I heard the roof was caving in at Fayetteville High. I can’t believe we allow our children to attend class in such a dangerous building.
The myth that the Fayetteville High School campus is “unsafe” or “falling apart” seems to have a life of its own. I attempted to debunk this claim in my Castles Made of Sand post, but it would seem I was unsuccessful. Over the past couple of days, I’ve encountered some version of this myth as a facebook comment, in actual conversation, and in anecdotes from others. I reassert that the building, while it does need some repairs, is structurally sound. Take a look at this report from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) – click here to view report. The state estimates the facility condition cost (money the district would need to spend to maintain a safe learning environment) for Fayetteville High School (the entire campus) to be $2.9 million (2006 cost) and the 3 year cost from 2009-2011 to be $5.9 million – hardly full replacement cost. The state also ranks schools based on their facility needs. A ranking of 1 represents the most facility needs and 1129 represents the least facility needs. Fayetteville High School ranks 988. I didn’t get to blow anything up, but consider this myth BUSTED.
At one time or another, most of us have confronted the false dilemma: “You’re either for us, or agin’ us.” I remember vividly a time in the spring of 2003, after our troops had entered Iraq, when I considered putting a “Peace Post” in my Fayetteville front yard. In my musings about whether or not to place the Peace Post, I recall thinking — do I really want to engage in such a political and controversial act?
In retrospect, of course, you might ask why a small, simple, red-white-blue, wooden post with the word Peace painted on it would be controversial. In most circumstances, it wouldn’t. But in 2003, the “for us, or agin’ us” mood seemed to scream to US citizens: “If you are not in support of invading Iraq, you must hate our troops, freedom, and even apple pie!”
This may be an exaggeration, but only a slight one. Indeed, those with the temerity to question the justification for or the wisdom behind the Iraq war were unfairly cast as un-patriotic. Fast forward to 2009 … more local, right here in Funky Fayetteville, AR, USA. Our citizens are engaged in animated debate about the proposed new high school. While the scene is smaller and the topic is more friendly, the climate of the debate seems eerily familiar — “You’re either for us, or agin’ us.”
That is, “if you are not in support of building the new, improved, and expensive high school, you must hate education, progress, teachers, kids, and even apple pie!” Just read the rhetoric and take a look at the signs in the yards — supporting this millage is a Vote for our Kids. Indeed, in one of the editorials highlighted on the “A+ Stronger Fayetteville” website, Grady Jim Robinson argued, in so many words, that we are wealthy folks who are morally obligated to use this wealth to support this particular proposal. He concluded: “So, if you still don’t want to vote for the millage for a new high school and a new generation, then why don’t you just go out to the mall and buy yourself another pair of shoes or some fancy sunglasses.” Is he arguing that those who disagree with his view are doing so simply because they want to keep a few bucks in their pockets to purchase unnecessary junk from the mall? Really?
Such attempts to shame the other side may be viewed as a good strategy to persuade voters, but they do not promote healthy discourse. As the September 15 vote draws near, let’s all take a deep breath and give the proposal serious consideration. There are reasonable and thoughtful arguments to be made on both sides. The issue is complicated. It is not obvious if we should build a fantastic (and expensive) new school for all of our District’s students in grades 9-12 … or … if we should renovate one and build a second high school and become a 2-high-school district (as have our neighbors to the North).
In a school district that has recently gone to great lengths to promote (and presumably encourage) so-called 21st Century skills such as critical thinking and thoughtful debate, we should nurture open discussion of ideas and consideration of all alternatives. We should not attempt to demonize or marginalize counter-arguments. This is not good 21st Century thinking, or good thinking in any century for that matter. Most importantly, it is definitely NOT good for our kids.
