Brad Hollerbach is the Director of Information Technology for the Southeast Missourian. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the newspaper or its editorial board. He writes this blog primarily for his own amusement and to parody the absurdities of the world we live in. He lives with his wife and two cats that don't really care for one another in Cape.

Why I'm Not Voting For The School Bond Proposition

Posted Wednesday, March 24, 2010, at 2:00 PM

Additional information was added at the end of this blog.

The immortal words of the fictional Colonel Sherman Tecumseh Potter came to mind after reading that the Cape Girardeau Chamber of Commerce president told business people attending the recent First Friday Coffee that they should view the upcoming local school bond proposition as a whole and not to vote against it "because there is a piece of it you don't like."

Horse hockey, I thought.

While the leadership of the local Chamber of Commerce may believe that in the case of this bond issue the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, I cannot.

There is no way I am or can vote for this bond issue.

That's not to say this bond issue is completely unmeritorious. There are some aspects of it that I could vote for.

But there are other parts of this bond issue that smack of the same pork-barrel politics that reign supreme in Washington, D.C. I get the impression that since this bond issue will not raise the property tax rate the district decided to go for broke and ask for every item on its Christmas wish list.

Want a pony? Why stop at one. Let's get a whole herd!

There are four parts of this bond issue that I take exception to: replacing Franklin Elementary, the football stadium, the auditorium and adding on classrooms to the reputedly Too-Small-High-School.

Franklin Elementary School

Why does the district even need to replace Franklin School, the smallest school in terms of students in the district? Why is the district proposing to spend ten million dollars replacing it with a two-story structure -- that's $3 million more than the cost of an equivalent-sized single-level elementary school -- just so they can stay on the same parcel of land at the corner of Louisiana and Themis?

It's not like the district hasn't gotten rid of older schools before. Washington, May Greene and Schultz have all been deemed obsolete in recent years and sold off. Why not do the same to Franklin?

Franklin occupies the smallest tract of land owned by the district at 6 acres. Wouldn't it make better fiscal sense to enlarge the other existing schools that are located on considerably larger lots ranging from Jefferson at 10 acres to Blanchard at about 20 and divide Franklin's students amongst them?

But of course, there is a stigma with sending students to certain public elementary schools in town. To paraphrase George Orwell, all elementary schools in Cape Girardeau are equal, but some elementary schools are more equal than others.

And if Franklin were shut down, those students would likely be divided between the two less desirable elementary schools, Jefferson and Blanchard. I guess we can't have that, now can we?

The Football Stadium

And then there is the case of the football stadium, and yes, Virginia, it is a football stadium.

The bond issue supporters can try to call this an "all purpose events stadium," but that doesn't fool anyone. You don't need to spend nearly three million dollars on bleachers and infrastructure for track and field events. Not to disrespect those sports, but a truck load of folding chairs would be sufficient for all the spectators at your average track meet.

Do I think it is weird that a school the size of Cape Central does not have its own football stadium and instead has rented the University's facility for decades?

Heck, yes.

It is the damnedest thing I've ever seen. I was raised in a town of 3,500 that had both a public and parochial high school. Combined they would have been two-thirds the size of Cape Central yet each of them had nice football stadiums due in large part to the respective school's football boosters.

But I don't see how a football stadium is even remotely necessary to the education of our youth or why the taxpayers should have to pay for it. What's next? Shall the taxpayers chip in and pay for prom as well? Limos and tux rental aren't cheap, you know.

If an extra-curricular stadium is that important, why doesn't the district's Foundation work on a fund drive in conjunction with the boosters to get private money to finish what has already been started? There have to be at least a couple thousand Central High alumni who once played football still alive. If the experience was so important, they should be happy to contribute the $3 million needed to outfit the facility.

The "All School" Auditorium

The "all school auditorium" as it has been described in the pro-bond issue campaign literature is much like the football stadium.

Its use is primarily for extra-curricular activities. When the auditorium was built at what is now the Junior High School in 1955, it could -- and presumably still does -- seat 1005. At that time the average class size at Central was less than 200 so everyone in the high school as well as the faculty could be in the auditorium at the same time with room to spare.

However, the "all school auditorium" being proposed at the new high school is reportedly only going to seat 750. That's about 425 short of the school's current student population.

