date for Lowell Elementary, it includes a provision to buy MORE PORTABLES, to continue building a new school in the middle of farmland, and to plan for another new school in the next six years, all while the district says it doesn't have money to operate the schools it has now, and enrollment is flat.
Click here to read what the school district wants the Planning Commission to approve and to read the district's 2009-2015 Capital Facilities Plan:
Proposed amendments to city's Comprehensive Plan
The district needs the city to incorporate the capital facilities plan into its Comprehensive Plan, in order to collect impact fees from developers.
The city can pressure the district regarding this plan. Let them know you want them to! Come to the meeting Thursday night. If you can't make it, submit a written comment to the city through: Heather Aven, 360-778-8300, or e-mail planningcommission@cob.org.
Here's the link to the report being presented to the Planning Commission:
Bellingham School District request re: Capital Facilities update
This hasn't been well publicized, and so far the city has received no comments. Let's change that!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
School Board approves capital facilities plan
Thank you to everyone who attended the school board meeting tonight, and spoke up about this 6-year capital facilities plan. Unfortunately, the school board's response was: This is a template, we fill in the numbers, it doesn't really mean anything, other than collecting impact fees from developers.
The board did not respond when asked why they still felt student enrollment would increase, and we would need ANOTHER new school; they did not respond when asked directly whether they are saying portables are substandard, or useful (the plan calls for buying even more portables, but their facilities update calls for a new school to get kids out of portables).
Please stay tuned: The district seems to like putting forward new documents and plans during the summer, when most people are out of town, or simply enjoying the weather and not thinking about schools. But we're keeping our eyes open, and will keep you informed!
Here is the text of what Neighborhood Schools Coalition representative Melissa Schapiro said to the board:
"I’m here to bring attention to two items on the agenda tonight (July 1, 2009):
First, I ask you to question the numbers in this new capital facilities plan, especially the projected growth and enrollment increases. Just like in the last six-year plan, growth was predicted but not realized, and enrollment ended up being flat. In the meantime, we spent millions of dollars on a new school that is running at half capacity.
Unemployment is still high, and expected to move higher: Families won’t relocate here without jobs. Developers can't afford to build new homes, and families can't afford to buy them. Expect your enrollment to stay flat or decrease, as families move to areas with lower housing costs and more jobs. Expect enrollment to decrease, as families don’t enroll in public school, or pull their children out, because they can’t trust that their school will stay open.
Why are you still planning to move ahead with another new school, to open in 2012, one street away from our neighboring school district, in a remote area with few students? Where do you plan to get the money to operate this new school? Your constituents have a right to know.
You’re saying the new building is needed to get kids out of portables. That’s what you said when pushing to build Wade King Elementary. The school is built, and our students are still being kept in portables.
This fall we will have more than 125 kids at Happy Valley going to school in metal boxes in parking lots, without bathroom facilities. Meanwhile, we have a completely renovated school building that used to house more than 300 students sitting empty. If you really want to get kids out of portables, you could do it now.
Your plan calls for buying even more portables during the next six years. So, are portables substandard, requiring us to build more schools? Or are portables a good resource for housing students? You can’t have it both ways.
Your plan’s calculations include Lowell’s empty classrooms, but doesn’t state when the building will open as a school.
Your plan’s calculations show a drop in capacity at the middle school level, when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall. Is the new school smaller than the old one?
Your plan shows a “service standard” of 22.5 students per classroom for grades K through 5. Not one class at Happy Valley Elementary had so few students last year. How can you base your capacity on this number, when most of these classes had 24 or more students?
The budget you passed June 25 states the district has about 10,400 students. Just three weeks later, your capital facilities plan states it has 10,594 students. This is a big difference, especially when the numbers are being used to validate a need for another new school.
Your plan calls for considering a bond issue in the next six years. You need voter support for this. Will voters support you again, if you haven’t followed through on the promises from the last bond? I encourage public review of this plan; it was only published on Tuesday. Why rush to pass it tonight? The current plan doesn’t expire till December.
Also on the agenda is a rewrite of your communications policy, which highlights the need for two-way communication between the district and board members, and the community. I encourage the board to participate in two-way communication; this public comment period is not two-way. You should allow question-and-answer time. You have the opportunity to rebut public statements, but the public is not afforded the same opportunity to question your statements. Other school districts allow for this. We should be working together. You should allow two-way communication at School Board meetings.
In the last two weeks, several other Whatcom County school districts passed their budgets. They all faced budget cuts, but again, only Bellingham School District saw fit to close a school to save money. And only Bellingham School District insists that more than 4 percent in reserves is needed to cover payroll and future crises. Why are you afraid to spend reserves during an economic crisis, but you feel comfortable spending reserves in flush years for operating expenses? Again, if this is a crisis, use the crisis fund. If you expect the crisis to continue, don’t build a new building, because you know that in order to fill it you’ll have to close existing schools and transfer those operating funds to the new building."
The board did not respond when asked why they still felt student enrollment would increase, and we would need ANOTHER new school; they did not respond when asked directly whether they are saying portables are substandard, or useful (the plan calls for buying even more portables, but their facilities update calls for a new school to get kids out of portables).
Please stay tuned: The district seems to like putting forward new documents and plans during the summer, when most people are out of town, or simply enjoying the weather and not thinking about schools. But we're keeping our eyes open, and will keep you informed!
Here is the text of what Neighborhood Schools Coalition representative Melissa Schapiro said to the board:
"I’m here to bring attention to two items on the agenda tonight (July 1, 2009):
First, I ask you to question the numbers in this new capital facilities plan, especially the projected growth and enrollment increases. Just like in the last six-year plan, growth was predicted but not realized, and enrollment ended up being flat. In the meantime, we spent millions of dollars on a new school that is running at half capacity.
Unemployment is still high, and expected to move higher: Families won’t relocate here without jobs. Developers can't afford to build new homes, and families can't afford to buy them. Expect your enrollment to stay flat or decrease, as families move to areas with lower housing costs and more jobs. Expect enrollment to decrease, as families don’t enroll in public school, or pull their children out, because they can’t trust that their school will stay open.
Why are you still planning to move ahead with another new school, to open in 2012, one street away from our neighboring school district, in a remote area with few students? Where do you plan to get the money to operate this new school? Your constituents have a right to know.
You’re saying the new building is needed to get kids out of portables. That’s what you said when pushing to build Wade King Elementary. The school is built, and our students are still being kept in portables.
This fall we will have more than 125 kids at Happy Valley going to school in metal boxes in parking lots, without bathroom facilities. Meanwhile, we have a completely renovated school building that used to house more than 300 students sitting empty. If you really want to get kids out of portables, you could do it now.
Your plan calls for buying even more portables during the next six years. So, are portables substandard, requiring us to build more schools? Or are portables a good resource for housing students? You can’t have it both ways.
Your plan’s calculations include Lowell’s empty classrooms, but doesn’t state when the building will open as a school.
Your plan’s calculations show a drop in capacity at the middle school level, when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall. Is the new school smaller than the old one?
Your plan shows a “service standard” of 22.5 students per classroom for grades K through 5. Not one class at Happy Valley Elementary had so few students last year. How can you base your capacity on this number, when most of these classes had 24 or more students?
The budget you passed June 25 states the district has about 10,400 students. Just three weeks later, your capital facilities plan states it has 10,594 students. This is a big difference, especially when the numbers are being used to validate a need for another new school.
Your plan calls for considering a bond issue in the next six years. You need voter support for this. Will voters support you again, if you haven’t followed through on the promises from the last bond? I encourage public review of this plan; it was only published on Tuesday. Why rush to pass it tonight? The current plan doesn’t expire till December.
Also on the agenda is a rewrite of your communications policy, which highlights the need for two-way communication between the district and board members, and the community. I encourage the board to participate in two-way communication; this public comment period is not two-way. You should allow question-and-answer time. You have the opportunity to rebut public statements, but the public is not afforded the same opportunity to question your statements. Other school districts allow for this. We should be working together. You should allow two-way communication at School Board meetings.
In the last two weeks, several other Whatcom County school districts passed their budgets. They all faced budget cuts, but again, only Bellingham School District saw fit to close a school to save money. And only Bellingham School District insists that more than 4 percent in reserves is needed to cover payroll and future crises. Why are you afraid to spend reserves during an economic crisis, but you feel comfortable spending reserves in flush years for operating expenses? Again, if this is a crisis, use the crisis fund. If you expect the crisis to continue, don’t build a new building, because you know that in order to fill it you’ll have to close existing schools and transfer those operating funds to the new building."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Latest Capital Facilities Plan --- more portables?!?
The school district posted the attachments to the July 16 agenda today. Included is the new Capital Facilities Plan, which shows what the district expects in terms of enrollment and building use, during the next six years. It is on the action agenda for board approval Thursday. To read it, click here: Bellingham Schools Boarddocs , open the 7-16-09 regular meeting item at the top left, and find the plan under "action items."
The district is expecting to rubber stamp this "plan." I encourage everyone to read it carefully, and come to the meeting Thursday at 5:30 p.m., and comment on it. It is your only chance to have a say about this document, which will steer major changes in the district for at least the next six years.
Of concern:
* The plan expects enrollment to increase to more than 12,000 students at the end of this six year period. The last six-year plan also expected big enrollment boosts, but was 1,000 students off. The district admitted this in March, but is continuing to insist that the district is growing, while enrollment has actually been flat for years.
* The plan continues to push forward with building a new elementary school on Aldrich Road, to be open in the fall of 2012. The reasoning for this, again, is to get kids out of portables.
* The district is counting Lowell's capacity in its ability to house children, but there is no language in the document about when Lowell will reopen.
* A chart shows the capacity of each school and its "relocatables," or portable classrooms (picture a metal box in a parking lot). The numbers do not reflect the actual number of students in the classrooms. For instance, Larrabee's portables have a capacity of 66, but 90 students were in the portables in 2008-09.
* Classrooms have a capacity of 22.5 students for elementary grades; however, this last year, nearly every class at Happy Valley exceeded 25 students.
* The plan then calls for the need for buying more portables in the future:
"The District inventory includes 41 relocatables (portable classrooms), with 28 available for regular classroom use. Based on enrollment projects and planned permanent facilities, the District may need to acquire additional relocatables during the next six-year period. As enrollment fluctuates, relocatables provide flexibility to accommodate immediate needs and interim housing. The use and need for relocatables will be balanced against program needs."
