Let’s start with the Times’ bias against poor communities. The Times repeats its cynical message that only wealthy communities deserve to have good schools. The Times believes it’s okay for Piedmont “where residents have far more disposable income,” to tax themselves for schools but not for West County.
To pay for it, the district issues the bonds. Property owners must then cover the resulting debt through higher tax bills. This year, property owners paid $282 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation. That rate would increase to $341 next year if Measure H passes. West Contra Costa would have the second-highest East Bay school tax rate, behind only Piedmont, where residents have far more disposable income.
Good schools are a necessity, not a luxury, and are probably more important for poor communities than for wealthy communities. The Times projects total school taxes at $341 per $100,000 of value if Measure H passes. That’s less than $1.00 a day per $100,000 of value, which is not going to drive any homeowner into foreclosure. The fact that quality of schools is the primary determinant of home prices in any neighborhood might make this modest amount the best investment a property owner can make to boost his or her property value.
I don’t know why Bill Fay was less than successful in articulating the basis of the WCCUSD bond program, but I do know how the program works, and I think I can explain it.
From the beginning, the bond program was built around standards rather than budgets. In a budget-driven program, an arbitrary budget is established, and the project is shoehorned into it regardless of always evolving changes in construction costs, extenuating site conditions, the bidding climate and changes in codes and standards. In a standards driven program, the project adheres to carefully established minimum standards and remains intact even if competitive bids come in over budget. The result is that neighborhoods get schools of comparable quality even if construction bids were higher than anticipated. It would not be fair to reduce the quality of future schools just because previous ones in other neighborhoods were built less expensively at the bottom of the recession.
Over the last several years, the recession has yielded some significant bargains in school construction, but an improving economy has reduced bidding completion and prices have risen. The District’s goal has been to maintain quality across West County regardless of changes in economic conditions.
As one of the architects participating in the bond program, I have not seen the “out of control” picture painted by the Times editorial. The physical attributes of school spaces are set by a District-wide Educational Specification and Master Plan Space Program (the example in the hyperlink is for elementary schools). A space program is built on state and District standards and incorporated into a Conceptual Design and Master Plan (example in hyperlink is Wilson School). Detailed designs are based on Typical Classroom Plans, and building materials and equipment are based on a Master Product List. These are just a few of the design standards and controls used in the bond program.
Schools built or rehabilitated in the bond program also must conform to standards of the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) See http://www.chps.net/dev/Drupal/node. CHPS may have increased costs but has direct ties to student performance, health and attendance. The District has made a choice to invest in schools that strive not only for high standards from an aesthetic and functional standpoint, but that seek to perform at the highest standard for energy-efficiency, lifecycle, and occupant health. While many districts have spent a significant amount of money to essentially put Band-Aids on old, inefficient buildings, West Contra Costa has been very clear that they are not going to perpetuate mediocrity and kick the proverbial can down the road.
The Times editorial quoted Fay, “During the planning process, the district seeks input from school site councils, staff members, parents and the public. "Anything they want in their school, they get it." On its face, this statement is simply not true. It is accurate that the District (and its architects) seeks input from “school site councils, staff members, parents and the public,” and this is actually best practice. I don’t think school site councils, staff members, parents and the public would want it any other way. But the idea that that they get “anything they want is just not accurate.”
Other critics of the bond program dismiss the idea that physical facilities are important for learning. Not to diminish the critical importance of good teaching, numerous studies have validated the importance of facilities for effective student performance. Following are just a few examples. For more, use your search engine and look for “school design and student performance.”
· Great teachers, stable families and a school's location have long been said to be key to student success. But a new study out of the United Kingdom suggests that a school's physical design can improve or worsen children's academic performance by as much as 25 percent in early years. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/school-design-student-grades_n_2404289.html).
· Research on the Impact of School Facilities on Students and Teachers (http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/Documents/ResearchImpactSchoolFacilitiesFeb2010.pdf).
· The work at SDPL has been immediately rewarding for several public and independent school systems in the United States by providing hard evidence that certain aspects of school design directly affect student outcomes (http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/research/TannerResearchAward.pdf).
· In fact, the results of various research conducted in this area indicated a significant enhancement of student achievement in school buildings of higher aesthetic standards (Phillips, 1997). Mason and Mintz (1956) studied the aesthetic effects of the environment on people within different types of environments. They concluded that people housed in "beautiful" rooms had better attitudes and greater achievement than people housed in "average" or "ugly" rooms. According to Hathaway (1988), educational facilities are closely related to learning and human performance. He found that "either they convey subtle messages (perceptual constraining factors), they aid or inhibit performance of the occupants (individual constraining factors), or they influence programs and the way they are offered (program constraining factors) (p.12). In 1988, Taylor and Gousie found that the architectural settings of a school can "facilitate the transmission of cultural values, stimulate or subdue, aid in creativity or slow mental perception, and cause fear or joy" (p.23).( http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/research.html)
· How Schools Boost Student Performance through Architectural Design (http://gettingsmart.com/2013/08/how-schools-boost-student-performance-through-architectural-design/).
· High performance design can impact a district from the classroom to the boardroom. The primary benefits include higher test scores, increased average daily attendance, lower operation costs, improved teacher satisfaction and retention, decreased liability, and reduced environmental impacts.( http://www.chps.net/dev/Drupal/node/48).