What am I missing? Is attendance that pathetic at Cape Central that an auditorium 36% smaller than the current student population is adequate to conduct "all school" events? If it is, the district has more important things to worry about than what to build next.

Or shall I put on my calendar to expect another bond issue in five or six years when the district realizes that it must add-on a desperately needed new "all school" auditorium that has the capacity to fit 100% of seven-eighths of the students attending Central High?

I just don't see the need for two large theatres in the district. It would be like having two stadiums. Theatres are huge spaces that are expensive to heat and cool and are only minimally used. Cape Central conducts two plays a year. Wouldn't it make more fiscal sense to continue using the existing auditorium at the Junior High for these productions?

Or if it is in need of a facelift, surely that can be done for far less money than the $7.2 million projected for adding one on to the Too-Small-High-School

The Too-Small-High-School

I'm particularly perplexed and peeved by the school district's "need" for 16 classrooms for the seven-year-old high school. Exactly where are the students that justify this need?

The Cape Girardeau Board of Education conducted a study of the district's facilities in 1992. At that point, the population for a four-grade high school in Cape Girardeau was 1285.

Flash forward 17 years to September 2009 when the school released its Master Plan.

It reported the enrollment for the high school to be 1176, an 8.5% decrease since 1992. Yet during that 17 years a brand-new high school was built that was somehow "too small." How could that be? Did the district administration at the time it was built trade educational necessities for extra-curricular luxuries?

And apparently, the Too-Small-High-School was not too small by a just a little. I think most people would consider 16 classrooms to be too small by a lot -- if that is actually the case.

But according to the district's own Master Plan, a senior high school should have between 160 and 200 square feet of space per student. Right now, the average square footage based on the number of students attending Central High School is 175.

So we're well within the square footage range as defined by the district's Master Plan and the CGPS student population does not appear to be growing and has actually shrunk. For further proof look at the U.S. Census data. It shows that the school age population in the city of Cape Girardeau actually decreased between 1980 and 2008 by 6%.

Yet, the school district tells us they don't have enough space and needs to add over 100,000 square feet of floor space to the entire district -- plus rebuild Franklin almost completely.

I ask again, where are the students to justify this need?

It has been said that this bond proposal is a "quality of life issue."

Perhaps, for those who have children either in or planning to go in the Cape Girardeau public school system it is. If I were a direct stakeholder with children attending the local public schools, I would be a huge booster. Who wouldn't want to see their kid go to a good school with great facilities and have all your neighbors help pay for it? That's a heck of a deal.

But for those of us without children or whose children are not going to public school, this is a bottom line issue. Yes, I know this bond issue is not going to change my property tax rate and if the bond issue fails, neither my taxes nor my tax rate are going to go down. I get that.

However, I like to see my tax-dollars spent prudently, and I believe that too much of this bond issue shows no signs of fiscal restraint during a time when our state government is trying to figure out how to cut a half-billion dollars from its already lean budget.

This bond issue really boils down to perceived educational needs, wants and projected needs.

Since I feel a majority of this bond issue to be wants rather than educational needs or projected needs, I will be voting "No" on April 6.

This portion was added Wednesday afternoon.

Here is some further information that I've collected on this issue that didn't make the original final edit of this blog, but I felt are worth sharing.

According to the Career and Technology Center, an average of 260 students from Cape Central attend the CTC thus further lightening the student load on the high school. They don't attend the CTC all day, but in 3 hour blocks.

In addition, the CTC apparently has enough spare classrooms that they can lease them to the community college initiative. One would think that if the space issue was so dire that the high school would have already been using those classrooms.

Comments

View 24 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

I agree with you Brad, the numbers don't fit what they are asking for. I really respect someone who disagrees with a popular opinion, but has the data to back up their opinion.

-- Posted by mynameismud on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 1:09 AM
My real heartburn in this bond issue lies with the high school. I have been told that teachers in the junior high and high school receive two prep periods per day. They are the only teachers in the area to receive this perk. By reducing the prep periods to the standard of one, the school's classrooms are better utilized and the "too small" new school becomes just the right size. Any business would utilize a scarce resource this way. It should also allow the school to save some money by using these teacher's to teach an additional class per day. I have questioned the district's ability to manage these improvements (if it passed) while they should be focusing on their horrible test scores and drop-out rate, and the comment was made, "We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time." The school district hasn't even shown an ability to crawl towards respectable academic standards across their student demographics, and I don't give infants gum, or wads of taxpayer cash, to chew on. Build some confidence in your ability to manage our schools appropriately and the taxpayers will reward you, but "Show-Me" first.