* Table 2-B on page 14, shows the school capacities. It shows middle school total capacity falling when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall, and it looks like the capacity for middle and high school students is seriously deficient.
These are just a few of the issues that need to be questioned BEFORE the school board passes this plan, and puts in motion changes the people of Bellingham don't support.
Another item on the agenda regards updating the district's communications policies. Read that carefully, too. It highlights the importance of TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION as a key component of the district's responsibility. So far, we've had no two-way communication, so please, insist on it. Other districts do it. Ferndale just passed its budget yesterday, after many community meetings in which board members, administrators and community members SPOKE WITH ONE ANOTHER, decided against closing a school to save costs, and FOUND SOLUTIONS TOGETHER.
See you Thursday night!
The district is expecting to rubber stamp this "plan." I encourage everyone to read it carefully, and come to the meeting Thursday at 5:30 p.m., and comment on it. It is your only chance to have a say about this document, which will steer major changes in the district for at least the next six years.
Of concern:
* The plan expects enrollment to increase to more than 12,000 students at the end of this six year period. The last six-year plan also expected big enrollment boosts, but was 1,000 students off. The district admitted this in March, but is continuing to insist that the district is growing, while enrollment has actually been flat for years.
* The plan continues to push forward with building a new elementary school on Aldrich Road, to be open in the fall of 2012. The reasoning for this, again, is to get kids out of portables.
* The district is counting Lowell's capacity in its ability to house children, but there is no language in the document about when Lowell will reopen.
* A chart shows the capacity of each school and its "relocatables," or portable classrooms (picture a metal box in a parking lot). The numbers do not reflect the actual number of students in the classrooms. For instance, Larrabee's portables have a capacity of 66, but 90 students were in the portables in 2008-09.
* Classrooms have a capacity of 22.5 students for elementary grades; however, this last year, nearly every class at Happy Valley exceeded 25 students.
* The plan then calls for the need for buying more portables in the future:
"The District inventory includes 41 relocatables (portable classrooms), with 28 available for regular classroom use. Based on enrollment projects and planned permanent facilities, the District may need to acquire additional relocatables during the next six-year period. As enrollment fluctuates, relocatables provide flexibility to accommodate immediate needs and interim housing. The use and need for relocatables will be balanced against program needs."
* Table 2-B on page 14, shows the school capacities. It shows middle school total capacity falling when the new Shuksan Middle School opens this fall, and it looks like the capacity for middle and high school students is seriously deficient.
These are just a few of the issues that need to be questioned BEFORE the school board passes this plan, and puts in motion changes the people of Bellingham don't support.
Another item on the agenda regards updating the district's communications policies. Read that carefully, too. It highlights the importance of TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION as a key component of the district's responsibility. So far, we've had no two-way communication, so please, insist on it. Other districts do it. Ferndale just passed its budget yesterday, after many community meetings in which board members, administrators and community members SPOKE WITH ONE ANOTHER, decided against closing a school to save costs, and FOUND SOLUTIONS TOGETHER.
See you Thursday night!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Board meeting, 5:30 p.m. July 16
The school board has a day-time work session, and an early board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, July 16.
Of interest on the agenda, under action items, is "Adopt Capital Facilities Plan for School Impact Fees."
This is the plan we've been waiting for; it updates the 2004-09 plan, with current school capacity and expected growth for the next five years. This will be a good indication of what the district plans to do -- how it will justify building a new school on Aldrich Road, without the extra students to fill it, and without the operating funds to run it.
Hopefully, we'll also find out if the district is still planning to go ahead with its "capacity study," which is the precursor to closing schools in order to get the students and money to operate new schools.
The facilities plan itself should be available in the next day or two, and I will post it when the district attaches it to the agenda.
To see the agenda, go to
Bellingham School District and School Board , click on School Board meetings, agendas and minutes, enter the public site, and you'll see the list of agendas.
Of interest on the agenda, under action items, is "Adopt Capital Facilities Plan for School Impact Fees."
This is the plan we've been waiting for; it updates the 2004-09 plan, with current school capacity and expected growth for the next five years. This will be a good indication of what the district plans to do -- how it will justify building a new school on Aldrich Road, without the extra students to fill it, and without the operating funds to run it.
Hopefully, we'll also find out if the district is still planning to go ahead with its "capacity study," which is the precursor to closing schools in order to get the students and money to operate new schools.
The facilities plan itself should be available in the next day or two, and I will post it when the district attaches it to the agenda.
To see the agenda, go to
Bellingham School District and School Board , click on School Board meetings, agendas and minutes, enter the public site, and you'll see the list of agendas.
Friday, July 10, 2009
District tears down old Shuksan building, and more
Bellingham school district, in its facilities update last week, announced it was tearing down the old Shuksan Middle School building, ahead of schedule, in order to provide kids in the new building some playing fields this year. The plan had been to house the administration in this old building while the Roeder Administration building was being fixed this year. The Roeder project is on hold, and the district hasn't announced where the administrators will be housed when the project does begin.
Meanwhile, the teardown is under way, and several concerns have come up.
This information was shared with us by Stephanie Twiford, of the Shuksan Middle School community:
The district has demolished a 14-by-20 foot greenhouse, apparently worth about $10,000, with heater and circulation fan and equipment It could have been salvaged, given away, or the ReStore could have come in, dismantled it, and sold it. Now it is in a landfill somewhere.
The district also removed more than 25, 22-year-old Mt. Fuji cherry trees that were at the edge of the Shuksan property. It was a spectacular site in the spring to see these trees in bloom. A former principal (Mike Copeland) had students help plant them as a beautification project, and they may have been a gift from our sister city in Japan.
And the mural inside the school is in jeopardy: The new principal said he didn’t know if there was room in the new school for it, as they were going a different direction. What exactly that means is beyond me. It’s a wonderful mural that the entire school worked on, with the help of Bellingham artist Donna Wheat.
This is just another example of the district not paying attention to its constituents.
Make some noise --- don't let them think they can get away with stuff just because we're on summer break! Call school board members, call the district office, write letters to the editor at The Bellingham Herald!
The Shuksan families have a group on Facebook called Save the Shuksan Mural.
We also have a cause on Facebook for Neighborhood Schools Coalition.
Join the causes, and let's make a change!
Meanwhile, the teardown is under way, and several concerns have come up.
This information was shared with us by Stephanie Twiford, of the Shuksan Middle School community:
The district has demolished a 14-by-20 foot greenhouse, apparently worth about $10,000, with heater and circulation fan and equipment It could have been salvaged, given away, or the ReStore could have come in, dismantled it, and sold it. Now it is in a landfill somewhere.
The district also removed more than 25, 22-year-old Mt. Fuji cherry trees that were at the edge of the Shuksan property. It was a spectacular site in the spring to see these trees in bloom. A former principal (Mike Copeland) had students help plant them as a beautification project, and they may have been a gift from our sister city in Japan.
And the mural inside the school is in jeopardy: The new principal said he didn’t know if there was room in the new school for it, as they were going a different direction. What exactly that means is beyond me. It’s a wonderful mural that the entire school worked on, with the help of Bellingham artist Donna Wheat.
This is just another example of the district not paying attention to its constituents.
Make some noise --- don't let them think they can get away with stuff just because we're on summer break! Call school board members, call the district office, write letters to the editor at The Bellingham Herald!
The Shuksan families have a group on Facebook called Save the Shuksan Mural.
We also have a cause on Facebook for Neighborhood Schools Coalition.
Join the causes, and let's make a change!
Friday, July 3, 2009
District's 'facilities update'
The district posted this update today, updating us about all the capital projects the district is completing this summer. Read it here: Facilities update July 2009
Somehow, the district has been able to complete the new Shuksan building, is speeding up demolition of the old building, and moving into the new school this fall.
All the other schools' seismic work is being completed this summer, and mention of Lowell is limited to this: "Lowell’s exterior walls are being reinforced and attached to the roof and floors. Lowell is not being used during its temporary closure for any other purpose."
Then, the update moves into the need for a new Aldrich school, because -- gasp -- schools are so overcrowded they are housing children in PORTABLES!
"Since voters approved the bond in 2006, enrollment at Alderwood, Birchwood, Northern Heights and Sunnyland elementary schools has increased by a total of 182 students. Alderwood Elementary School currently is using one portable classroom, Birchwood has six portables in use and Sunnyland is using four portables."
Well, Happy Valley has seven portables! and Larrabee has three. The district already built a new school to get the kids out of these portables, and also has an EMPTY building that these children could be in, but the district is choosing to keep our youngest kids in portables.
Why does the district continue to tell us they need new buildings to get kids out of portables?
Who are they kidding?
Somehow, the district has been able to complete the new Shuksan building, is speeding up demolition of the old building, and moving into the new school this fall.
All the other schools' seismic work is being completed this summer, and mention of Lowell is limited to this: "Lowell’s exterior walls are being reinforced and attached to the roof and floors. Lowell is not being used during its temporary closure for any other purpose."
Then, the update moves into the need for a new Aldrich school, because -- gasp -- schools are so overcrowded they are housing children in PORTABLES!
"Since voters approved the bond in 2006, enrollment at Alderwood, Birchwood, Northern Heights and Sunnyland elementary schools has increased by a total of 182 students. Alderwood Elementary School currently is using one portable classroom, Birchwood has six portables in use and Sunnyland is using four portables."
Well, Happy Valley has seven portables! and Larrabee has three. The district already built a new school to get the kids out of these portables, and also has an EMPTY building that these children could be in, but the district is choosing to keep our youngest kids in portables.
Why does the district continue to tell us they need new buildings to get kids out of portables?
Who are they kidding?
Friday, June 26, 2009
We have lots of work to do
The board members made their opinions clear last night: Closing a school is an OK option for them. This makes it all the more important that we stay involved. We have a lot of work ahead of us:
* The district's capital facilities plan will be released this summer.
* Expect the capacity study to re-emerge this summer; be ready to apply to be on the committee.
* We will pursue an inquiry into the district's legal obligations regarding spending bond money (and then keeping the building closed), and keeping children in portables when they have regular classrooms available.
* We will be contacting the city parks department about its agreement with the school district, regarding public access to school properties (we should have access to the Lowell building), and work to get neighborhood associations meeting at their neighborhood schools again.
* The coalition also will be working to support all of Bellingham's PTAs, to work together, cut costs, and help fund raise.
