Update, 11 January. Whitefish’s school district is going for a $14 million school bond — and it’s not even waiting for spring. According to the Flathead Beacon, a mail ballot election will start on 28 February, when ballots are mailed to voters, and conclude on 15 March, a month in advance of the deadline for filing income tax returns.
Mail ballots tend to increase the turnout in elections such as this, which are all too often embarrassingly low turnout affairs. That may improve the chances of passage.
Why did the school district bulldoze ahead despite the sour economy? I think the power elite in Whitefish want to secure voter approval for a tax hike before the economy recovers; before more people are back to work, with jobs that pay well, and before interest rates and construction costs increase. Is that sound stewardship of the school district’s resources? There’s an argument that it is. Is it also reckless disregard for the predicament of those suffering most from Bush’s Depression? In my view, yes.
Whitefish probably needs a new high school. But a new school is unlikely to be built any time soon if the school district puts a bond issue to the voters in the primary election in June. There’s a better chance, although still not a very good one, that a bond issue could pass in the general election in November, and that’s the election date the district should be considering.
Whitefish’s high school dates from the mid-fifties. Part of it burned down 35 years ago. It could be renovated, but renovation wouldn’t cost that much less than a new school, and a new school allows building for the future instead of mitigating wear and tear. The current plan is educating students in the old school while the new school is built next door.
So far, so good — but only if the voters agree to raise their taxes during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. There are some faintly encouraging signs the economy is improving, but Flathead County still has double-digit unemployment, people are hurting, and economic uncertainty remains high. (The economic markers to watch are the trends in unemployment and median household income.) New schools are a hard sell in this economic environment.
And new schools are an even harder sell in a June primary or earlier spring election. School districts like spring elections because of budget timing, and because they think a disproportionately high turnout by school employees and parents in a low turnout election increases the probability of approval. That kind of electoral gamesmanship neither sits well with the public nor speaks well of the school districts. And lately, it has a dismal track record.
Running the bond issue in the general election and getting started five months later makes little practical difference in this situation, which is akin to staying in one’s house while the new one is built. But it makes a big political difference.
Montana’s June primary is not likely to attract the kind of voters who want to pay more for education. There’s a huge field of candidates for the Republican nomination for governor, but only a pro forma primary for the Democratic nomination. There is a five-way contest for the Democratic nomination for Congress, but that won’t generate as big a turnout if the 2010 primary is any indication. In Flathead County, there will be several Republican primaries for the legislature in the Whitefish area.
My experience tells me that the primary turnout will be more conservative, more anti-tax, and less pro-education than the turnout in the general election.
Waiting until November also gives the school district time to review its plans and to make a better case for the bond issue.
The current case for running the bond issue now can be found at http://www.whitefishhighschoolfuture.com, an anonymously registered website (for what good reason?) to which the Whitefish school district’s website provides a link. It’s a weak case:
Economic conditions continue to be tough for working families — in the Flathead and across the country. So it’s right to ask the question: “Why now?” Here is our answer.
The current building has surpassed its useful life span. The current building is both deteriorated and obsolete. It lacks basic and required health and safety systems and the District is at risk of being compelled to update inadequacies such as lack of accessible bathrooms and emergency lighting. Buckets are placed in the hallways during rain storms to mitigate leaking roofs and students have to wear winter jackets in some classrooms while others overheat. None of the building is wired to support current technology.
Reply. This is the Chicken Little argument. Yep, the building’s old, in disrepair, and managed by folks who are evidently loath to fill those rain buckets with hot tar and plug the leaks in the roof. This summary quantifies nothing, is not linked to a document with supporting details, and suggests that school officials have a half-century history of failing in their duty to properly maintain the current facility (why trust such people with a new school?).
A reconfigured facility is required to deliver quality education to prepare our children for today’s world. It was also designed in a different era of education; today it literally impairs the District’s ability to deliver contemporary teaching and learning practices.
Reply. Exactly how does it impair the district’s ability to deliver contemporary teaching and learning practices? To what extent are students being harmed? And how is that known? This argument suggests that the most important thing in education is nice brick and mortar, not good teaching.
Construction costs are at recent lows. Tough times also mean lower costs. It’s a great time to build.
Reply. Every time a school district runs a bond issue in an economic downturn, it makes this argument. Of course construction costs are low. Of course it’s a great time to build — if there’s money for construction. But voters who have lost their jobs, whose income has contracted, whose net worth has diminished, are not likely to be impressed by this argument. They are, however, likely to find it insulting and a sharp goad to vote against the bond.
Interest rates are at all time lows. Low interest rates on the construction bonds result in lower taxes.
Reply. Every time a school district runs a bond issue in an economic downturn, it makes this argument. Of course interest rates are low. That may be good for school district finances, but it’s bad for people who rely on investments for retirement income. Again, voters who have lost their jobs, whose income has contracted, whose net worth has diminished, are not likely to be impressed by this argument. They are, however, likely to find it insulting and a sharp goad to vote against the bond.
A quality school is critical to retaining and attracting the families and businesses required to generate economic growth in Whitefish. A quality school is key to attracting and retaining families, entrepreneurs, professionals and businesses.
Reply. This is the motherhood and apple pie argument. It does, however, sort of insinuate that Whitefish High is not a quality school, if by “quality school” one means a school the produces students who score high on standardized tests and graduate with good educations that lead to success in life. Are recent graduates of Whitefish high unable to read and write, hold a steady job, add two and two, succeed in university, and stay out of jail?
The project currently enjoys broad political support and momentum that will be lost if delayed. After two years of deliberately gathering input from the community, substantial support and enthusiasm for the project has been created across a broad political spectrum, giving the project significant current momentum.
Reply. What does polling on the subject reveal?
There are two more issues that interest me. One is the enrollment projection. The other is designing for energy efficiency.
Enrollment out to around 2020 was projected by the cohort survival method, which “relies on historical enrollment and birth data to capture the effects of in and out-migration, housing changes, and natural trends in population” (Broward). The school district reckons the enrollment will number 500–600 for the next decade. If there is a detailed report on this projection, the district should make it available online.
The district should also explain why the enrollment fell from 744 in 2005 to 487 in 2010. That’s a mighty precipitous decline during a time when Whitefish experienced strong growth. What happened? Did families with high school age children move away? Did hundreds drop out? Did hordes enroll at Glacier High in Kalispell (for the kind of quality education that, it is alleged, only a fancy new building can provide)?
Finally, energy efficiency. Districts that build new schools seldom make energy efficiency a priority when designing the new facility. Maximizing square footage comes first, followed by safety (fire and earthquake protection, and nowadays security cameras to minimize privacy), and various features such as science laboratories. Energy efficiency is near the bottom of the list.
But energy is expensive and getting more so. Oil is at $100 per barrel and is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration to stay in that neighborhood for 2012. Unless, of course, Iran mines the Straits of Hormuz, a category five hurricane destroys oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, or some other natural or political disaster generates sharp increases in oil prices.
High schools, if well maintained, tend to be in service for two or three generations. How much will it cost in 50 years to heat and cool a new high school for Whitefish? And will the next generation of taxpayers be able to afford the energy bill if the school built today is long on square footage at the expense of extra insulation?