WHICH A
WAY,
4J?
An analysis of
school consolidation
proposals
BY MARK GILLEM
s an educator and as an
architect, making the case
against recommendations to
improve Eugene’s schools
may seem diffi cult. Our
children deserve the very
best facilities and access to
the highest quality education.
However, the recommendations in a recent
4J Facilities Master Plan study are so
fl awed that the case against them is quite
easy to make.
In terms of building type, the
recommendations ignore overwhelming
research on the academic value of small
schools and disregard the evidence
supporting neighborhood schools. In
terms of process, the evaluation metrics
are skewed to justify new construction,
the effort failed to account for citizen
input, and the naïve hope for funding
misinterprets Eugene politics.
The district is certainly in a bind.
Administrators are running out of money
to operate their 35 school buildings,
yet many of these same buildings have
so much deferred maintenance that the
district now may be asking voters for
money to either demolish or abandon and
replace about 25 percent of its building
stock. The recommendations call for the
cash-strapped district to replace North
Eugene High School and Roosevelt
Middle School, as well as Willard and
River Road elementary schools. It also
calls for combining Howard and Corridor
elementary schools into one large new
building and doing the same for Edison
and Camas Ridge.
The focus on new construction,
however, seems odd given the recent round
of layoffs, furlough days and program cuts
the district has implemented. Granted,
these are two separate pots of money
(capital costs vs. operating costs), but to
most taxpayers the distinction is largely
irrelevant. The ambitious plan has little
community support, which is unsurprising
given the lack of community input in the
plan’s creation.
While the goal of ensuring that
equitable resources exist for all Eugene
students is laudable, the approach to
achieving that goal needs to be based on
broad community input. What is clearly
missing is a facilities planning vision
that can support the district’s mission. As
it stands, the “vision” the study seems to
promulgate is for cost savings through
consolidations, new buildings in place of
old ones, and consolidated schools over
neighborhood schools. But all three of
these goals are based on myths, not reality.
TODD COOPER
Myth: Consolidation saves money
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM
Reality: This proposed construction and
consolidation program will cost Eugene
taxpayers an estimated $186 million, not
including fi nancing costs on the three
proposed bonds. This is $100 million
more than upgrading existing schools.
If these buildings were repaired, the
study determined the cost would be $86
million (see fi gure 1). The consultant who
prepared the study justifi es this signifi cant
additional cost because the new schools are
forecasted to cost up to $700,000 a year less
to operate. This fails, however, to account
for the more than $6 million annual bond
repayment cost and the reduced operating
costs of renovated schools. Spending $6
million a year to save $700,000 a year does
not pass the commonsense test.
It is also a forecast that is most likely
wrong. According to researchers at the
University of Massachusetts, numerous
studies over the last 50 years have “shown
that over time consolidation has not
resulted in any signifi cant savings, and
reductions in per-pupil costs have been
very little if at all.” These researchers
did fi nd that for the fi rst year following
consolidation administrative costs are
lower, but this lasts for only one year “as
larger organizations have a strong tendency
toward creating more extensive and costly
administrative bureaucracy within a few
years.”
The University of Massachusetts
fi ndings support a 1992 study by the
Public Education Association of New
York that examined existing research
on school size and operational costs
and concluded, “The premise that small
schools are more expensive to operate
has always been false.” Educational
researcher Stuart Grauer explains why this
is the case: “Large schools actually exhibit
diseconomies of scale: ineffi ciencies and
increased costs that result from increases
in administrative bureaucracy, security
costs and transportation costs.”
Myth: Old school buildings cannot be
effectively repaired
Reality: According to the National Trust
for Historic Preservation, school districts
across the country from Spokane to Boise
to Miami have remodeled old and historic
schools with the very latest in computer
technology, life-safety techniques and
handicap accessibility. Sadly, demolition
by neglect is a common tactic used by less
enlightened districts. Such a tactic should
not be rewarded in this era of sustainability.
At the same time administrators are asking
students to recycle newspapers, they
should not be sending entire buildings to
the landfi ll.
In reading the 4J study, it is abundantly
clear that the problems are not building
failures. The problems are maintenance
failures that should be addressed by a
more robust maintenance program rather
than by demolition or abandonment. But
the consultant preparing the study is well
known for making recommendations
in support of costly new construction.
Three schools are good illustrative cases
that expose the fl aws in the study’s
methodology.
Roosevelt Middle School
Built in 1950, Roosevelt does indeed
have some fl aws. The report found that
the foundation at the band room is spalling
(fl aking), E wing is settling and has cracked
walls, B wing’s concrete fl oor has settled
some, areas of brick need cleaning, wood
soffi ts have moisture damage, the roof has
blisters and leaks, the tile fl oors in some
classrooms are cracked and stained, many
interior walls need repair and painting,
ceiling tiles are stained, most of the fi xed
equipment (lockers, bleachers, cabinets,
etc.) is old and worn out, many plumbing
fi xtures, boilers, heat pumps, unit vents
and radiators are at the end of their service
life, there is no air conditioning (a fatal
fl aw perhaps in Texas but not in Eugene),
some light fi xtures are old, some exits
lack handrails, and not all restrooms are
EUGENE WEEKLY JULY 19, 2012
11