By Janet Knowles

(Please see editorial note below, following this opinion)

Bond Transparency

This Bond proposal is huge in good times, but inconceivable in hard economic ones.  In my experience as a school Business Manager and Board member at all school levels, I had to ask why a District with declining enrollment would propose such a Bond measure.

Historical Numbers

Apparently the Middle School, which is less than 30 years old, is in such disrepair that it needs replacing due to lack of maintenance for many years. But based on enrollment, it doesn’t need replacement.  The enrollment of Orcas students is in decline. School peak in 1998-99 was 585 full time students.  In 2005/06, there were 500 students, the next year 465, then 430 then 417 (State of Washington website – Office of Superintendant of Public Instruction).  Currently, there are 395 students (stats from Keith Whitaker). If 585 students used to occupy this space and we now only have 395 students (388 for 2010/11), there is no need for a replacement building. The Middle school students could be merged with the Elementary and High School buildings.

OASIS in the mix

The District claims enrollment is above 500 when OASIS students are included.  That is true – technically.  Except the vast majority of OASIS students are ‘cyber’ students who live elsewhere in Washington. The Administration and Board use these ‘inflated’ numbers to illustrate that the enrollment is rising on Orcas when in reality the resident students (who live on Orcas and attend) the school are in decline.  The District is working towards a ‘virtual’ school here on Orcas – using the OASIS arm as the ‘need’ for additional capital buildings.  However these non-resident cyber students will never attend the school – instead they teleconference and communicate via computer.  Whitaker and others share that the enrollment will steadily increase – due to the success of the OASIS program. We should not count ‘out of district’ cyber students in defining the real physical needs at the school?  Where is the transparency in the discussion for the Bond proposal?

The school’s distorted enrollment numbers don’t show the true trend line which could easily be below 350 resident students in five years.  We may have 1000 students enrolled but only 350 attend the school so why the need for new structures? Full-Time Equivalency monies are paid for each student ‘enrolled’ within that District – hence the recruitment for out-of-district students since the school gets the dollars but not the ‘attending’ student. There is no increasing enrollment. No space is needed for OASIS cyber students since teachers communicate with students via the computer at home or in a coffee shop. Why should Orcas taxpayers pay for the projected ‘space needs’ for out of district students?

Extending the timeline

At the May 12, 2010 Special Board Meeting, increasing the payback time on the Bond to 25 years was deemed “a better choice for those on a fixed income and given the current economic climate”.  So making a really poor decision but spreading it over a longer life will make it more palatable to the voters?  When I asked at a Special Meeting where in Seattle or any other place in America a public school existed like their proposal, I received blank stares and no response.

With declining ‘true’ enrollment numbers, why is a Bond being proposed for $27 million? Proposing and planning such grandiose ideas for a public school in a community as small as ours to meet the needs of a small and declining true enrollment is incomprehensible.

Before you vote on the Bond measure, do what Barbara Kline says – educate yourself about the merits, cost and who truly benefits from this expenditure in a District with real declining enrollment.

Editor’s Note: There are factual inaccuracies in Ms. Knowles’ opinion piece above. These inaccuracies are addressed in the accompanying Guest Opinion by Orcas Island School District Business Manager Keith Whitaker.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email