Is anyone really questioning the priorities and the process behind the Denver Public Schools (DPS) record-setting $454 million bond proposal? (Besides me, of course.) Leave it to old Uncle Charley to raise more questions.
Undoubtedly, there are some significant facilities needs in DPS. But has the proposal really sought to prioritize those needs? The $40 million slated to revamp North High School: shouldn’t the district instead look to update its 50-year-old master plan, indulging in a bit of more cost-effective, long-range planning? Are 100-year brick buildings really the best bang for our education dollar when who knows what kind of facilities we’ll need in, say, 2030? In the 21st century, do we want to continue the investment in low-maintenance brick, which also happens to be expensive to replace?
$40 million for renovations? Denver School of Science and Technology was constructed for $12 million total. How many students will DSST have served before it’s ready for major repairs?
Speaking of priorities, the $273 million for “critical & significant maintenance” is not broken down in a way for voters to distinguish what’s most important as far as health and safety concerns go. How many (and how costly) fire protection projects are there, versus ADA ramp-building upgrades? This concern also relates to the lack of transparency in the process, and lack of transparency tends to breed skepticism—even in Denver, and especially with such a high price tag bond on the ballot.
But much of it tends to remain a mystery, because the school construction bond proposals mostly seem to inhabit a separate world from the rest of the district’s focus on academic achievement. DPS has made a bold step forward with its new school status reports, tying some measure of allocations and autonomy based on a school’s performance and growth.
In what way is construction bond money tied to academic achievement? It would be difficult to say, since no such analysis has been done to show the impacts of previous bonds in Denver. A reasonable and effective impact analysis would save money in the long-term, and would help establish consistent criteria by which requests could be judged. For example, is spending $29 million on “Learning Landscapes” a good idea? Previous bond money has been spent on them. Do we know how well “Learning Landscapes” work?
Besides, as it stands now, charter schools have no guarantee of any money from the record-setting bond. A more objective standard for allocation would give them hope of fair treatment. These innovative academic laboratories ought not be treated as second-class citizens.
A more objective allocation system would require a somewhat revolutionary shift from the currently politicized nature of city-wide school construction funding dollars. Doling out money to a school just because its region or neighborhood allegedly failed to receive its “fair share”—regardless of actual need and potential educational impact—leads to potentially unfortunate waste as opposed to crippling distrust. And as much as I like high school football, it might give pause to re-evaluate the need for $13 million to be spent on athletic turf.
For me, there are too many questions unanswered about this bond proposal to be ready to open up the checkbook. The more questions are seriously answered, the greater cause for a hopeful and generous disposition from Denver voters.
Popularity: 1% [?]