Want to help? Contact us at neighborhoodschoolscoalition@gmail.com
* The district's capital facilities plan will be released this summer.
* Expect the capacity study to re-emerge this summer; be ready to apply to be on the committee.
* We will pursue an inquiry into the district's legal obligations regarding spending bond money (and then keeping the building closed), and keeping children in portables when they have regular classrooms available.
* We will be contacting the city parks department about its agreement with the school district, regarding public access to school properties (we should have access to the Lowell building), and work to get neighborhood associations meeting at their neighborhood schools again.
* The coalition also will be working to support all of Bellingham's PTAs, to work together, cut costs, and help fund raise.
Want to help? Contact us at neighborhoodschoolscoalition@gmail.com
Board refuses to change budget
The School Board refused to make any changes to its 2009-10 budget Thursday night. Several audience members spoke, then board members made statements that we weren't allowed to question, and they moved ahead with their prepared resolution and passed the budget unanimously.
They say we'll thank them next year, because the district will have a fat savings account. And they need the fat savings account because we might have another economic disaster next year that we WOULD use the savings account for. They focused a lot on, what if the state trims another $4.2 million from our district's revenue? What if we don't get another federal stimulus package (followed by Assistant Superintendent Ron Cowan's statement that "The stimulus doesn't really help us. It's so targeted to special ed, remediation and I-728")
The truth is, if we go along with their doomsday planning for another economic disaster (we're actually pulling OUT of this recession, not entering another one ... ) the difference of $450,000 being in the savings account won't make any difference, the whole account would be wiped out.
Board member Ken Gass said, "What if a roof blows off? We can't run a school district on fumes." If school board members allowed a dialogue, we could have pointed out that that would be paid with capital funds, which the district has plenty of, not from the savings account.
Board members insist they support neighborhood schools, but never addressed why Lowell's closure was the first action taken to trim the budget. They never addressed why they think it's acceptable to bus children past their empty school, and stuff them into substandard portables somewhere else.
They think spending money on great teachers is the best way to improve kids' education; but the best teacher can't reach kids who are overcrowded and distracted in substandard conditions, in metal boxes in the parking lot of the school grounds.
KGMI was there. Read their story, and listen to their audio at:
School board approves budget
The Bellingham Herald was NOT at the meeting. The Herald covered a community discussion in Ferndale: The Ferndale School Board has DISCUSSIONS with its community, and RESPONDS to them. Remember, they said NO to closing a school to save money, and they delayed adopting their budget for a month in order to TALK MORE with the community. Read the story at:
Full-time kindergarten no longer an option for Ferndale
Thank you to everyone who spoke Thursday night. One speaker, a Bellingham firefighter/paramedic and a single mom, pointed out how substandard those portables really are: she said she has inspected them, and they are not suitable for children to spend their days in. Another woman spoke, making the point that it was her wedding anniversary, but the loss of her neighborhood school was so important, that she had to be there to speak out.
Two statements were written. Read them at:
Neighborhood Schools Coalition statement
Emily Weiner's statement
And as one speaker noted: This isn't over. We will continue to fight to keep our schools open. Stay tuned.
They say we'll thank them next year, because the district will have a fat savings account. And they need the fat savings account because we might have another economic disaster next year that we WOULD use the savings account for. They focused a lot on, what if the state trims another $4.2 million from our district's revenue? What if we don't get another federal stimulus package (followed by Assistant Superintendent Ron Cowan's statement that "The stimulus doesn't really help us. It's so targeted to special ed, remediation and I-728")
The truth is, if we go along with their doomsday planning for another economic disaster (we're actually pulling OUT of this recession, not entering another one ... ) the difference of $450,000 being in the savings account won't make any difference, the whole account would be wiped out.
Board member Ken Gass said, "What if a roof blows off? We can't run a school district on fumes." If school board members allowed a dialogue, we could have pointed out that that would be paid with capital funds, which the district has plenty of, not from the savings account.
Board members insist they support neighborhood schools, but never addressed why Lowell's closure was the first action taken to trim the budget. They never addressed why they think it's acceptable to bus children past their empty school, and stuff them into substandard portables somewhere else.
They think spending money on great teachers is the best way to improve kids' education; but the best teacher can't reach kids who are overcrowded and distracted in substandard conditions, in metal boxes in the parking lot of the school grounds.
KGMI was there. Read their story, and listen to their audio at:
School board approves budget
The Bellingham Herald was NOT at the meeting. The Herald covered a community discussion in Ferndale: The Ferndale School Board has DISCUSSIONS with its community, and RESPONDS to them. Remember, they said NO to closing a school to save money, and they delayed adopting their budget for a month in order to TALK MORE with the community. Read the story at:
Full-time kindergarten no longer an option for Ferndale
Thank you to everyone who spoke Thursday night. One speaker, a Bellingham firefighter/paramedic and a single mom, pointed out how substandard those portables really are: she said she has inspected them, and they are not suitable for children to spend their days in. Another woman spoke, making the point that it was her wedding anniversary, but the loss of her neighborhood school was so important, that she had to be there to speak out.
Two statements were written. Read them at:
Neighborhood Schools Coalition statement
Emily Weiner's statement
And as one speaker noted: This isn't over. We will continue to fight to keep our schools open. Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Speak up at School Board tonight
June 25, 7:30 p.m., 1306 Dupont St. Roeder Administration Building.
Tonight is the big Bellingham School Board meeting, when public comment will be allowed on the draft budget. The board is scheduled to vote on this budget tonight.
Key points: they've retained 500 of 504.5 basic education teaching positions; they're spending $1 million less than than what they're bringing in, and pumping money into the reserve fund, above the amount needed.
They can choose at any time to use a portion of this reserve fund to keep their schools open, and still maintain a VERY healthy balance, more than enough for coming years. They've dipped into this fund regularly over the years, why are they refusing to use a rainy day fund to help during the budget crisis it was designed for?
Please attend tonight ... it's important that the school board knows that we still care, we're not going away, and that they need to keep their schools open.
Sign up to speak.
Thank you!
Tonight is the big Bellingham School Board meeting, when public comment will be allowed on the draft budget. The board is scheduled to vote on this budget tonight.
Key points: they've retained 500 of 504.5 basic education teaching positions; they're spending $1 million less than than what they're bringing in, and pumping money into the reserve fund, above the amount needed.
They can choose at any time to use a portion of this reserve fund to keep their schools open, and still maintain a VERY healthy balance, more than enough for coming years. They've dipped into this fund regularly over the years, why are they refusing to use a rainy day fund to help during the budget crisis it was designed for?
Please attend tonight ... it's important that the school board knows that we still care, we're not going away, and that they need to keep their schools open.
Sign up to speak.
Thank you!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Agenda attachments online
The school district posted attachments to its June 25 agenda online. Take a look at
www.bham.wednet.edu/district/district.htm, and click on School Board meeting minutes and agendas, public site, and pick the June 25 meeting.
A resolution to pass the budget is on there.
The public comment period preceding the budget resolution is the only time we can comment on it. Let's make this time count! Let them know Bellingham wants to keep its schools open.
7:30 p.m. Thursday, June 25. 1306 Dupont St. Roeder Administration Building.
www.bham.wednet.edu/district/district.htm, and click on School Board meeting minutes and agendas, public site, and pick the June 25 meeting.
A resolution to pass the budget is on there.
The public comment period preceding the budget resolution is the only time we can comment on it. Let's make this time count! Let them know Bellingham wants to keep its schools open.
7:30 p.m. Thursday, June 25. 1306 Dupont St. Roeder Administration Building.
Herald prints guest column on school budget
We had a guest column in The Bellingham Herald today. Check it out:
School district has funds to reopen Lowell school
I also linked to it on the side panel under media links)
School district has funds to reopen Lowell school
I also linked to it on the side panel under media links)
Monday, June 22, 2009
School board June 25 agenda
Here's the agenda for the June 25 School Board meeting. As usual, we have to wait till the day before for the attachments to the agenda to be posted online: the contracts and details of what will be discussed .... stay tuned.
06/25/2009 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m.
1. OPENING ITEMS
1.01 Meeting Date and Location
1.02 Executive Session
1.03 Roll Call
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
2.01 Approval of Minutes of June 11, 2009 Regular Meeting
2.02 Approval of Minutes of June 17, 2009 Study Session
2.03 Approval of Investments
2.04 Personal Services Contracts
2.05 Agreement for Services – Max Higbee Center
2.06 Memorandum of Agreement – Western Washington University
2.07 Summary of Donations
2.08 Out of State Travel – Bellingham High School Staff
2.09 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Basketball Team
2.10 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Cross Country Team
2.11 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Dance Team
2.12 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Dance Team
2.13 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Girl's Basketball Team
2.14 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Wrestling Team
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3.01 School Board Directors' Reports
3.02 Legislative Report
3.03 Superintendent's Announcements and Report
3.04 Shining Stars Recognition
3.05 Audience Comments
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.01 Resolution 10–09, Resolution of Fixing and Adopting the 2009–2010 Budget
5.02 State and Federal I-Grant Applications
5.03 Policy 6890, State Environmental Policy Act Compliance – Second Reading
5.04 Policy 3200, Student Rights & Responsibilities – First Reading
5.05 Policy/Procedure 4200, Safe and Orderly Learning Environment – First Reading
5.06 Personnel Recommendations
6. CLOSING ITEMS
6.01 Adjournment
06/25/2009 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m.
1. OPENING ITEMS
1.01 Meeting Date and Location
1.02 Executive Session
1.03 Roll Call
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
2.01 Approval of Minutes of June 11, 2009 Regular Meeting
2.02 Approval of Minutes of June 17, 2009 Study Session
2.03 Approval of Investments
2.04 Personal Services Contracts
2.05 Agreement for Services – Max Higbee Center
2.06 Memorandum of Agreement – Western Washington University
2.07 Summary of Donations
2.08 Out of State Travel – Bellingham High School Staff
2.09 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Basketball Team
2.10 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Cross Country Team
2.11 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Dance Team
2.12 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Dance Team
2.13 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Girl's Basketball Team
2.14 Student Trip – Bellingham High School Wrestling Team
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3.01 School Board Directors' Reports
3.02 Legislative Report
3.03 Superintendent's Announcements and Report
3.04 Shining Stars Recognition
3.05 Audience Comments
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.01 Resolution 10–09, Resolution of Fixing and Adopting the 2009–2010 Budget
5.02 State and Federal I-Grant Applications
5.03 Policy 6890, State Environmental Policy Act Compliance – Second Reading
5.04 Policy 3200, Student Rights & Responsibilities – First Reading
5.05 Policy/Procedure 4200, Safe and Orderly Learning Environment – First Reading
5.06 Personnel Recommendations
6. CLOSING ITEMS
6.01 Adjournment
Some interesting comments online
The Bellingham Herald published a story today about the Bellingham School District's draft budget, and also posted some information on the School Days blog regarding the issue. Readers have been commenting ... take a look, and add your comments to the fray ....