-- Posted by Jones on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 5:43 AM
What frustrates me is that the school district doesn't even maintain the buildings they have now. What happened to the concept of setting aside money for roof repair; HVAC repair/replacement; Information Technology, plumbing and electrical updates? This school district has never been fiscally responsible. Why should we give them more money to throw away? Thanks but no thanks. They won't get my vote until they change their way of thinking.

-- Posted by Chilin' on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 9:11 AM
I found this bit of information in an opinion piece in the Tuesday, March 16 issue of the Wall Street Journal interesting. The article discussed the merits of charter schools and student performance.

The author noted that "the performance of American high school students has hardly budged over the last 40 years while the per-pupil cost of operating the schools they attended has increased threefold in real dollar terms."

The whole article makes a strong case in favor of charter schools and further highlights why the U.S. K-12 public education model just doesn't work. Here's the link to the article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123470465841424.html

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 9:57 AM
Brad,

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I'm back in Cape for a few weeks gathering current content for my Cape blog.

(See photos and factoids about Franklin school here:

http://www.capecentralhigh.com/cape-photos/franklin-the-school-with-no-name/

My brother and I were talking about the stadium. I was postulating that there might be savings in rent and additional revenue from concessions that might offset the costs of a new stadium, but then we came up with a bunch of negatives:

1. You may not pay rent, but you will be paying for maintenance and upkeep.

2. If the city's goal is to keep the downtown and Broadway business districts alive, keeping CHS football at Houck Stadium helps.

If I'm coming from Sikeston or Perryville, going to Houck takes me past a whole bunch of Broadway businesses. If I have time to kill before or after the game, I'm likely to say, "Let's go look at the river and see what's going on downtown."

That traffic will never get there if the stadium is built near the I-55 corridor.

3. Houck Stadium is at SEMO. If a student is walking by and sees the stadium lights on and hears the crowd roar, he or she is more likely to look over the cliff and be drawn into Cape community life than if the game is played miles away.

4. An intangible: Maybe "big city" Cape players won't feel any awe at playing on the university campus because they live here, but if I'm a small-town team, I might feel a little differently about it. Plus, it might entice me to attend SEMO.

-- Posted by ksteinhoff on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 9:58 AM
I am constantly in awe of the gall that it takes to come up with these sorts of proposals. You are totally right Brad! I remember well when the new high school was originally built. It was to compete with the new Notre Dame. We voted it down repeatedly because we saw no clear need for it and 3 different times they tried to slip it back into the ballot. On the 3rd try after it had been considerably downsized and on an off-year election, it passed. Then they tried immediately to get more money to get more stuff for the new school with another tax increase.

Now low and behold, Notre Dame is getting ready to expand again due to INCREASED enrollment. Central MAGICALLY needs to expand too, even though they have lower enrollment than they did when it opened.

I think that Cape Central has quite the inferiority complex between competing with both Jackson and Notre Dame. They are both clearly better schools than Central is if you look at the academics.

I suggest that Central needs to look to the books instead of the structure and maybe you will need to expand with new students flooding your hallways.

-- Posted by jcwill on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 1:51 PM
Brad,

You have more information than the school board or the central administration. The Southeast Missourian should print your comments in the newspaper.

Keep up your investigation. Every voter in the Cape Girardeau Public School district should know the facts.

-- Posted by Buccaneer on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 6:39 PM
Brad, I agree. This would be a good time to think about saving up some tax money instead of a plan to spend what we haven't got.

The rural school I attended built new and the extra money for the expanded gym. came from private donations. And school taxes there are still high, but as far as I know they do a good job educating.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 7:10 PM
Let's dig a little deeper. You have a high school principal and an asst. supt. that believes that the SAT should be the the exit level exam. Give me a break. The SAT is a predicter of college success. What curriculum is the SAT attached? Jeeze! What a joke! Evidently the Cape Public Schools is attached to the SAT. The candidate for mayor feels and has written that the current curriculum is great and it needs no audit. His rationale, he was a former Board member. Again, let's pay attention to the facts and vote.

