Other Options

First, a re-cap of how we got here:

The East Lansing School District did not wake up one morning in
October 2009, suddenly facing aging elementary school buildings, or
suddenly having too many transitions of their students between
buildings. They did, however, suddenly face a severe cut in per pupil
allowance by the State of Michigan, which caused a budget shortfall in
the 2009-2010 school year. This prompted a planning process that
focused on the configuration of the K-8 facilities, with the following
goals set:

"Ultimately the Board of Education plans on making thoughtful,
reasonable decisions that will meet five fundamental goals which were
established last year:
1) strengthen the learning environment for students,
2) reduce long-term general fund expenditures,
3) promote operational efficiency and energy conservation,
4) optimize the use of facilities, and
5) maintain the safety of students." (K-8 Citizens Committee Charge)

During a process that was largely facilitated by the architecture firm
that had been contracted (just read the minutes of this committee's
meetings), it became apparent that the funding source for this
project, the School Bond Qualification and Loan Program, would be
quickly dwindling if one was not to act fast: the bonding capacity,
based on the rolling average of the taxable value of the district over
the last five years (by projecting it's average growth out to 30
years), would sharply drop once the years from before the housing
market crisis will be taken out of the equation. See Eliot Singer's
explanations on this topic. The focus then shifted, and the main
objective steered away from the five fundamental goals originally
stated. Instead, the focus became how to pass a bond proposal that
would supply about $60M to new and reconfigured K-8 buildings. George
Brookover, former board member, got it right in his statement he read
during a long board meeting on September 26, 2011: "The only real
reason we are rushing to a decision tonight is because we are worried
about “losing” taxing capacity if we don’t rush to a February vote."

One of the mistakes that were made very early on, even before the
citizens committee was formed, was to contract an architecture firm
that mainly deals with new construction instead of renovations, to
provide a no-charge site and building evaluation of the districts
elementary and middle schools, with the implication that the same firm
would provide the architectural services if schools were to be
rebuild. A 2004 article by the Michigan Land Use Institute
(co-authored by Public Sector Consultants, whose CEO Jeff Williams is
now promoting the bond proposal) entitled "Hard Lessons", lists ten
recommendations that should be followed. I am quoting number four of
these recommendations:

"Encourage districts to improve their system of assessing the
condition and capacity of all school facilities by paying for
independent assessments that provide truly accurate information about
the costs of both renovation and new construction. These assessments
must include a comprehensive comparison of the costs of building a new
school versus renovating an existing one, including all short- and
long-range land, infrastructure, staffing, and transportation expenses."

This recommendation was clearly not followed in the current process,
leading to big-scale reconstruction being viewed as the best option
for the district.

Second, the School Board's conservative choices:

The school board has told us that they were conservative in their
projection of taxable value growth of only 0.15% and not "maxing out
the credit card", as some have suggested, by borrowing less than the
current bonding capacity of $62.1M. Yet the projected growth rate is
not a choice but prescribed by the SBQLP process. Furthermore, looking
at the projected payment schedules that are part of the bond
application, it seems impossible for the district to borrow more than
$53M without raising the millage above 7.0 mills, or extending the
time frame to more than 30 years (the School Loan Revolving Fund has
to be payed back within 6 years of ending payments on the main bond),
at least based on the projected numbers, which are basis - realistic
or not - of the bond application. Nevertheless, the board decided to
still spend close to $60M, making up for it by emptying the sinking
fund, and calling it conservative.

Third, Schools of Choice is great:

Schools of choice (SOC) is great because we can fill the extra
capacity with kids from surrounding districts. But what happens if you
close a well performing elementary school with large SOC population in
the district, and at the same time embark on a multi-year
reconstruction process at all other elementary school sites? Now
schools of choice also means that parents can put their kids in other
districts.

What I would like to see is the continued use of schools of choice to
support a neighborhood school in an area that otherwise might not be
able to fill that school. If the district is already talking about
filling up the schools with SOC, why not do it that way? This would
easily provide an elementary school to all kids in the district,
despite not so favorable demographics in some areas. Instead, a
majority of the School Board decided to invest in five school sites
that cover a limited area of the districts population. Never mind that
that limited area includes the more affluent parts of the district.

Fourth, democracy at work:

Since this is a democratic process, the voters will decide if this
bond passes or not. However, the school district does not recognize
this, as evidenced by the fact that there is no plan for the
possibility that the bond does not pass, except a resolution which
will be difficult and problematic to realize (i.e. closing a school
that is at capacity when there is no adequate funding to build the
extra space plus keeping up existing buildings with delayed
maintenance schedules). The school district instead stresses that
there is no viable option if the bond does not pass.



In conclusion, I think the current proposal is based on a number of
bad choices and assumptions. It is making severe compromises in order
to win the support of an influential (and voting) group of residents.
I also have the feeling these compromises are made in order to keep a
project of about $60M, whomever that satisfies. And this is not the
first time this happened.

There are other options out there, there are smarter ways of investing
in our schools. East Lansing deserves these to be looked at.
-> Reply to this Essay
-> Email this article to friend