|
Dear School Board Members: Thank you for publicizing your thoughts on criteria for guiding future school closure decisions. As I understand the list, there are twelve primary criteria followed in turn by several more operational criteria that represent alternative (objective or subjective) measures of the primary criteria. The question now seems to be how to refine the criteria list and then weight them appropriately. Please consider the following as suggestions in the spirit of cooperation. Building Capacity. Independent of what might be measured through enrollment or perhaps maintenance costs, the purpose of trying to measure capacity is not entirely clear. I recognize that empty classrooms raises red flags when trying to reallocate seats equitably and efficiently, but is high capacity good or bad when evaluating different schools? I'm not being contrary here, but for any criterion, I think it's important to be able to agree whether more or less of it is a good thing. If we can't agree on that, it's hard and maybe impossible to know how to measure it appropriately. As it stands, I think capacity is only relevant because it is a function of enrollment, so perhaps the enrollment levels of each school could be weighted by the schools' capacity to serve the district in the future. Nevertheless, I think "building capacity" as a stand-alone criterion should be dumped. Enrollment. I think we can agree here that high enrollment is "desirable" (given the perverse incentives of the state funding formula). The measures of enrollment proposed seem reasonable, and as I noted above, I would suggest that whatever index or score is created for enrollment, it should be weighted by the schools' capacity to serve that enrollment in the future. Costs. I think it is fair to say that low costs are desirable. Outstanding debt, operation and maintenance costs are clearly relevant measures here. I question some of the other measures of cost, however. Several measures refer to the savings or costs of closure, or costs related to consolidation, or even the effect of a closure on transportation costs. These measures, for example, relate to the impact of any number of combinations of decisions that may or may not occur. It seems that using criteria measuring the impact of future decisions is a step beyond evaluating costs. Going too far in measuring such impacts also raises a Pandora's Box of questions about pecuniary tradeoffs, such as why measure one cost when it is offset by a corresponding benefit somewhere else? Technology. Again, if each school approaches technology differently, is a high or low measure of technology desirable? If this is measured at all, I think it should be incorporated as a cost related to future technology needs. Marketability. The purpose of measuring this is not clear. As an opportunity cost, it seems to be a clear liability for the schools to be "marketable." This is weirdly ironic. But to use selling potential for evaluating schools imposes a clear bias against urban schools and it offers insult to injury to those who think of their schools as long term investments (not products) of their community. I think this criterion invites unnecessary controversy. Grounds. In terms of costs and maintenance of grounds, this criterion seems valid. But to measure "green space," or "potential for expansion" imposes a bias against urban schools. The urban schools have other amenities and walking access to other spaces, e.g. parks, which can offset the benefits of rural school with more on-site open spaces. If the rural green space value is offset by the urban access to amenities value, why measure either one of them? Traffic Patterns. Again, this variable as measured here is a liability for the urban schools. Measured by number of vehicles passing by, etc. it is obvious that centrally located schools would score poorly . . . why not measure the risk potential of busing accidents associated with the greater busing needs of rural schools? My opinion would be that again the risks of urban traffic are probably offset by those of rural busing hazards, so again I don't think either one should be measured for evaluating schools. Condition. Age is irrelevant independent of operation and maintenance costs, and measuring the "expected life span" presumes that buildings are not being maintained. Building condition is largely a function of the operation and maintenance spending, and this would be better measured under the cost category. Transportation. Again, I think it is important to ask what is important about transportation here. There are many ways proposed to measure transportation, but what about transportation is being measured? "Transportation" as a criterion is not self-defining. In my view the most important aspect about transportation is how much of it our students must unnecessarily endure. I would suggest that centrality of school to population clusters is a more meaningful criterion. This could be measured by the number of students walking, driving, average bus rides, etc. On Weighting. Once the criteria are selected and measured, I expect you will weight them by their relative importance (since criteria are not born equal), and then weight them by additional factors deemed by you to be important to the district. As you can probably guess, I see enrollment, costs (operation, maintenance, technology needs), and the centrality or access of schools to population clusters as key variables. I happen to believe that the centrality or access of schools to the population of students is more important than the other variables, but weighting is ultimately a political decision that must be sorted out. Good luck, and thank you for your time. Darrell Downs
327 W. King Winona, MN 55987 (507)453-0451 |
