Letter in Support of School Board’s Six School Plan

I have been asked by many why the school board majority didn’t respond to the flurry of press coverage given to a press release from two members of the school board. Even the editor of the paper asked the five members supporting the six school plan to write up a response.

The problem with theses requests is that, with the exception of specific code-referenced instances, an elected board of officials must conduct its business in public view. Even getting together to deliberate who might write up a response would be a violation of the intent, if not the letter, of the open meetings laws of the state.

The facilities process has been among the most open I have witnessed in my years in Ames. Facilities meetings were open to the public and, with the exception of a handful of meetings where technology wasn’t available, recorded and rebroadcast. Documents provided to the board have been made available via the district’s web site. A multi-year effort, parents and other members of the public have been involved in focus groups and forums all across town.

In the community forums, the one option receiving the strongest negative reaction was the 4-school scenario – the one requiring the use of larger 4-unit (600 student capacity) schools. Beyond the issues of operating costs, access, involvement and schools knowing their kids that I have mentioned, parents I talked to also asked practical questions connected to things like lunch, recess and scheduling band and orchestra lessons when as many as 150 kids are added to the school but the time in the school day is kept the same. 

I wrote the letter below to share my thoughts on some of the reasons I support the six school plan. It was submitted and put into print/posted prior to Aug 1st. If you are a regular reader, you know there are many topics and analyses – too many to fit into 800 words.

Both the board secretary and counsel have advised that district resources cannot be spent advocating for a referendum once the board approves putting it on the ballot. The petition to place the board approved referendum on the September ballot is schedule to come before the board August 1st. Though guidance on advocacy suggests individual board members may speak in support of the referendum in their role as tax payers, I expect the board will rely on the committee of community members to share information with the public.

On the assumption the board secretary validates a sufficient number of signatures were collected, I expect the board to approve putting the six-school referendum on the ballot. The issue of addressing our elementary buildings is an important one. I strongly encourage everyone to vote September 13th!

Dr. Dave

.

Letter in Support of School Board’s Six School Plan

If you have talked to me, you know I am very passionate about education. The education of a child is one of the most sacred responsibilities a community has. I believe the best way to provide excellent elementary education in Ames is to keep our schools the size they are now.

School Size – Proven Effectiveness vs Promised Efficiencies

Some suggest that because schools in Iowa have been getting bigger, we should do the same in Ames. They rarely point out, however, that Iowa’s standing as an educational leader has declined considerably. The Register’s recent headline asking whether Iowa schools can regain their luster illustrates the concern many have regarding the quality of education kids receive today. Bigger is not always better.

Research clearly documents the educational advantages of smaller schools. The quality of education in Ames, envied by many, supports this. Our smaller two- and three-unit elementary schools are why our outstanding teachers and staff have been successful in maintaining educational excellence while other districts have struggled or failed. If we are to maintain the sense of community, caring and commitment within our elementary schools where high expectations are set for each and every child, we must avoid trading effectiveness for assumed efficiencies.

The idea that larger is more efficient is a notion tied to factory production. Knowing many resources are determined by the number of students regardless of the number of buildings, I have listened to claims of efficiencies of larger schools with caution. Review of available information suggests vast savings do not exist and that fewer and larger schools will result in more logistics costs. To offset these kinds of costs, “efficiencies” in staffing are often tried.

Some believe levels of staffing in areas of administration, technology support, educational assistants and nurses can be the same in an elementary building with 600 children as one with 450 children – I do not. My concern is these “efficiencies” will impact safety and welfare of students, decrease the ability to communicate with and involve parents, and negatively impact learning.

Key to Learning – Student-Centered Instruction

One of our elementary principals shared the following quote – No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. As a parent, having been a classroom teacher and having reviewed the research, I know this to be true. I agree with our superintendent, who said the advantage of smaller schools is that the entire staff can focus on student needs. So why is this important?

At the core of student-centered instruction is understanding the strengths and needs of each student. When people talk about smaller schools, many point to the advantages for students who are at risk. While true, the ability of teachers and staff to know every child also allows them to expand the strengths of children who need to be challenged, as well as reduce the chance students get “lost in the middle.”

Costs

From a facilities point of view, the board has two means of controlling costs – building location and building design. Location impacts logistics costs. Building design impacts costs such as heating and cooling. Future boards will address building design. The school locations in the six school plan will reduce dependency on busing.

The board was told it may have been 40 years since the public last supported a bond to improve elementary facilities. By all assessments, our elementary buildings must be our priority. Starting in 2013, state sales tax funds (sometimes called SILO) – which must be used on infrastructure – will be available to mitigate construction costs. Future boards will set levy rates, but estimates shared with the current board which use a portion of available SILO funds show the cost to residential property owners (with the property tax rollback) would be under $1 per $1,000 assessed value. This could be lower depending on the extent future boards use SILO funds.

Adding capacity will add costs and all agree that we must add capacity. My goal has been to find a means by which these costs are tied to providing quality learning environments and staff rather than logistics costs such as busing contracts and diesel fuel.

The need is clear, SILO funding is available and rates are reasonable – now is the time to start the work.

Closing Comments

This issue is complex and any solution will have long-term impacts. At the heart of the matter is how to best provide for the education of the kids in Ames now and into the future. I support the six-school plan because it maintains a system of elementary education proven to be successful and because it puts more money where it matters – the kids. I am excited about the opportunity we have to improve the learning environments for our kids.

David J. Putz, Ph.D.

825 Hodge Avenue

Ames, IA 50010

david.putz@gmail.com