Bellingham Schools propose $100 million budget; some layoffs may be avoided
http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/schools
And please mark your calendars for Thursday night, June 25, at 7:30 p.m., to be at the Roeder Administration building, 1306 Dupont St.
This is your only opportunity to tell the School Board what you think about this draft budget, and that they should keep their schools open!
Bellingham Schools propose $100 million budget; some layoffs may be avoided
http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/schools
And please mark your calendars for Thursday night, June 25, at 7:30 p.m., to be at the Roeder Administration building, 1306 Dupont St.
This is your only opportunity to tell the School Board what you think about this draft budget, and that they should keep their schools open!
Draft budget online
The school district posted an update on its budget process sometime over the weekend; here's the link:
Budget update June 19
The draft budget is also finally available online. The link is also on the blog's side panel under school district documents,
Draft budget
The district continues to say it needs to keep reserves high because who knows what will happen next year. And officials insist on closing an elementary school.
Again, if they could dip into reserves every other year to pay for non-essential programs, why can't the district use reserves this year to keep its schools open? Reserves would still be higher than needed, at 4 percent, instead of 4.4 percent.
Their decision equates to a person who's home is being foreclosed on, making sure to keep a high balance in their savings account because they might need it next year.
The district needs to use the savings account now. Be responsible: Keep your schools open.
And if you insist on closing a school, please inform the public how you plan to stuff two student bodies into one school that is meant to house only 280 students!
Budget update June 19
The draft budget is also finally available online. The link is also on the blog's side panel under school district documents,
Draft budget
The district continues to say it needs to keep reserves high because who knows what will happen next year. And officials insist on closing an elementary school.
Again, if they could dip into reserves every other year to pay for non-essential programs, why can't the district use reserves this year to keep its schools open? Reserves would still be higher than needed, at 4 percent, instead of 4.4 percent.
Their decision equates to a person who's home is being foreclosed on, making sure to keep a high balance in their savings account because they might need it next year.
The district needs to use the savings account now. Be responsible: Keep your schools open.
And if you insist on closing a school, please inform the public how you plan to stuff two student bodies into one school that is meant to house only 280 students!
Friday, June 19, 2009
School board work session
Wednesday night, the school board had a work session to discuss the draft 2009-10 draft budget with district officials. The draft is available at the Roeder Administration building, 1306 Dupont St. It's free.
I shared some details of the budget in an earlier post, but want to reiterate a few points:
• Revenue is down $580,000, or 0.6 percent, from 2008-09, not the projected $3 million to $5 million projected.
• It's a $100 million budget, with spending set at $1 million below revenue.
• The district has added to its “rainy day” fund, called the unreserved fund, so it is 4.4 percent of the overall budget. District policy calls for a reserve fund worth between 3 percent and 5 percent of the budget.
• The district is hiring 500 full-time equivalent basic education teachers, cutting only 4.5 FTE positions.
• The district went ahead with $2.5 million in spending cuts.
• In previous years, the district has used the rainy day fund (see media links at right)for discretionary items; you would think that keeping its schools open and running would be worth using the rainy day fund, especially when the fund would remain at a very healthy level.
Why is the school district and board keeping a school closed when it doesn't have to? It's hands are NOT tied --- rainy day funds are for days like this.
I shared some details of the budget in an earlier post, but want to reiterate a few points:
• Revenue is down $580,000, or 0.6 percent, from 2008-09, not the projected $3 million to $5 million projected.
• It's a $100 million budget, with spending set at $1 million below revenue.
• The district has added to its “rainy day” fund, called the unreserved fund, so it is 4.4 percent of the overall budget. District policy calls for a reserve fund worth between 3 percent and 5 percent of the budget.
• The district is hiring 500 full-time equivalent basic education teachers, cutting only 4.5 FTE positions.
• The district went ahead with $2.5 million in spending cuts.
• In previous years, the district has used the rainy day fund (see media links at right)for discretionary items; you would think that keeping its schools open and running would be worth using the rainy day fund, especially when the fund would remain at a very healthy level.
Why is the school district and board keeping a school closed when it doesn't have to? It's hands are NOT tied --- rainy day funds are for days like this.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Archived news articles show school district pattern
I've added some media links, on the blog's side panel, to archived newspaper articles, which show that the Bellingham School District routinely uses money from its rainy day fund to shore up holes in its budget ... if they can do this during good economic times, why are they refusing to use any of their rainy day funds during our economic crisis?
They would not be bankrupting the district if they kept their schools open. Their fund would still be in the mid-range of what the district requires of itself .... 3 percent to 5 percent of its total $100 million budget.
(it's through the Bellingham Public Library web site, so if you have a library card, you can search the archives yourself!)
They would not be bankrupting the district if they kept their schools open. Their fund would still be in the mid-range of what the district requires of itself .... 3 percent to 5 percent of its total $100 million budget.
(it's through the Bellingham Public Library web site, so if you have a library card, you can search the archives yourself!)
Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission shows support
Wednesday, June 17, I spoke to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission on behalf of Neighborhood Schools Coalition. The commission has representatives from all of Bellingham's neighborhood associations.
Many of the attendees were unaware that in addition to Lowell, Larrabee and Columbia remain on the chopping block. The meeting was very positive, and the group unanimously voiced its support for the school district to fund and operate all of its existing neighborhood schools.
These representatives will take this information back to their neighborhood associations, so all of the constituents in Bellingham School District can be aware and get involved.
Thank you Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission for your time and support!
Many of the attendees were unaware that in addition to Lowell, Larrabee and Columbia remain on the chopping block. The meeting was very positive, and the group unanimously voiced its support for the school district to fund and operate all of its existing neighborhood schools.
These representatives will take this information back to their neighborhood associations, so all of the constituents in Bellingham School District can be aware and get involved.
Thank you Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission for your time and support!
Comment on Bellingham's legacies
The city of Bellingham is developing a "Draft Legacies" document. According to the city's web site:
"The Bellingham City Council is seeking feedback from residents on long-term goals and ways to meet those goals, in the first step of a multi-year project to improve strategic planning and performance reporting to the community.
City Council members recently established a draft set of twenty- to fifty-year goals, or "legacy statements," that will be supported by shorter term, six- to twenty-year "strategic commitments." Public comments on the draft will be accepted through June 24."
Neighborhood schools fit perfectly into these goals -- read more about the effort and find a link to the draft document at City Council seeks feedback about long-term goals
I encourage you all to comment on this document, by emailing the mayor at
mayorsoffice@cob.org, and ask the city to include the words "existing neighborhood schools" in the document. The city council has already shown its support for neighborhood schools; this is just one more way they can emphasize how important these schools are!
"The Bellingham City Council is seeking feedback from residents on long-term goals and ways to meet those goals, in the first step of a multi-year project to improve strategic planning and performance reporting to the community.
City Council members recently established a draft set of twenty- to fifty-year goals, or "legacy statements," that will be supported by shorter term, six- to twenty-year "strategic commitments." Public comments on the draft will be accepted through June 24."
Neighborhood schools fit perfectly into these goals -- read more about the effort and find a link to the draft document at City Council seeks feedback about long-term goals
I encourage you all to comment on this document, by emailing the mayor at
mayorsoffice@cob.org, and ask the city to include the words "existing neighborhood schools" in the document. The city council has already shown its support for neighborhood schools; this is just one more way they can emphasize how important these schools are!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
How other districts handle cuts
A question that keeps coming up is, how are other school districts handling these tough economic times?
We know that the Ferndale School District received a suggestion to close its elementary school on Lummi Island to save money, but their superintendent took that possibility off the list of budget cuts.
Here's a link to the School Days blog on The Bellingham Herald, where once again the Ferndale School Board has decided to delay passing its budget, to allow for more time to make sure they are funding programs appropriately.
blogs.bellinghamherald.com/schools
So far, Bellingham School District is the only one in Whatcom County closing a school to save money in 2009-10.
We know that the Ferndale School District received a suggestion to close its elementary school on Lummi Island to save money, but their superintendent took that possibility off the list of budget cuts.
Here's a link to the School Days blog on The Bellingham Herald, where once again the Ferndale School Board has decided to delay passing its budget, to allow for more time to make sure they are funding programs appropriately.
blogs.bellinghamherald.com/schools
So far, Bellingham School District is the only one in Whatcom County closing a school to save money in 2009-10.
School Board work session tonight
Tonight (June 17) is the school board study session to discuss the draft budget for 2009-10. The session will NOT include a public comment time, though the public is allowed to attend.
I strongly encourage the public to attend and listen carefully to what is presented, and the question-answer dialogue between staff and board members.
The meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the Board Room at the Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont Street.
I strongly encourage the public to attend and listen carefully to what is presented, and the question-answer dialogue between staff and board members.
The meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the Board Room at the Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont Street.
Monday, June 15, 2009
District budget response
I've just heard back from Ron Cowan, assistant superintendent, regarding my budget questions. He reiterated much of the district's stance:
* The federal stimulus money could only be spent on three areas as outlined in the budget, and that without that money, the district would have been short nearly $5 million.
* Nearly every item on the budget cut list was made that could be made, reducing spending by $2.5 million.
* When the budget cut list was presented to the board, a letter from the superintendent accompanied it, stating that the order of items on the list could change. That is in an older version of the budget cut list, here's the link:
Adopted Budget Savings Plan
I asked him why items were put on the list and approved by the board, to be taken off because they couldn't be used to trim costs this year. His answer was that they were good ideas that would be considered in the future, and that keeping them on the list acknowledged that.
He felt the process used was a good one; I disagree. I don't think you can make very good decisions about what to cut out of a budget, when mixed in are items that have no relevance to this year. Those are the items that should be on the future consideration list.
I also believe that cutting costs at each individual school, with families and schools working together, would have been a better method, rather than pitting schools and programs against one another for the same dollar.