“Logistics” was a popular word among area school officials over the last few days. Confronted with the benign (yet somehow controversial) opportunity to have a sitting United States President deliver a message that stressed hard work and personal responsibility directly to the nation’s schoolchildren, many school districts opted to punt. Rather than take a stance one way or another, they took cover and cited “logistics.” For example, the Bentonville, Arkansas School District released the following statement:
“The decision to provide the recorded message and make it available on the website is being made for a number of reasons: logistics – perhaps as many as 3,000 students will be eating lunch at that time; two schools are not in session on September 8th; most students and teachers have already planned for instruction on that day; and several of our schools are not equipped with appropriate technology to show the speech in the right setting..”
Sounds plausible, until one considers that it’s simply illogical to insist that every student must be deprived of an experience simply because the experience can’t be shared by all.
In a similar move, after informing parents that the speech would not be a part of their students’ school day, the Fayetteville, Arkansas school district released a statement on Friday, saying that:
“The decision to provide the recorded message and make it available on the website is for logistics and convenience purposes. Many students will be at lunch, P.E., music, engaged in pre-planned instruction, labs or other activities during the original broadcast.”
Alan Wilbourn, responding to questions over Friday’s announcement stuck to the talking-points, echoing that “In the elementary school, it’s primarily logistics.” To be fair, Wilbourn later insisted that the district’s intent was not to prohibit student viewing, but that there would be no coordinated effort.
Of course we all know that logistics wasn’t the real issue. Faced with tough choices, most school officials would rather avoid controversy all together than to take a stand that is sure to please some and infuriate others. In Fayetteville, with a ginormous millage election now less than a week away, avoiding controversy was especially important.
That strategy seems to have backfired. As it turns out, plenty of people in Fayetteville didn’t buy the “logistics” argument. After what the Northwest Arkansas Times referred to as “a flurry of criticism by e-mail, telephone, and the Internet,” Superintendent Vicki Thomas held a Labor Day press conference to clarify completely revise the district’s plan. Under the new plan, viewing of the speech was being “strongly encouraged” with the hope that every student be given the opportunity unless parents requested that their children be kept from participating.
To their credit, district leaders responded to the public pressure quickly and reports estimate that nearly 90% of the district’s children saw the speech. And, in the end, they chose the best path. They let parents decide what was best for their own children. At the press conference, however, Thomas was asked the inevitable question that was on everyone’s mind: Will this controversy affect the millage vote?
It’s probably safe to say that those who had planned on voting in favor of the millage were many of the same people that were offended by the district’s poor handling of the Obama speech controversy. While voters may cut the district some slack for eventually getting it right, the entire fiasco was a public relations nightmare. At the very least, school officials came across on the various news reports looking a lot less like concerned members of the community and a lot more like, well, politicians. And, let’s face it, people have a hard time trusting politicians. As we have all recently learned, even benign messages like “stay in school”— when uttered by a politician—can spark controversy. If support for the millage vote next Tuesday comes up short, some of the loss may be attributable to the hit the district took in terms of credibility over the last few days.
In the end, Obama’s speech wasn’t controversial at all, and reasonable people appreciated the message he gave to students. Maybe everyone should lighten up when it comes to Presidents spending some time with America’s children.
Administrators decide the new high school will be constructed from sand. One school board member is quoted as saying, “Sand provides maximum flexibility. The students can create a new learning environment each day. And it’s green!”
The date of the much ballyhooed millage election is swiftly approaching. Next Tuesday, Sep. 15th, the citizens of Fayetteville will decide whether or not to provide the school district with a $115.825 million line of credit. The district plans to use this tidy sum to replace the current high school with a brand new “21st Century” campus. And why, one might ask, is it necessary to replace the current facilities? I can think of four reasons new construction might be necessary:
The buildings are falling apart
New facilities will improve student outcomes (i.e. the current facility is inadequate for 21st century learning)
The current facility is too small
New facilities will expand the tax base and enrich our community
First, I would like to dispense with the notion that the current facilities are dilapidated and deteriorating to the point that learning is inhibited. Back around the time when the district was looking to sell the high school campus to the U of A, an assessment of the current structures was conducted. The resulting report stated plainly that the buildings were in excellent condition. In fact, the U of A facilities department estimated they would only need to spend $11 million to make the campus usable at the university level. The propaganda supporting the millage often highlights the age of the main building. Take this quote from the A Stronger Fayetteville website, “The current Fayetteville High School was built during the Korean War…” Let’s be clear, while the high school is half a century old, the current facilities have gone through several renovations in those years (the latest was finished in 1993), and they are in good shape. There is a big difference between adequacy and wanting all the bells and whistles. If the voters decide that they would like to pay for all the bells and whistles, that’s fine; but it is dishonest to insinuate that the building is falling apart to get what you want.
