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."