He also clarified the discrepency regarding number of students: The larger number, 10,400, refers to a head count ... some students don't attend full time, so the full-time equivalent number of students is in the 9,800 range.
It'll be interesting to hear what the school board has to say when they review the budget Wednesday night.
I also heard back from Nancy Merry at the district office, who confirmed the following meetings:
June 17 at 7 p.m. is the Board Study Session on the budget.
June 25 is the Board regular meeting. Officially, the meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. and will go immediately into executive session without any other business occurring. The regular Board meeting follows at 7:30 p.m.
July 16 at 11:30 a.m. the Board will meet in retreat followed by the regular Board meeting at 5:30 p.m.
* The federal stimulus money could only be spent on three areas as outlined in the budget, and that without that money, the district would have been short nearly $5 million.
* Nearly every item on the budget cut list was made that could be made, reducing spending by $2.5 million.
* When the budget cut list was presented to the board, a letter from the superintendent accompanied it, stating that the order of items on the list could change. That is in an older version of the budget cut list, here's the link:
Adopted Budget Savings Plan
I asked him why items were put on the list and approved by the board, to be taken off because they couldn't be used to trim costs this year. His answer was that they were good ideas that would be considered in the future, and that keeping them on the list acknowledged that.
He felt the process used was a good one; I disagree. I don't think you can make very good decisions about what to cut out of a budget, when mixed in are items that have no relevance to this year. Those are the items that should be on the future consideration list.
I also believe that cutting costs at each individual school, with families and schools working together, would have been a better method, rather than pitting schools and programs against one another for the same dollar.
He also clarified the discrepency regarding number of students: The larger number, 10,400, refers to a head count ... some students don't attend full time, so the full-time equivalent number of students is in the 9,800 range.
It'll be interesting to hear what the school board has to say when they review the budget Wednesday night.
I also heard back from Nancy Merry at the district office, who confirmed the following meetings:
June 17 at 7 p.m. is the Board Study Session on the budget.
June 25 is the Board regular meeting. Officially, the meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. and will go immediately into executive session without any other business occurring. The regular Board meeting follows at 7:30 p.m.
July 16 at 11:30 a.m. the Board will meet in retreat followed by the regular Board meeting at 5:30 p.m.
2009-10 draft budget details
I asked the district office to clarify some issues with the draft budget, both on Friday and today, and have yet to get a response.
So, here are some comments based on my review. If I do get any additional info, I will let you all know.
The expected revenue, which includes all income, to the general fund, is set at $101,199,056. Expected expenditures, which includes all spending, from the general fund, is set at $100,220,146. This adds an extra $1 million to the ending balance, which is $6,139,699.
When the budget cut list was passed by the School Board, the district was telling us to expect a shortfall of $2 million up to $5 million in revenue. The actual revenue shortfall, as compared to the 2008-09 budget, is $586,372, or a shortfall of 0.6 percent.
So, you'd think the district would go down that budget cut list, until they hit the $586,000 mark, and make those cuts -- which is what the school board approved.
But the district hasn't done that. Check the list (link at right). Cuts have been made all the way down the list, and other cuts have been crossed out as "not doable" at this time, starting at item No. 2.
The district states that more than $4.2 million in federal stimulus funding was received, and can't be used as general purpose revenue. But the district figures put this money in the general fund.
Another item I questioned: the summary page of the budget states the district has 10,400 students at its elementary, middle, and high schools. However, the next page shows enrollment history back to 2000-01, with the numbers ranging from 9,651 to a budgeted 9,969 for next year. Why the discrepancy? In March this year, the district said it had only 9,800 students, 1,000 below what had been projected in the district's capital facilities plan for 2004-2009.
How many students are they actually budgeting for?
It's more important than ever to attend Wednesday night's School Board meeting (7 p.m.), when the board will discuss this draft budget. Public comment isn't allowed, but it's the only time you'll get to hear what board members are thinking before they vote on the budget June 25.
You can call and write board members about your concerns and questions; there will be public comment time on June 25, but if we hope for any changes to be made, it would have to be done before the night they vote on it!
I'm also double-checking the meeting dates and times; the June 11 meeting started at 6:30 p.m., not the publicized 7:30 p.m. that was listed online on the agenda. And though the district office emailed me that the board would meet June 17, it isn't listed on the board's calendar online.
We'll get this straightened out!
So, here are some comments based on my review. If I do get any additional info, I will let you all know.
The expected revenue, which includes all income, to the general fund, is set at $101,199,056. Expected expenditures, which includes all spending, from the general fund, is set at $100,220,146. This adds an extra $1 million to the ending balance, which is $6,139,699.
When the budget cut list was passed by the School Board, the district was telling us to expect a shortfall of $2 million up to $5 million in revenue. The actual revenue shortfall, as compared to the 2008-09 budget, is $586,372, or a shortfall of 0.6 percent.
So, you'd think the district would go down that budget cut list, until they hit the $586,000 mark, and make those cuts -- which is what the school board approved.
But the district hasn't done that. Check the list (link at right). Cuts have been made all the way down the list, and other cuts have been crossed out as "not doable" at this time, starting at item No. 2.
The district states that more than $4.2 million in federal stimulus funding was received, and can't be used as general purpose revenue. But the district figures put this money in the general fund.
Another item I questioned: the summary page of the budget states the district has 10,400 students at its elementary, middle, and high schools. However, the next page shows enrollment history back to 2000-01, with the numbers ranging from 9,651 to a budgeted 9,969 for next year. Why the discrepancy? In March this year, the district said it had only 9,800 students, 1,000 below what had been projected in the district's capital facilities plan for 2004-2009.
How many students are they actually budgeting for?
It's more important than ever to attend Wednesday night's School Board meeting (7 p.m.), when the board will discuss this draft budget. Public comment isn't allowed, but it's the only time you'll get to hear what board members are thinking before they vote on the budget June 25.
You can call and write board members about your concerns and questions; there will be public comment time on June 25, but if we hope for any changes to be made, it would have to be done before the night they vote on it!
I'm also double-checking the meeting dates and times; the June 11 meeting started at 6:30 p.m., not the publicized 7:30 p.m. that was listed online on the agenda. And though the district office emailed me that the board would meet June 17, it isn't listed on the board's calendar online.
We'll get this straightened out!
Friday, June 12, 2009
Budget preview
I have a copy of the preliminary 2009-10 school district budget report, and am combing through the numbers. I have asked for some clarifications from the district, and will post details as soon as I get them.
Copies of the draft budget are available for free at the school district office. On June 17, the school board will meet and discuss the details; the public can attend, but can't speak. I encourage everyone to attend June 17 to hear what's going on, then go the next week, on June 25, for the public hearing and school board vote.
Stay tuned!
Copies of the draft budget are available for free at the school district office. On June 17, the school board will meet and discuss the details; the public can attend, but can't speak. I encourage everyone to attend June 17 to hear what's going on, then go the next week, on June 25, for the public hearing and school board vote.
Stay tuned!
Capacity study not presented
FYI: It looks like the capacity study wsn't on the June 11 agenda on purpose! The subject didn't come up at all at last night's school board meeting.
Maybe the school district is holding off requesting it until the new capital facilities plan is released in July.
I have requested information on this from the district, and will keep you all updated!
Maybe the school district is holding off requesting it until the new capital facilities plan is released in July.
I have requested information on this from the district, and will keep you all updated!
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Draft Budget to be ready June 15
This just in from Nancy Merry, at the Superintendent's Office:
Our business office is currently working on the draft budget and will have draft copies available prior to the School Board’s budget work study session at 7 p.m. June 17 in the Board Room. Print copies of the draft budget should be available at the district office on Monday, June 15.
The study session is an opportunity for the Board to review and discuss the draft budget. It is open to the public for observation only. The final budget will go to the School Board at the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. June 25. As always, there is opportunity for public comment at the Board meeting. The final budget will be posted online.
Our business office is currently working on the draft budget and will have draft copies available prior to the School Board’s budget work study session at 7 p.m. June 17 in the Board Room. Print copies of the draft budget should be available at the district office on Monday, June 15.
The study session is an opportunity for the Board to review and discuss the draft budget. It is open to the public for observation only. The final budget will go to the School Board at the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. June 25. As always, there is opportunity for public comment at the Board meeting. The final budget will be posted online.
What is the final 2009-10 budget?
The school district is required to make its final budget available to the public, before it is presented at a public hearing and voted on by the school board.
This is supposed to happen by July 1 each year.
I requested this information from the superintendent's office last week, and have yet to hear back from them!
The final proposed budget, with the actual cuts, has not been approved yet. The list the board voted on in March was a proposed list of budget cuts, meaning that the district was to go down the list and make the cuts until a set amount of money has been saved.
If you look at that proposed list (see links at right), the superintendent's office has crossed off many of those approved cuts.
We still don't know what the budget is for next year, how much money the district can spend, how much it needs to cut from last year's budget, how much money it is receiving from the state and from federal stimulus funds.
We don't know if the superintendent's office will, after all, follow through on that approved budget cut list, or not.
Call the superintendent's office - 676-6501 - and ask for the final proposed budget.
This is supposed to happen by July 1 each year.
I requested this information from the superintendent's office last week, and have yet to hear back from them!
The final proposed budget, with the actual cuts, has not been approved yet. The list the board voted on in March was a proposed list of budget cuts, meaning that the district was to go down the list and make the cuts until a set amount of money has been saved.
If you look at that proposed list (see links at right), the superintendent's office has crossed off many of those approved cuts.
We still don't know what the budget is for next year, how much money the district can spend, how much it needs to cut from last year's budget, how much money it is receiving from the state and from federal stimulus funds.
We don't know if the superintendent's office will, after all, follow through on that approved budget cut list, or not.
Call the superintendent's office - 676-6501 - and ask for the final proposed budget.
School board June 11 agenda update
The attachments were posted to the School Board's June 11 agenda today, and there's no mention of the "capacity" or "efficiency" study.
The superintendent has a time slot for a report, but no details are provided.
However, according to a member of the Parent Advisory Committee, at that committee's meeting on June 3 the superintendent said he would be revising his "Capacity Utilization Study" request and bringing that back to the school board on June 11, with a start date for the task force sometime in the fall (versus August). Applications for the task force will probably be due sometime this summer, but a date cannot be set until the school board approves the study.