-- Posted by Buccaneer on Wed, Mar 24, 2010, at 9:57 PM
Closing Franklin School? To put it mildly, we are not amused! Keep your cotton pickin' hands off that school.

-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 12:22 AM
Well at least Voyager, I'm not saying tear it down as the district has decided is the best course of action.

Is the school still "Franklin" if you tear down all of it except the gym and build a new building? Is the building "Franklin" or the plot of land it occupies in the Sunset neighborhood "Franklin?" I dunno.

Considering how nice of a job the developers have done on the "rattle-trap" -- or so we were told -- Schultz school, I would actually be optimistic that Franklin could have a useful second life without being torn down.

The only catch to that rosey scenario is that it looks like the state will be slashing those historic tax credits which have helped fund a lot of older building renovations throughout the state. That might not bode well for large building like Franklin needing some TLC in this economic climate.

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 8:23 AM
I'm voting NO

-- Posted by Egotistical_Bigot on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 12:01 PM
If the bank sent you a notice and said that your mortgage was going to be extended for 10 years, your payment would not increase, would you consider that an increase? Would you vote for it?

-- Posted by IonU on Thu, Mar 25, 2010, at 6:48 PM
Actually, Observation and Thoughts, I don't think I need a sit down with Dr. Welker. It would not change my opinion as it would obviously not change yours since you have a vested interest in construction projects going ahead.

While the Missourian Editorial Board -- which I am not a member of -- has come out in favor of this matter, bloggers are treated like Speakout comments. It's their opinion.

And I base my opinion on reading a whole lot of original source material and developing my own opinion rather than be told "what is good." While there are some definitive "needs" in this bond proposal, there are far too many unnecessary "wants" that have little to do with education.

I will be voting no.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 12:55 PM
Brad,

How do you know that Observations and Thoughts has a "vested interest in construction projects going ahead"?

-- Posted by Scott Horrell on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 2:33 PM
Observation and Thoughts,

You're right. That was a speculative comment. I apologize. And while I consider opinion and commentary to be basically synonymous, I guess you are technically correct. I have given my beliefs based on my analysis of the situation and the data.

I don't know how you can believe the high school NEEDS 16 classrooms when the overall student population has been decreasing for years and the high school's average square feet per student is well within the Districts Master Plan's range of 160 to 200 square feet? Is the Master Plan wrong and the square footage should be 200 to 240?

But in the meantime the school district is able to lease extra space at the CTC right next door to the community college initiative. One would think the high school needs those classroom worse.

And if space is so tight in the district, then where are the temporary classroom trailers? Columbia Missouri is asking for a $120 million no-tax levy increase next week for very good reason. They're currently using 164 temporary classroom trailers.

And Cape, isn't using any, anywhere in the district. Not a one.

And lets talk about the football stadium. That has absolutely nothing to do with education. It has everything to do with egos and I don't feel it should be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Anyhow, that's my opinion and I will still be voting No.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 3:48 PM
There are alot of lessons to be learned on a football field, track field, band field, soccer field, baseball field, softball field, etc. that you cannot get in the classroom. No less important what so ever.

Give proof of your ego charge and not just your opinion of others motivation and I will abandon any support I have ever had for sports programs and anything that sustains them. Trying to make it about egos is counter productive, biased and inaccurate. In everything a lesson if you care to extract it.

-- Posted by Scott Horrell on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 5:01 PM
Scott, I never said anything about the fields nor did I mention whose egos I specifically referred. Yes, I agree lessons can be learned on sporting fields.

But the Stadium portion of this bond issue is primarily for the SPECTATORS not the athletes and a lot of those spectators are proud parents and grandparents and other people who are no longer actually in school. It's their egos who I refer to.

In my opinion, stadium bleachers and concession stands have little to do with education unless the FBLA happens to be running the concession stand.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 9:53 PM
So we should not set up chairs in the Commons for awards recognition or any other function based on what you just said because the parents, grandparents, spectators are just there for their own egos also? Your reaching Brad.

-- Posted by Scott Horrell on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 12:33 PM
I'm not saying it's not OK for people to bring their own seating to watch their kids or their grandkids. Happens all the time at softball fields, the park, and other public venues. People bring their own chairs.