Second, is it true that new buildings facilitate better teaching, collaboration, and general 21st century-ness such that student outcomes improve? It could be the case that rearranging the learning space really will pay dividends, but we do not have to blindly trust that it will. We can look at evidence from around the United States on the link between facilities and student achievement. In the Handbook of the Economics of Education, Eric Hanushek provides a review of the research on school resources. Professor Hanusheck identifies 91 studies which look specifically at the link between facilities and student achievement in the U.S. (see table on pg. 889). He reports that 86 of them find no statistically significant relationship. And in the remaining 14% of analyses, there was hardly a consensus: 9% were positive and 5% were negative. The punchline is that most of the high quality research studies which have explored this issue have found no relationship between school facilities and student performance. This is in no way a surprising result. Buildings don’t teach kids, people do.
A third reason a district may need to construct new buildings is if the current facilities are simply too small. The district brought this issue to a head by successfully lobbying the school board to add the 9th grade to the high school campus. This will increase the student population from about 1,800 to somewhere between 2,400-2,500 students. The high school’s student common areas and entertainment/extra curricular facilities have been undersized for some time, and it is time we did something about it. But building a top-notch performing arts center and student common areas does not necessitate demolishing all of the current structures and starting anew. Space concerns could be alleviated through a more modest construction plan which makes use of the investments the citizens of Fayetteville have made over the past 50 years. As a side note, it seems to me that trashing perfectly good buildings is about the least green thing we could do as a city.
The last argument that can be made in favor building new high school facilities is one based in economics. The argument goes something like this – If we build a new high school with all of the newest amenities, more people of means and businesses will be attracted to settle in our fair city. The resulting influx of businesses and people will expand the tax base and act as an economic engine for the city. This was the case that was made last week at the economic impact panel discussion. The only problem with this argument is that it leaves out one crucial detail: Tax rates will have to increase to pay for the new high school. And an increase in the tax rate will discourage both people and businesses from locating in Fayetteville. For the economic engine argument to hold true the positive effect of the new high school would have to outweigh the negative effect of the increase in the tax rate. A look at the whole picture reveals that Fayetteville already has relatively high tax rates when compared to other cities in the area (take a look at millage rates, assessed real estate values, and estimated tax to confirm this for yourself) and the high school is consistently ranked as one of the best in the nation. These two facts lead me to believe that any gains made by improving an already very good school will be severely diminished by an increase in the tax rate.
I am by no means against spending money on facilities. I just want us to be thoughtful and honest about our reasons for investing in brick and mortar when it is clearly secondary to what goes on in the classroom.
Welcome to Mid-Riffs.com, a new weblog committed to providing non-partisan commentary about Arkansas public policy, as well as analysis of public policy in surrounding states and at the national level. Beginning next week, this blog will be a place where a variety of contributors will offer everything from serious news and public policy critiques to not-so-serious commentary about life in the region. We also have a lot of interest and experience dealing with education policy. That said, no topic is off limits.
While those of us that contribute here won’t always agree, we are bound by a shared appreciation for good arguments, logical consistency, geeky sarcasm, and all things good.
We are against things that are bad (e.g., Texas).
Thanks for visiting, and we hope you’ll come back and visit us next week.