Also, according to the school board minutes from the May 28 regular meeting, this is how they view the superintendent's report on the capacity study:
Capacity Study
Superintendent Kenneth Vedra addressed the Board about the need to name a task force to make a comparative, descriptive study of all K–12 schools in the district. The study would look at school/instructional site capacity, school/instructional site utilization, current and historical enrollment demographics, attendance areas and feeder patterns, future enrollment projections, site operational costs, and instructional and non-instructional space assignments.
The task force will make a written recommendation to the superintendent concerning capacity and use of existing instructional facilities and any recommendation related to future cost savings based on their study.
Dr. Vedra recommends the task force be comprised of forty voting members,including parents; students; patrons; certificated, classified, and itinerant staff; school administrators and central office representatives. In addition, four non-voting members will be part of the task force. He proposed a final written report would be made to the superintendent in
December 2009.
Director Rhode asked for clarification of the research model and who would provide the data. According to Dr. Vedra, there is state and national data available for the task force to review as well as district data on enrollment. Ron Cowan, assistant superitnendent of Business and Operations, indicated that every six years, the Capital Facility Plan is required by law to be updated. It was last done in 2004 so the Board will be asked to approve a new Capital Facility Plan in July for the next six years. This data will also be used for the Capacity Study.
The Board asked for clarification on the number of years the district is able to collect impact fees before they are required to use them. Mr. Cowan will verify this information.
The superintendent has a time slot for a report, but no details are provided.
However, according to a member of the Parent Advisory Committee, at that committee's meeting on June 3 the superintendent said he would be revising his "Capacity Utilization Study" request and bringing that back to the school board on June 11, with a start date for the task force sometime in the fall (versus August). Applications for the task force will probably be due sometime this summer, but a date cannot be set until the school board approves the study.
Also, according to the school board minutes from the May 28 regular meeting, this is how they view the superintendent's report on the capacity study:
Capacity Study
Superintendent Kenneth Vedra addressed the Board about the need to name a task force to make a comparative, descriptive study of all K–12 schools in the district. The study would look at school/instructional site capacity, school/instructional site utilization, current and historical enrollment demographics, attendance areas and feeder patterns, future enrollment projections, site operational costs, and instructional and non-instructional space assignments.
The task force will make a written recommendation to the superintendent concerning capacity and use of existing instructional facilities and any recommendation related to future cost savings based on their study.
Dr. Vedra recommends the task force be comprised of forty voting members,including parents; students; patrons; certificated, classified, and itinerant staff; school administrators and central office representatives. In addition, four non-voting members will be part of the task force. He proposed a final written report would be made to the superintendent in
December 2009.
Director Rhode asked for clarification of the research model and who would provide the data. According to Dr. Vedra, there is state and national data available for the task force to review as well as district data on enrollment. Ron Cowan, assistant superitnendent of Business and Operations, indicated that every six years, the Capital Facility Plan is required by law to be updated. It was last done in 2004 so the Board will be asked to approve a new Capital Facility Plan in July for the next six years. This data will also be used for the Capacity Study.
The Board asked for clarification on the number of years the district is able to collect impact fees before they are required to use them. Mr. Cowan will verify this information.
Friday, June 5, 2009
School board candidates file
Four people have filed this week as candidates for the two open Bellingham School District positions being vacated by Melody Rhode and Steve Schoenfeld:
For DIRECTOR POS 4:
Rogan Jones
Steven H. Smith
For DIRECTOR POS 5:
Michael Jay
Scott Stockburger
Here's to good debates on important issues!
For DIRECTOR POS 4:
Rogan Jones
Steven H. Smith
For DIRECTOR POS 5:
Michael Jay
Scott Stockburger
Here's to good debates on important issues!
June 11 School Board agenda
The agenda for the June 11 Bellingham School Board was posted online today; there's not much detail on it, so we'll have to wait till the attachments are put online to see what's on the consent agenda, etc.
At the last school board meeting May 28, the superintendent had asked the school board to vote on the capacity study at the June 11 meeting, which starts at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room at Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont Street.
Here's the agenda:
1. OPENING ITEMS
1.01 Meeting Date and Location
1.02 Executive Session
1.03 Roll Call
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
2.01 Approval of Minutes of May 28, 2009 Regular Meeting
2.02 Approval of Investments
2.03 Approval of Expenditures and Payroll
2.04 Personal Services Contract
2.05 Agreement – Extended School Year
2.06 Call for Bids – Shuksan Middle School Classroom Audio Visual Intrastructure System
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3.01 School Board Directors' Reports
3.02 Legislative Report
3.03 Superintendent's Announcements and Report
3.04 Shining Stars Recognition
3.05 Audience Comments
4. REPORTS
4.01 Healthy Youth Survey Report for 2008–2009
4.02 Title IX Compliance Report for 2008–09
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.01 Student Athletics and Activities Pay Schedule
5.02 Food Service Meal Prices 2009–10
5.03 Award of Bid - Shuksan Middle School Phase 2
5.04 Policy and Procedures 3442, Anaphylaxis Prevention – Second Reading
5.05 Policy 6890, State Enviornmental Policy Act Compliance – First Reading
5.06 Personnel Recommendations, preliminary
6. CLOSING ITEMS
6.01 Adjournment
At the last school board meeting May 28, the superintendent had asked the school board to vote on the capacity study at the June 11 meeting, which starts at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room at Roeder Administration Building, 1306 Dupont Street.
Here's the agenda:
1. OPENING ITEMS
1.01 Meeting Date and Location
1.02 Executive Session
1.03 Roll Call
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
2.01 Approval of Minutes of May 28, 2009 Regular Meeting
2.02 Approval of Investments
2.03 Approval of Expenditures and Payroll
2.04 Personal Services Contract
2.05 Agreement – Extended School Year
2.06 Call for Bids – Shuksan Middle School Classroom Audio Visual Intrastructure System
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3.01 School Board Directors' Reports
3.02 Legislative Report
3.03 Superintendent's Announcements and Report
3.04 Shining Stars Recognition
3.05 Audience Comments
4. REPORTS
4.01 Healthy Youth Survey Report for 2008–2009
4.02 Title IX Compliance Report for 2008–09
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.01 Student Athletics and Activities Pay Schedule
5.02 Food Service Meal Prices 2009–10
5.03 Award of Bid - Shuksan Middle School Phase 2
5.04 Policy and Procedures 3442, Anaphylaxis Prevention – Second Reading
5.05 Policy 6890, State Enviornmental Policy Act Compliance – First Reading
5.06 Personnel Recommendations, preliminary
6. CLOSING ITEMS
6.01 Adjournment
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Community support at forum
Thank you Citizens Forum for hosting last night's discussion on neighborhood schools. I didn't count heads, but it looked to be about 30 0r 40 people, from various parts of the community, geographically and demographically.
People had some very thought-provoking statements, and good ideas about neighborhood schools. The consensus appeared to be that neighborhood schools are important for the whole community, people are concerned about their future and wondering why the school district and school board are making some decisions.
Some key points:
* Looking at the utility of a building is not the same thing as assessing how we educate children. A school's efficiency is about how many children it graduates, not its utility costs.
* Once neighborhood schools are closed, that property can't be regained. As the population grows, these classrooms will be needed again, and current state laws and property values won't allow the school district to repurchase these neighborhood-central pieces of land. Once they're gone, they're gone forever.
* We can already see the impacts of removing a school from a neighborhood. York children used to walk to Carl Cozier Elementary, but about five or six years ago, were redistricted and bused across town to Lowell. The demographics of York have changed as a result, with fewer families choosing to buy homes there, and about half of the homes rented to college students. A real estate agent pointed out that questions about schools are in the top three asked when people are looking to buy a home, and even people without children choose homes in school-centric neighborhoods.
* The costs of putting up new school buildings on the edge of the city, or outside city limits, goes beyond the construction costs. The city has chosen not to annex the property that includes the new Wade King elementary because of associated costs including putting in a new fire station, building roads and sidewalks, etc. While the Aldrich Road school site has recently been annexed, it faces similar future funding problems, as it sits at the border of the Meridian School District, and is unlikely to capture as much growth. This is not good long-term planning. The city, county and school district need to work together on this.
* The Bellingham Comprehensive Plan includes language throughout the document that requires schools to be retained as a key part of neighborhoods and the community. This is required by the state's Growth Management Act. The school district should adhere to the requirements
of the city and state they're in.
* When neighborhood schools are shut down, people with wealth decide to send their kids to private schools, draining the public school system of students and monetary support. Historically, Bellingham's neighborhood schools have had the support and children from these wealthy families; this is already starting to change.
People had some very thought-provoking statements, and good ideas about neighborhood schools. The consensus appeared to be that neighborhood schools are important for the whole community, people are concerned about their future and wondering why the school district and school board are making some decisions.
Some key points:
* Looking at the utility of a building is not the same thing as assessing how we educate children. A school's efficiency is about how many children it graduates, not its utility costs.
* Once neighborhood schools are closed, that property can't be regained. As the population grows, these classrooms will be needed again, and current state laws and property values won't allow the school district to repurchase these neighborhood-central pieces of land. Once they're gone, they're gone forever.
* We can already see the impacts of removing a school from a neighborhood. York children used to walk to Carl Cozier Elementary, but about five or six years ago, were redistricted and bused across town to Lowell. The demographics of York have changed as a result, with fewer families choosing to buy homes there, and about half of the homes rented to college students. A real estate agent pointed out that questions about schools are in the top three asked when people are looking to buy a home, and even people without children choose homes in school-centric neighborhoods.
* The costs of putting up new school buildings on the edge of the city, or outside city limits, goes beyond the construction costs. The city has chosen not to annex the property that includes the new Wade King elementary because of associated costs including putting in a new fire station, building roads and sidewalks, etc. While the Aldrich Road school site has recently been annexed, it faces similar future funding problems, as it sits at the border of the Meridian School District, and is unlikely to capture as much growth. This is not good long-term planning. The city, county and school district need to work together on this.
* The Bellingham Comprehensive Plan includes language throughout the document that requires schools to be retained as a key part of neighborhoods and the community. This is required by the state's Growth Management Act. The school district should adhere to the requirements
of the city and state they're in.
* When neighborhood schools are shut down, people with wealth decide to send their kids to private schools, draining the public school system of students and monetary support. Historically, Bellingham's neighborhood schools have had the support and children from these wealthy families; this is already starting to change.