I don't feel that money from a school bond issue should pay for seating that has nothing to do with education. It's there for the spectators. And to say otherwise I think is reaching.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 1:08 PM
And what is wrong with having bleachers, etc. for all the ego driven spectators whose taxes paid for it? Just because you can't assign a quantative value to its absolute relevance to what you perceive education is or should be does not mean it has nothing to do with education. There are hundreds of school districts in the nation that seem to disagree since they built stadiums for their schools and continue to do so. For some kids, they would drop out if it weren't for a sport. They are motivated to uphold grades to be able to play. If you agree that there is an education to be had of a different type than the classroom on the field of competition then why do you begrudge one sport (actually two-track also) from facilitating their program with a true home field. Don't argue about Houck either because it is not a true home field. When you bus there and back (band and football team), get no concession revenue, have no control over your scheduling, don't have regular dressing/locker rooms, cannot personalize the stadium except for our orange pads on the goal posts that have to be removed when done, and don't touch the field but 5 times a year, then that is no home field. We appreciate its use but it's a local field not true home field in that respect.

Example: Let's say Jackson and Cape play their opening season game against each other at Jackson. Who has the home field advantage? Jackson of course because they have access to the field. Now, they play the same opener at Houck, who has the advantage? Not Cape because it is the first time they have seen the field all year and lately Jackson brings more people. Same basic thing with track.

-- Posted by Scott Horrell on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 7:54 PM
Scott, obviously you are passionate about this stadium and we could discuss this difference of opinion considerably longer and neither one of us will ever change the other's opinion. You believe all the taxpayers should pay for it, and I believe the boosters should foot the bill.

Really neither of our opinions matter. The people who are going to vote in this election have made up their minds.

My feeling is that IF this bond issue fails it will be because of one of three things:

1. The fact the economy is still in the doldrums and experts regarding our own state's fiscal outlook don't predict any growth for 5 to 7 years. A lot of people are seeing the pain in their own jobs and even though this is non-tax-increase bond issue, it's still a TAX. People hate taxes.

2. The fact that Franklin will be demolished if this bond issue passes. Mr. Rediger running for mayor will likely bring out a higher than average number of older citizen who have a soft spot in their hearts for the old Franklin school.

3. The football stadium. I know several graduates from Notre Dame who are specifically opposed to this bond issue just because of the stadium. I know some teachers too who feel that it isn't neccessary.

I guess we'll see what happens on Tuesday.

Thanks for reading and sharing your opinion.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 9:11 PM
I wish the boosters had the resources to do that. Private funding was always preferable to me, but I guess the project is too big for just a few people relatively speaking. I don't like taxes any more than you. If this required a higher tax rate I don't know that I would be altogether for it. We just have a unique opportunity. Thanks for the forum Brad. It's been fun. God bless.

-- Posted by Scott Horrell on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 9:59 PM
O&T,

I realize that extensively renovating nearly 100 year old buildings -- like Franklin -- will always cost more than building new, especially when you start talking about seismic retrofits on a masonry building. There are often bugaboos you just don't know about until you start tearing open walls.

I thought from the beginning that the estimate for Franklin seismic retrofits was way off in the District's original master plan (think it was $300 grand). Guess I was right since the estimate doubled from September to November.

But voting is not always about dollars and cents or practicality. There's that sentimental factor that sometimes comes in to play especially when you start talking about a building someone attended elementary school at 50 years ago. That's all I'm saying.

I could be wrong regarding the reasons why this bond issue MIGHT fail, but if it does I still think these 3 things are key.

Good point about the property tax levy and the other negatives if the Bond Issue doesn't pass. While the "Yes Schools" mailer concentrated on the positive aspects it never mentioned any of the negatives if it failed.

I know that people don't like to publicize gloom and doom, but perhaps the Yes Schools committee should have included a little "What If This Doesn't Pass" scenario in the mailer explaining what might happen in that case.

As far as Dr. Welker "educating" me on this issue, I don't see that happening. I've sent him a couple emails with specific bond issue questions and he hasn't responded. But I can understand that.

I'm not a reporter or a school board member or have kids in the public school system, just a part-time blogger and a full-time taxpayer.

But, thank YOU for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 11:57 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.