The school administration had the last scheduled Facility Community meeting on August 3, 2017. The outcome of the meeting was not a surprise. – Culp will recommend the most drastic of the three option still being offered – that the school board tear down the middle school and build a completely new school. He will recommend extensive renovation of Stevenson and the High School.
This option was given a price tag of $50 million at the June meeting. No doubt changes in the plans and inflation over the years needed to pass a levy and begin construction will drive the cost higher.
In an email sent to the staff Friday, Culp claimed that “This plan was widely embraced by community, staff, and student surveys”. The last survey results have not been posted on the school website as of Friday Aug 4. (it is now up, placed inconveniently on the bottom of the Facility home page).
Culp claimed that the third, “middle school tear down” option, was embraced in the “coffee with the superintendent” meetings held in parent homes. According to a person who hosted one of those meetings, they consisted of Culp dominating the conversation for hours, and few questions were taken. I’m still not understanding why those meetings were needed – what parent would invite the super into their home, and then disagree with him? What parent would want their child to be marked as the “child who has a trouble maker parent”?
The story on the facilities in the TVN
An Aug 8 story on Culp’s planned recommendation to the board included some more info. There was quotes from both Culp and board Pres. Truett in the article.
Truett mentioned his re-election (and two other board members) in the fall as a reason the board will wait until fall 2018 to ask for more mills from the community. I’m surprised Truett wants to mention the board elections, he faces blow-back for his support of expensive new taxes for the school (as well as his actions in sabotaging the deal with HPG). I though he would be a stealth candidate, hoping to sneak back into office. I’m sure the board will go silent on the possible tax increases needed for option C.
The board is also still planning to form a new committee to look at funding issues for the facility renovations. The job of making decisions on funding is the prime job of the board, passing it off to a committee (probably a closed group, like the Task force) is further proof that the board wants to hide their own preferences (which could be politically dangerous), and let someone else take the heat. It’s cowardly and lazy.
Some issues with the second school survey
I posted about the problems with online surveys in my last post. Please read the last two paragraphs for some discussion on the security, and the simple methods that could have been used to skew the survey.
There are also questions about the results of the survey – do they seem to be the logical results of opinions about the school facilities? Or are they pointing to something going wrong with the poll?
The were three option presented by the school. Option A was moderately renovation of all three buildings for $35 million. Option B was extensively renovate the schools for $55 million. Option C was to renovate Stevenson school and the high school and build a new Middle school on the current Edison/Larson site for $50 million.
According to the summary of the second survey results prepared by Triad, 15% of respondents thought option A was “best for the community”, option B was supported by 17% of the community, and option three was liked by 54%. A fourth, “something other than the above” option was chosen by 14%.
When presented with these options, I think the main choice that was made was made by respondents was “do I want to see the middle school school torn down and replaced?” If the answer was yes, they chose option C.
What this survey wants us to believe is that after rejecting the tear down, the most popular second choice was “renovate the middle school, but do it at a higher cost than building new”. Does it make sense that a lot of people want the middle school to be fixed, but in a more expensive way that tearing it down? The previous polling showed that there was 75% support for keeping Stevenson and the HS buildings, but there was little support for preserving the middle school.
Possibly there were a lot of people who took the claim that “44 million in deferred maintenance is needed” was a real number, and thought that option A was underfunding. But that doesn’t explain why option B was the most popular second choice. If you are not supporting option A, why not go for option C?
My guess is that over-voting explains the results. There could have been a lot of respondents who were sure that option A was wrong, and wanted to be sure it lost. So they took the poll twice, and the second time they picked option B, in the hopes it would be second place, higher than option A.
It all depends on the voters
We will now get to be exposed to more than a year of promotion for a vote at the polls projected to be made on fall 2018. I’m sure the results of the second survey will be spun with the slogan – “An overwhelming number want option C!”
And it will also be true that only 54% want option C, 46% want something else. If the survey was a true snapshot of the general public option, then the school board should be planning a vote as soon as possible. I don’t think even the board thinks the survey was for real.