At the March 15th meeting of the Elementary Task Force (ETF) , committee members heard from a community member who assisted in coming up with a viable high school space plan using a system called "Choosing By Advantages (CBA)". Our advisor---whose spouse just happens to be a program manager working in the district office, by the way---touted the incredible awesomeness of the CBA system. Several times, our advisor stated that the community had effectively blessed the CBA approach by approving the subsequent referendum by a vote of 57% to 43%. [Our advisor actually stated that the previous high school referendum failed 2-1 and, after CBA, this one passed 2-1. Well...not quite!!!! How about 1.32:1. Maybe we DO need to focus more on math.]What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
To-date the ETF has spent considerable time boning up on how the district defines school target and maximum capacities as well as the available building space, enrollments (actual and projected), and classroom configurations. This was necessary groundwork paving the way to a more in-depth discussion of space options.
It is perhaps most important to point out that no member of the committee believes that the district will never build another elementary school. The only question is: WHEN should we/do we NEED to build a new school? We have to keep in mind that we have opposing interests to consider: the qualityof the education provided by the district and ...well...cost. While a large number of community members are aware of the rising cost of property taxes, many do not even know that Sun Prairie ranks second state-wide in terms of capital debt. Debt may not be forever, but it lasts at least 20 years...and even longer if the district refinances bonds.
Problem Statement
Prior to establishment of the ETF, the district plan was to begin site selection and move towards construction of a new (8th) elementary school to open with the 2015-16 school year. Like any other mechanism for decision-making, the CBA system begins with a clear, concise, statement of the problem at hand. Allow us to take a stab at it. Please bear in mind...this is the opinion of SP-EYE and does not reflect that of the school district or the ETF. It's just SP-EYE, yo.
Problem Statement
According to UW-APL elementary enrollment projections, the district will maximize its available elementary school capacity by the 2015-16 school year. What action(s), considering both cost and impact on education quality, can the district take which will prolong the need to build a new school for at least 2-3 years beyond 2015-16?Choosing by Avoidance?
What concerns us greatly is the cavalier attitude with which certain key issues were simply swept aside as non-issues by our community resident/CBA advisor. For instance, the ETF committee has looked into the net effect of increasing maximum allowable class sizes by one or two students. Yes, Viirginia, we understand that everyone desires small class sizes, but they're talking about JUST ONE OR TWO additional kids per class! The quality of eductaion isn't going straight to the landfill if we increase class sizes by 1-2 kids. Hell...the SAGE program, the pinnacle of small class size programs, just recently raised the class size requirement from 15 kids to 18 kids per teacher. That's a 20% increase in one fell swoop. And nobody got all that lathered up about it. In fact, the SPASD class "target" (goal) size for kindergarten is 18 kids. That makes the average district kindergarten class no different than a SAGE kindergarten class...and we don't get one dime from the state for thoise kids.Shouldn't SAGE be special (read: different) in terms of class size? Isn't that which makes it a special program?
According to our CBA advisor, however,and to the delight of certain attendees in the room, "we" could simply say that according to the educational "experts" (read: district staff) in the district, raising class sizes by even one kid is absolutely not even a consideration. And Ba-Da-BING! class size is removed from the list of options to consider!
Oh...and the questions to ask the community! Let's not ask, "Do you agree that we should spend $22M to add an 8th elementary school at this time". Nope...can't do that. Too inflamatory. Instead, let's just sucker them all in.
- You do believe that education is critical...right? [um...like would anyone say "No"?]
- And you do believe the studies (and we'll only show you the ones that make our point) that small class sizes are necessary for learning...right? [a little waffling here, but majority would say yes]
This is not choosing by advantage! What it is, is a clever way of "ruling out" the things administration doesn't WANT to do in order to ensure that they get to do what they DO want to do: build a new school right this frickin' second! That was the plan...wasn't it? The Situation Report quietly presented last fall as "information only" was titled, "8th Elementary school timeline". It was a foregone conclusion that no discussion would be had, no meeting of the minds on how to deal with space issues, no collaborative discussion on whether or not we agree that the UW-APL projections remain accurate given the economy and housing crisis that have lingered for nearly 4 years.
How about we go all in "for the kids"!
With that as a springboard of logic, why don't we simply decide that all elementary class sizes will have a maximum of 15 students, and let's build many schools. After all, it's cheaper to build more at once...right? Let's limit schools to exactly 24 classrooms and make sure that "specials" (art/science/music) always have a room. at 15 kids per class and 24 classrooms per school, that will set our target at 360 kids MAX per elementary school. Based on 3185 K-5 kids as of the 2011 3rd Friday count, that means we need NINE elementary schools NOW, and based on UW_APL projected growth rates of 140-150 kids per year, let's just plan THREE schools now and then one every 2-3 years.
What's another $60-70M between friends...right? And then plan on spending another $20-25M every 2-3 years thereafter. Another couple of dozen large pizzas per month for like...ever?
OK...hold on just minute. Maybe we should think this through. Hmmmm...$60-70M , even at ZERO percent interest rate (which you know isn't possible) means another $3-4M PER YEAR in debt service payments.
Does THIS Decision Really "Fit" the CBA Model?
Not if cost is not considered or if options like minimal increase in class size are not even open to discussion.
Look....we're not saying that CBA isn't a valid protocol. What we're saying is that CBA is a TOOL which can be used...and modified...to assist in decision-making. Like any TOOL, however, it must be wielded wisely. Using a tool incorrectly can wreck any project.....or any decision.
Choosing By Advantages Resources
http://www.decisioninnovations.com/
http://www.enlignconsultants.com/ChoosingByAdvantages.htm
Posts
