The Let Duluth Vote crowd has pondered the influence of the Red Plan’s corporate colossus in beyond Duluth’s borders. All northeastern Minnesota is served by Duluth area television news and the Duluth Trib despite its shrunken status is still sent out to much the same area.
We know that JCI has been active in the Ely and St. Louis County Schools helping direct their future building plans. The Proctor Journal’s owner/editor Jake Benson told me about a very classy presentation JCI made to that community’s schools a while back. So, what do all these neighboring communities think of our little brouhaha in Duluth?
I got a call from Orr, Minnesota a couple days ago. JCI has been working with this district 2142 to help them consolidate their far flung schools with their dwindling student population. If JCI could be trusted they certainly have the expertise to help this District. I’d seen a very dour looking Jeff Schiltz pictured at one of that District’s planning meetings a couple weeks ago on the evening news. JCI has put together a very nice presentation about the District’s difficulties. Currently they are recommending something like an $80 million dollar building plan.
The fellow who called me is dead set against the plan. He called me because he’s been following events in Duluth. We had a long talk and I told him that JCI certainly had the wherewithal to do a bang up job. I also pointed out that at least his District will get to vote on any potential consolidation and building plan unlike the residents of the Duluth School District. He was worried the County schools would tricked into voting for the plans that JCI has helped develop. I told him that I thought it would be a tough sell.
He sent me this column by Bill Arthur, the long-time editor of the Voyageur Sentinel, the official newspaper for Orr and its nearby townships. Its like deja vu all over again:
Bottom-line for ISD 2142:
Fiscal responsibility and educational performance
School District officials continue to conduct meetings in area communities in which a series of omnibus options – developed with the help of Johnson Controls and other consultants – are floated to attendees.Thursday afternoon, two amendments to HF2 were offered in the Minnesota House that will probably influence the economic context of ISD 2142’s future. One passed, one was defeated. The amendment that passed creates a “placeholder” enabling sparcity aid for the District. If and when such language gets added to the Senate bill and is signed in a final version by the Governor, the measure preserves sparcity aid for this District (and others) even if closings and consolidations take place. The second amendment, defeated by six votes, would have required school starts before Labor Day – negatively impacting Northeastern Minnesota’s tourist season and the dwindling population of viable resorts and related businesses. Rep. David Dill helped move the sparcity aid amendment forward and spoke against the amendment that would have lengthened the school year.
Dill reminded me that the Legislature doesn’t interfere in how ISD 2142 decides its options, but has been called upon to pass legislation to improve the economic climate for education delivery. We’ll take that with a grain of salt, as there have been hints that legislators may have sideband discussions on the pros and cons of school closures. Most of our politicians prefer to stay out of the public limelight on these matters, as emotions run high and those who are concerned about re-election don’t want to alienate their base.
Meantime, the District’s agenda lurches forward. I say “lurches”, because the process seems flawed in several aspects.
ISD 2142 officials discuss “options” they have framed for the future delivery of K-12 education in the sprawling geography of our District. Board members cite research by Johnson Controls, Inc., and others as supporting the options; which are different scenarios for consolidation, facilities renovation and/or new school construction.
Although meeting attendees are verbally assured by presenters that research conclusively supporting the options is extensive, valid and reliable; documentation of fiscal and educational requirements analysis has not been entirely available to the public for critical scrutiny. A School Board member said more documentation would soon be available on the District’s web site. This is a bit problematic, since the Board has put a “rush” on the process — saying it will decide on how resources will be shuffled and new schools constructed by the end of May.
The important contexts in the District’s initiative are (1) accountability for use of public funds and (2) delivery of appropriate K-12 educational services to our area’s students.
District officials’ collection of public input on their proposed omnibus options is – so far — neither a valid nor reliable process.
• Officials concede no official record is being made or kept with respect to public questions or comments in meetings held to discuss omnibus options. Officials have met with different groups of community members and, in at least one instance, introduced an additional option based on input from a community sub-group.
The District has no technology master plan, nor has the District conducted a detailed ITC requirements assessment traceable to individual schools or for the District as a whole.
• Lacking a master ITC plan that is frequently updated to allow for changes in technology and new IT educational initiatives, neither District officials nor Johnson Controls can quantify “state-of-the-art” technology promised in omnibus options; yet such promises are being made in these public meetings. Cost estimates for new school construction will vary widely, according to technology infrastructure provision to individual schools and the configuration and governance of central IT management. The difference in expense and savings could vary significantly.
Many of the District’s concerns for the sustainability of K-12 services are valid, but the economic context is not only changing as you read this, but part of the criteria being used to rationalize “options” is a tautology. The associated costs are not supported by documented requirements analysis, nor by measured public opinion.
Could be this process needs to be slowed down a bit and subjected to more thoughtful analyses. Right now it seems driven by an applause meter, interpreted by a few. Maybe this big Disrtict should be divided, maybe bringing communities into the dialogue in a more meaningful and measurable way could yield better choices.
(Attribution: The Voyageur Sentinel newspaper – 25 April 2009
“Watching Moss Grow†Bill Arthur)
