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.