Citizens Forum schools presentation
Here is the presentation I gave at the Citizens Forum June 2:
My name is Melissa Schapiro, and I want to tell you about the Neighborhood Schools Coalition to support Bellingham’s existing neighborhood schools.
We are families who decided to build our lives in this community, because of its strong neighborhoods and schools. We are retired educators who have taught several generations of Bellingham citizens. We are parents who grew up attending Bellingham schools. We are long-time neighborhood activists who value schools’ roles as community centers.
We are also voters who approved a $67 million bond in 2006 to make sure that neighborhood schools would be saved. And we are dismayed that those same schools are the ones the school district is trying to shut down.
We're concerned that the Bellingham School District, and the Superintendent's Office are taking the district in a direction contrary to Bellingham citizen's stated values and goals for our city.
We are appealing to people from all corners of our community to get involved, to make sure the district provides support and operating funds for our existing neighborhood elementary schools and a broad-based education for all of our elementary age students.
Many things have happened over the last year. What happened to Lowell School is just the beginning of what will happen to this community if we allow the superintendent and school board to continue on this path.
Last year at this time, the community at Lowell was wrapping up another year, a special year, knowing they would be split apart while the building was being made safe. The principal, teachers, and parents had gone to extraordinary measures to explain the transition process. Kids weren’t just reassigned to a new school. Instead, through art projects, creative writing, and Monday morning gatherings they talked about change -- exploring what it meant to be somewhere else, how we would be guests at someone else’s school for one year, and that, when the building was strong and safe, they would return to Lowell.
In the fall, the budget advisory committee appointed by the Bellingham School District placed Lowell at the top of the list of budget cutting ideas – keep the school closed a second year, save $450,000. It was easy for everyone outside of Lowell to say, great idea, easy way to save money, it didn’t seem to affect them. And, by the way, stop complaining, because it’s only one more year, and it’s already closed.
Before the state and federal budgets were complete, before Bellingham School District had any idea how much it needed to cut from its budget, the school district announced Lowell would not reopen in fall 2009, regardless. Then, the superintendent offered Lowell parents another option. Raise $450,000 in five days, and Lowell will reopen. It turns out, it was a carrot that didn’t exist – the district can’t accept that kind of money without board approval, donations can’t be targeted to one school, or used for salaries. While the district didn't make that clear, it did announce that parents failed to raise the money.
The superintendent also said he would never close a school without first performing a study. And as promised, the superintendent last week requested the school board approve a “capacity” study of Bellingham’s schools – designed just like the budget advisory committee, with members hand-picked by the superintendent’s office, all data provided by the superintendent's office, and no professional guidance. This study is aimed at shutting down elementary schools, and funneling children to newly built 500-plus student schools on the outskirts of town -- busing required. The superintendent has publicly stated that there is no promise that Lowell will reopen, or that other schools won’t be closed, after this “one year” delay and “capacity” study.
This is Lowell’s story. But it’s the beginning of a bigger story about a change in Bellingham’s school district. It foreshadows more school closures to come.
It’s a change, because you, the Bellingham voters, said you want neighborhood schools. You value them so much that you overwhelmingly passed the 2006 bond to fix existing schools, and to build a new one – Wade King – to relieve overcrowding and get kids out of portables. By keeping Lowell closed and empty, the school district will keep students at Happy Valley in 7 portables, and at Larrabee in three portables – which the school district pointed out in its own pro-bond literature are substandard.
Lowell’s upgrade will be complete this month (June 2009); Columbia’s building upgrades are already complete, and Larrabee’s will be finished this summer. But these are the schools targeted for closure.
The school board has violated Bellingham voters’ trust. They said they would support these existing schools, they said new schools were being built to ease overcrowding, with target populations of around 250 students for existing elementaries, because our youngest children fare best in this size setting.
It’s a change, because the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan values schools in the heart of neighborhoods, where kids can walk or bike to school, and where the school serves as a community center. The Comp Plan includes schools as one of the basic elements each neighborhood should have, along with parks and small-scale retail -- to service and complement the homes of that community. Lowell, Larrabee and Columbia are perfect examples of successful, neighborhood schools, serving exactly the sort of development the city is encouraging in our community. Neighborhood schools are integral to our city’s stated growth plan.
It’s a change, because although the school district’s current facilities plan had expected to have 10,880 students by 2009, calling for building one new elementary school, enrollment is flat. The new school has been built – Wade King – but as of March 2009, only 9,831 full- time equivalent students were enrolled districtwide. The district has permanent capacity to house 10,240 students. We have more than enough room for our students without more schools.
But the superintendent and school board are pushing forward with building more new schools, on the edge of the city or outside city limits, with 500-student capacities. They’ll have to close neighborhood schools to provide operating funds and students for these news schools, which are being “branded” with specialty programs. If allowed, this will create a driving nightmare, with parents and kids competing to get into each school, then driving across town for pickups and drop-offs, with siblings at different schools. It will pull apart the neighborhoods Bellingham has been so careful to craft.
The school board is doing this, while publicly stating in a resolution directed at the Bellingham City Council, that it doesn’t have money to operate its existing schools.
Everyone knows these are tough economic times. We all are touched by people who have lost jobs, or homes, or been reassigned to lesser-paying positions. Every school district is making cuts.
But unlike Ferndale, which said “no” when asked to close Beach School on Lummi Island to save money, the Bellingham school board says, yes, it’s a great idea.
The school board has lost touch with what Bellingham voters want.
The superintendent never was in touch – he works part time, draws a full time salary, and flies back and forth to Colorado, where his wife and kids live. Contrary to the district’s announcement on hiring him, he didn’t move here with his family. He didn’t enroll his children in Bellingham schools. He isn’t invested in this community. Rather, he’s invested in the International Baccalaureate program, whose board he serves on, and which he brought to Wade King Elementary and is bringing to Northern Heights and Carl Cozier elementaries, costing our school district tens of thousands of dollars.
The School Board continues to spend money on the IB program, and will send 21 people to IB training conferences this summer in Georgia, Colorado and California.
The school board is spending $132,000 on a controversial new math curriculum (TERC) that is not supported by the state superintendent of public instruction or the state board of education.
How can the Bellingham School Board responsibly authorize continued spending on specialty programs and building new schools, when they say they don’t have money to operate existing schools?
The issue of capital budgets vs. operating budgets is a smoke screen: if you don’t have the money to operate, why build a school just because you can? This is fiscally irresponsible. This is our money.
Don’t let them do this. The school board needs to hold off on specialty programs and building new schools, and focus on what it’s supposed to be doing: teaching kids in appropriate classrooms at neighborhood schools.
This is Bellingham. Let’s keep it that way.
My name is Melissa Schapiro, and I want to tell you about the Neighborhood Schools Coalition to support Bellingham’s existing neighborhood schools.
We are families who decided to build our lives in this community, because of its strong neighborhoods and schools. We are retired educators who have taught several generations of Bellingham citizens. We are parents who grew up attending Bellingham schools. We are long-time neighborhood activists who value schools’ roles as community centers.
We are also voters who approved a $67 million bond in 2006 to make sure that neighborhood schools would be saved. And we are dismayed that those same schools are the ones the school district is trying to shut down.
We're concerned that the Bellingham School District, and the Superintendent's Office are taking the district in a direction contrary to Bellingham citizen's stated values and goals for our city.
We are appealing to people from all corners of our community to get involved, to make sure the district provides support and operating funds for our existing neighborhood elementary schools and a broad-based education for all of our elementary age students.
Many things have happened over the last year. What happened to Lowell School is just the beginning of what will happen to this community if we allow the superintendent and school board to continue on this path.
Last year at this time, the community at Lowell was wrapping up another year, a special year, knowing they would be split apart while the building was being made safe. The principal, teachers, and parents had gone to extraordinary measures to explain the transition process. Kids weren’t just reassigned to a new school. Instead, through art projects, creative writing, and Monday morning gatherings they talked about change -- exploring what it meant to be somewhere else, how we would be guests at someone else’s school for one year, and that, when the building was strong and safe, they would return to Lowell.
In the fall, the budget advisory committee appointed by the Bellingham School District placed Lowell at the top of the list of budget cutting ideas – keep the school closed a second year, save $450,000. It was easy for everyone outside of Lowell to say, great idea, easy way to save money, it didn’t seem to affect them. And, by the way, stop complaining, because it’s only one more year, and it’s already closed.
Before the state and federal budgets were complete, before Bellingham School District had any idea how much it needed to cut from its budget, the school district announced Lowell would not reopen in fall 2009, regardless. Then, the superintendent offered Lowell parents another option. Raise $450,000 in five days, and Lowell will reopen. It turns out, it was a carrot that didn’t exist – the district can’t accept that kind of money without board approval, donations can’t be targeted to one school, or used for salaries. While the district didn't make that clear, it did announce that parents failed to raise the money.
The superintendent also said he would never close a school without first performing a study. And as promised, the superintendent last week requested the school board approve a “capacity” study of Bellingham’s schools – designed just like the budget advisory committee, with members hand-picked by the superintendent’s office, all data provided by the superintendent's office, and no professional guidance. This study is aimed at shutting down elementary schools, and funneling children to newly built 500-plus student schools on the outskirts of town -- busing required. The superintendent has publicly stated that there is no promise that Lowell will reopen, or that other schools won’t be closed, after this “one year” delay and “capacity” study.
This is Lowell’s story. But it’s the beginning of a bigger story about a change in Bellingham’s school district. It foreshadows more school closures to come.
It’s a change, because you, the Bellingham voters, said you want neighborhood schools. You value them so much that you overwhelmingly passed the 2006 bond to fix existing schools, and to build a new one – Wade King – to relieve overcrowding and get kids out of portables. By keeping Lowell closed and empty, the school district will keep students at Happy Valley in 7 portables, and at Larrabee in three portables – which the school district pointed out in its own pro-bond literature are substandard.
Lowell’s upgrade will be complete this month (June 2009); Columbia’s building upgrades are already complete, and Larrabee’s will be finished this summer. But these are the schools targeted for closure.
The school board has violated Bellingham voters’ trust. They said they would support these existing schools, they said new schools were being built to ease overcrowding, with target populations of around 250 students for existing elementaries, because our youngest children fare best in this size setting.
It’s a change, because the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan values schools in the heart of neighborhoods, where kids can walk or bike to school, and where the school serves as a community center. The Comp Plan includes schools as one of the basic elements each neighborhood should have, along with parks and small-scale retail -- to service and complement the homes of that community. Lowell, Larrabee and Columbia are perfect examples of successful, neighborhood schools, serving exactly the sort of development the city is encouraging in our community. Neighborhood schools are integral to our city’s stated growth plan.