Another error in the editorial is the statement “But the school board appoints the members, so the [Oversight] committee isn't independent.” The fact is that 75% of the Oversight Committee members are appointed by cities within the District, not by WCCUSD board members.
Regarding the Oversight Committee members who were quoted in the editorial, an E-FORUM reader describes them as follows:
They are a group of disgruntled parents who have held a long time grudge against Charles Ramsey. (Charley Cowens, Anton Jungher, Linda Ruiz Lozito, and Valerie Snyder (lives in Castro neighborhood, was against Portola being built in their neighborhood, sued our school district over this, tried to force Portola to be rebuilt on the Adams site etc. etc.) They tried to force the school board to have assigned districts/seats from Pinole and Hercules in an attempt to force Charles off the board (they thought if the district elections passed, that when Charles' term was up there would already be a person from El Cerrito on the board which would preclude him from being able to run.
Finally, the editorial repeats the accusation that “ financial beneficiaries -- construction companies, architectural firms and organized labor -- have underwritten most of the $2.8 million in campaign contributions since 2002 backing the bond measures.” All of these contributions are legal and have been publicly reported as required by law. This is neither news nor is it a reason to bash the bond program. Any construction project requires architects and contractors, and all those working on the bond are doing so because they were low bidders or were competitively selected for providing the best value and highest quality of services. Because most of them, including my firm, Interactive Resources, have contributed to bond program campaigns should surprise no one. At the end of the day, it’s not we who decide, it’s the voters.
Contra Costa Times editorial: School official's stunning comments another reason to reject West Contra Costa school bond measure
Contra Costa Times editorial © 2014 Bay Area News Group
Posted: 05/27/2014 04:00:00 PM PDT4 Comments | Updated: about 15 hours ago
Related Stories
· May 27:
· Audio (mono): West Contra Costa schools official explains "scope" budgeting for projects
· May 24:
· West Contra Costa school bond program draws massive campaign spending by contract recipients
· Pricey school construction spending draws scrutiny in West Contra Costa bond measure
· West Contra Costa district bond measures have funded numerous projects
· Apr 25:
· Daniel Borenstein: West Contra Costa already tops county property tax rates
· Apr 5:
· Contra Costa Times editorial: West County voters should reject misleading school bond measure
· Apr 4:
· Daniel Borenstein: School bond deception by omission is morally, ethically and possibly legally wrong.
When it comes to West Contra Costa's gargantuan school construction program, money is no object.
That's the take-away from the stunning comments of Bill Fay, associate superintendent for operations, to the district's bond oversight committee. "There are no controls to contain that budget," he said.
It's one of many reasons voters should reject Measure H on Tuesday's ballot, in which the district seeks the seventh voter bond approval in 17 years, increasing its building program from $1.6 billion to $1.9 billion.
It helps explain why, for example, Pinole Valley High's construction cost projection runs more than four times the 2013 median for the California-Arizona-Nevada-Hawaii region.
Since 1999, the district has issued more construction bonds, about $1 billion so far, than any California K-12 district except the much larger Los Angeles and San Diego districts. It has also sought the most state waivers of its legal bonding limit. No other district comes close. West Contra Costa officials plan to seek more immediately after the election.
They're out of control.
"Most construction programs ... (are) driven by budget and schedule," Fay explained. "This program is not driven by budget or schedule, it's driven by scope." During the planning process, the district seeks input from school site councils, staff members, parents and the public. "Anything they want in their school, they get it."
To pay for it, the district issues the bonds. Property owners must then cover the resulting debt through higher tax bills. This year, property owners paid $282 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation. That rate would increase to $341 next year if Measure H passes. West Contra Costa would have the second-highest East Bay school tax rate, behind only Piedmont, where residents have far more disposable income.
Most West County residents want safe and clean schools for students. But voters didn't intend to sign a blank check.
That's why school board members, led by Charles Ramsey, and Superintendent Bruce Harter have tried to hide the cost. Each time they place a bond measure on the ballot, they treat it as an isolated commitment, never mentioning existing debt from the past measures. Not once in ballot materials have they told voters the total obligation.
Meanwhile, financial beneficiaries -- construction companies, architectural firms and organized labor -- have underwritten most of the $2.8 million in campaign contributions since 2002 backing the bond measures. And they're primary contributors to Ramsey's current campaign for Richmond mayor.
To assuage concerns, each ballot measure touts the supposedly independent bond oversight committee mandated by state law. But the school board appoints the members, so the committee isn't independent. Not even close.
Nevertheless, some members have taken their job seriously, only to run into district stonewalling, as have members of the public seeking information. School officials even try to control the committee's agendas.
"We have been systematically put off," says committee Chairwoman Ivette Ricco. "We're supposed to keep an eye on the money for the public. ... But if we're not able to access that information, how are we supposed to do our job?"
Perhaps that's why two former oversight committee members signed the ballot arguments against Measure H. Current member Charles Cowens also plans to vote against it. "Bond number 7. That's ridiculous."
Fay's recorded comments, responding to committee questions about increasing construction costs, displayed rare district candor. He said he "sanitized" his prepared written response but wanted to "verbally talk about" it at the committee meeting.
When Fay first came to the district six years ago, he said, he didn't know about its approach to construction spending. "But I certainly found out when I tried to put in austerity measures and I was told, 'you will not do this,' and 'this is what we don't do.' "
Voters can hear the recording at http://bit.ly/1jroKHR. They should listen before they cast their ballots.
|
