New school facilities

Too often, school boards are swayed by the sweet promises of lobbyists and consultants who have a financial stake in the seemingly never-ending push for new facilities and consolidation. There is big money, and we mean BIG money, in the school construction business, so it is no surprise that major contractors work hard to convince school boards that new facilities are the solution to their financial and academic challenges.
Sometimes, it’s true. There are points at which new facilities can make a difference. But, too often, the benefits of new facilities are grossly oversold to a public that is generally willing to invest in public education but isn’t sure how to get the most bang for their buck. Any number of area school districts come to mind here.
In the past, school districts had typically sought excess operating levies, but you don’t hear much about those these days. Excess operating levy campaigns, after all, were low-budget affairs, generally run by volunteers, parents, students, and teachers on their time off. Not surprisingly, it could be tough to pass an operating levy, especially when school officials were often reluctant to say where the new funds would even go. And since there was no built-in constituency that stood to cash in on a Yes vote, these levy campaigns often fell flat.
That’s not the case these days, at least when it comes to capital spending projects. As we saw most recently with the new Rock Ridge School, big contractors, like Kraus-Anderson, virtually take over the Vote Yes campaigns, using public funds. They pull out all the stops, sometimes crossing way over the line into open advocacy for passage, something school districts are prohibited from doing, at least with tax dollars. For the contractors, there’s real incentive here, of course. Winning a bond campaign typically puts millions, often tens of millions, into the corporate coffers of these big players.
In the case of the new Rock Ridge school district, which combines the former Virginia and Eveleth-Gilbert districts into brand new or renovated facilities, the merger was supposed to solve their budget woes and expand opportunities for students. But as was recently reported, that school district is now facing significant teacher cuts due to a projected budget shortfall, which suggests the new facilities and consolidation weren’t the keys to success promised to voters.
While enrollment declines have contributed to the district’s financial squeeze, that’s another factor that school districts often overlook. In an age of open enrollment, parents alienated by consolidations and restructuring, can express their displeasure by sending their kids elsewhere. The St. Louis County School district lost significant numbers of students in the northern half of the district, where opposition to the 2010 restructuring was widespread. It appears that Rock Ridge may be suffering from the same phenomenon, with student numbers down about 275 since 2020.
It appears that new facility renovations haven’t been the answer in Ely, either. The $20 million renovation, which is now underway, has run into problems due to skyrocketing construction costs. To be fair, that problem isn’t the school board’s doing, but it is a risk that every school district takes when it signs on to a major capital project. Engineering firms in the region, which are among the winners in the school construction game, have demonstrated a tendency to low-ball cost estimates. That allows them to promise more to voters, who won’t find out that the project is being scaled back, or is running over-budget, until after they approve the bond.
Despite the promise of updated facilities, the Ely schools have been hemorrhaging students and the district is now facing serious budget concerns, both on its capital project, as well as its operating budget. The district is now shifting to a six-hour day, from the previous seven, which almost certainly means fewer opportunities for students.
The lesson in all this is that buildings don’t teach students, teachers do. And new facilities rarely yield the kind of operational savings that are promised by those who stand to benefit from these enormous public expenditures. In addition, school restructuring and consolidations often leave some parents with a sour taste, a feeling that frequently leaves them looking at alternative schools.
It’s understandable that school boards sometimes turn to consultants to help them wade through the complexities of operating a school district in difficult times. But they need to recognize when these consultants have a vested interest and view their recommendations accordingly.
It would be nice to think there’s an easy answer, like shiny new schools, that will address the many challenges in education today. Most of us recognize it’s nowhere near that easy.