It’s a change, because although the school district’s current facilities plan had expected to have 10,880 students by 2009, calling for building one new elementary school, enrollment is flat. The new school has been built – Wade King – but as of March 2009, only 9,831 full- time equivalent students were enrolled districtwide. The district has permanent capacity to house 10,240 students. We have more than enough room for our students without more schools.
But the superintendent and school board are pushing forward with building more new schools, on the edge of the city or outside city limits, with 500-student capacities. They’ll have to close neighborhood schools to provide operating funds and students for these news schools, which are being “branded” with specialty programs. If allowed, this will create a driving nightmare, with parents and kids competing to get into each school, then driving across town for pickups and drop-offs, with siblings at different schools. It will pull apart the neighborhoods Bellingham has been so careful to craft.
The school board is doing this, while publicly stating in a resolution directed at the Bellingham City Council, that it doesn’t have money to operate its existing schools.
Everyone knows these are tough economic times. We all are touched by people who have lost jobs, or homes, or been reassigned to lesser-paying positions. Every school district is making cuts.
But unlike Ferndale, which said “no” when asked to close Beach School on Lummi Island to save money, the Bellingham school board says, yes, it’s a great idea.
The school board has lost touch with what Bellingham voters want.
The superintendent never was in touch – he works part time, draws a full time salary, and flies back and forth to Colorado, where his wife and kids live. Contrary to the district’s announcement on hiring him, he didn’t move here with his family. He didn’t enroll his children in Bellingham schools. He isn’t invested in this community. Rather, he’s invested in the International Baccalaureate program, whose board he serves on, and which he brought to Wade King Elementary and is bringing to Northern Heights and Carl Cozier elementaries, costing our school district tens of thousands of dollars.
The School Board continues to spend money on the IB program, and will send 21 people to IB training conferences this summer in Georgia, Colorado and California.
The school board is spending $132,000 on a controversial new math curriculum (TERC) that is not supported by the state superintendent of public instruction or the state board of education.
How can the Bellingham School Board responsibly authorize continued spending on specialty programs and building new schools, when they say they don’t have money to operate existing schools?
The issue of capital budgets vs. operating budgets is a smoke screen: if you don’t have the money to operate, why build a school just because you can? This is fiscally irresponsible. This is our money.
Don’t let them do this. The school board needs to hold off on specialty programs and building new schools, and focus on what it’s supposed to be doing: teaching kids in appropriate classrooms at neighborhood schools.
This is Bellingham. Let’s keep it that way.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Neighborhood Schools
Citizens' Forum and the Neighborhood Schools Coalition present an open discussion with parents, concerned citizens and neighborhood leaders on
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS: HOW VALUABLE ARE THEY TO OUR COMMUNITY?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
6:30PM – 8:30PM
Fountain Community Church, 2100 Broadway
(one block east of Meridian, up ramp from parking lot)
• What do our public schools mean to the neighborhoods they are in?
• Walkability, smaller schools, involved neighbors – what is best for
children?
• What are the economic realities and how should neighborhood
schools be financed?
• The school board – its relationship and obligation to parents and the
community.
• Will infill and a changing demographic impact our neighborhood
schools?
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS: HOW VALUABLE ARE THEY TO OUR COMMUNITY?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
6:30PM – 8:30PM
Fountain Community Church, 2100 Broadway
(one block east of Meridian, up ramp from parking lot)
• What do our public schools mean to the neighborhoods they are in?
• Walkability, smaller schools, involved neighbors – what is best for
children?
• What are the economic realities and how should neighborhood
schools be financed?
• The school board – its relationship and obligation to parents and the
community.
• Will infill and a changing demographic impact our neighborhood
schools?
Friday, May 29, 2009
School Board followup
Report from Wendy Jones:
Last night (Thursday, May 28), Superintendent Vedra presented the school board the draft capacity study he has cooked up to evaluate and then close small schools. Several people were able to speak to the board before the study was presented, and the board members actually heard us. We told them the study was flawed, the time frame was too short, and that these are not the times to make big decisions to close schools.
Lisa Iverson put on her professional hat, and told them that making big changes after a series of losses, and all of these cuts have been losses, is damaging to children. She urged them to slow down.
Teresa Hamilton went through the draft plan and highlighted the flaws point by point, showing that it is basically a complete sham.
I told them that closing schools would chase students away to the private schools leading to a costly decrease in enrollment, and reminded them that taxpayers specifically asked to have their neighborhood schools retrofit and then wanted their children placed back inside them. By closing the schools they promised to preserve, the board puts themselves in a terrible position. Taxpayers will remember that their money was mismanaged, and the next time the schools try to pass a levy they will not succeed.
School board member Ken Gass had little to say. Board member Kelly Bashaw thought the study was a good idea. Board President Steve Schoenfeld noticed the due date of the study was December 17, which was a good catch. He remarked that he was glad he was not going to be one of the two newly elected school board members, because they would be presented with the study and asked to vote on it at the same meeting they would be sworn in at.
Board member Melody Rhode, however, really saw that this study was very poorly planned. She asked who the experts would be, to guide the volunteers through the process. Vedra answered in circles. She asked where the source information would come from. Vedra said the information will be collected by the committee with the help of the school district. She clearly saw that Vedra intends to provide his own data to a group of unskilled volunteers and then ask them to make decisions that will change the direction of our schools for the next 15 years. She was not happy.
Board member Ann Whitmyer took the historian position once again, saying that these studies are nothing to worry about and that they are performed every few years. She called on the senior staff to help her remember some study that was done at some time and had nothing to do with anything.
At this point she asked the district's assistant superintendent, Ron Cowan if he could remember the studies of yore. This was an unwittingly brilliant move. Now that Ron Cowan had been recognized, he stood up and gave us some good information, some information which could make the capacity study redundant and send Vedra back to the drawing board. Ron Cowan related that his office is required to perform a Capital Facilities Plan every 5 years or so. The current plan expires this month, and his office will present the board with the new 5 year capital facilities plan in July. He basically told the whole room that his nearly complete study had already done what Vedra was looking for, and that it was done by professionals with real data. He made Vedra's plan look like a silly waste of time.
It was a great meeting. We made a difference this time. It feels good. So...
The next thing is the Citizen's Forum meeting June 2.
Try to bring a friend from the north side of town who cares about neighborhood schools.
Last night (Thursday, May 28), Superintendent Vedra presented the school board the draft capacity study he has cooked up to evaluate and then close small schools. Several people were able to speak to the board before the study was presented, and the board members actually heard us. We told them the study was flawed, the time frame was too short, and that these are not the times to make big decisions to close schools.
Lisa Iverson put on her professional hat, and told them that making big changes after a series of losses, and all of these cuts have been losses, is damaging to children. She urged them to slow down.
Teresa Hamilton went through the draft plan and highlighted the flaws point by point, showing that it is basically a complete sham.
I told them that closing schools would chase students away to the private schools leading to a costly decrease in enrollment, and reminded them that taxpayers specifically asked to have their neighborhood schools retrofit and then wanted their children placed back inside them. By closing the schools they promised to preserve, the board puts themselves in a terrible position. Taxpayers will remember that their money was mismanaged, and the next time the schools try to pass a levy they will not succeed.
School board member Ken Gass had little to say. Board member Kelly Bashaw thought the study was a good idea. Board President Steve Schoenfeld noticed the due date of the study was December 17, which was a good catch. He remarked that he was glad he was not going to be one of the two newly elected school board members, because they would be presented with the study and asked to vote on it at the same meeting they would be sworn in at.
Board member Melody Rhode, however, really saw that this study was very poorly planned. She asked who the experts would be, to guide the volunteers through the process. Vedra answered in circles. She asked where the source information would come from. Vedra said the information will be collected by the committee with the help of the school district. She clearly saw that Vedra intends to provide his own data to a group of unskilled volunteers and then ask them to make decisions that will change the direction of our schools for the next 15 years. She was not happy.
Board member Ann Whitmyer took the historian position once again, saying that these studies are nothing to worry about and that they are performed every few years. She called on the senior staff to help her remember some study that was done at some time and had nothing to do with anything.
At this point she asked the district's assistant superintendent, Ron Cowan if he could remember the studies of yore. This was an unwittingly brilliant move. Now that Ron Cowan had been recognized, he stood up and gave us some good information, some information which could make the capacity study redundant and send Vedra back to the drawing board. Ron Cowan related that his office is required to perform a Capital Facilities Plan every 5 years or so. The current plan expires this month, and his office will present the board with the new 5 year capital facilities plan in July. He basically told the whole room that his nearly complete study had already done what Vedra was looking for, and that it was done by professionals with real data. He made Vedra's plan look like a silly waste of time.
It was a great meeting. We made a difference this time. It feels good. So...
The next thing is the Citizen's Forum meeting June 2.
Try to bring a friend from the north side of town who cares about neighborhood schools.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Superintendent requests capacity study
At the Bellingham School District board meeting Thursday, May 28, 7:30 p.m., Superintendant Ken Vedra presented a draft facility capacity study.
Here's the agenda item:
The Superintendent indicated to the Board and the community that we would initiate a capacity and facilities utilization study during the budget savings process. Attached is a draft recommendation of the report proposal from the Superintendent for the Board's consideration. If the Board requests additional requirements be considered, please indicate the necessary changes. The task force proposal will be recommended for approval at the June 11, 2009 School Board meeting.
Draft facility capacity study
This is a big deal. Read it carefully ... notice the reference to "small" schools. They're setting it up just like the budget advisory committee ... the superintendent will give the final recommendation to the board. If he wants to close schools, he will. And he's made his feelings clear.
Here's the agenda item:
The Superintendent indicated to the Board and the community that we would initiate a capacity and facilities utilization study during the budget savings process. Attached is a draft recommendation of the report proposal from the Superintendent for the Board's consideration. If the Board requests additional requirements be considered, please indicate the necessary changes. The task force proposal will be recommended for approval at the June 11, 2009 School Board meeting.
Draft facility capacity study
This is a big deal. Read it carefully ... notice the reference to "small" schools. They're setting it up just like the budget advisory committee ... the superintendent will give the final recommendation to the board. If he wants to close schools, he will. And he's made his feelings clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)