By Caitlin Owens, Iowa City
The Iowa City Community School District is facing a serious financial crisis, and difficult decisions are likely unavoidable. While it is true that we are experiencing record low state and federal support for public schools and a shift of public dollars to fund private education through educational savings accounts, this financial crisis is largely due to mismanagement at the district level. That makes the prospect of budget cuts that will harm hundreds of children and families a harder pill to swallow.
Over the past decade, our community has invested heavily in its schools, including several large projects focused on elementary school improvements and expansion. Mann and Longfellow Elementary’s underwent major renovations costing approximately $10 million each. Christine Grant Elementary School was constructed for $18.5 million. The district spent around $50 million expanding its three middle schools to accommodate moving sixth graders out of elementary schools. Just to name a few. Those investments were made under a facilities strategy that anticipated preserving and improving existing schools while expanding access to preschool.
Now, just a few years later, excess elementary capacity is being cited as a reason we may need to close schools. Before making an irreversible decision, the Board owes the community a genuine examination of alternatives, and a thoughtfully laid out vision for the future. Closing elementary schools should be a last resort, not a starting point.
In recent meetings the Board has stated its desire to “keep everything on the table” and start with reductions as far away from kids as possible. However, both priorities have been contradicted by words and actions in subsequent meetings, first with the decision to take examining secondary schools off the charge for the Boundary Analysis Committee at the Oct. 6 board meeting, which will be voted on at the Oct.13 meeting. While I am not advocating for the closure of any secondary schools, this is yet another example of the Board majority saying one thing and doing another. It is worth thanking Director Lingo for his opposition to reversing course on the original charge for this committee.
The Board has also promised to examine cuts that least impact students first, yet the Boundary Analysis Committee is the first thing to get off the ground. Even the name of the committee is misleading. It does not seem like their primary charge is boundary analysis, but rather school closures.
If the Board is committed to minimizing the impact of budget cuts on students, it should demonstrate that commitment. Before closing a single elementary school, publicly compare the savings and student impacts of the major alternatives available. Be scrupulous about the actual net savings of closing an elementary school. How much will actually be saved once students and staff are relocated and transportation needs increase? What will the cost of potential staffing or facility expenses be at the receiving schools? How much will it cost to maintain the buildings and property of the closed schools until they can be sold?
Regardless of how this impacts you personally, every member of this community should be concerned about the significant amount of money that has been poured into the school system over the past ten years only to now face downsizing. School communities should band together to demand that closing schools be a last resort, and demand that the Board engage in a genuine effort to avoid it. Even closing a small school will have a big impact on the community.
We must ask ourselves if we trust that the Board majority, who insist on maintaining the status quo that exacerbated this mess, can really be trusted to dig us out of it.
