Assumptions fuel school closure controversy
Fred Nathan’s Think New Mexico organization has produced reports influencing public policy. The quality of these reports is dependent on rigorous research. Unfortunately, Mr. Nathan didn’t apply the same due diligence before penning his latest op-ed, “Closing Santa Fe’s Small Schools Repeats Past Mistakes.”
Mr. Nathan claimed SFPS “inflated” the deficit to over $9 million “to scare and stampede the community and the board into making the unpopular decision to close schools.” However, as late as March 6, the Senate Finance Chairman, Senator John Arthur Smith, predicted a possible cut of 5 percent to 7 percent in school budgets to help balance the state budget. For Santa Fe Public Schools, a 5 percent cut would’ve created an $8.36 million shortfall.
Contrary to attempting to scare the community, we were simply preparing for the scenario Senator Smith predicted and it would have been irresponsible not to prepare various options for a balanced budget. It’s important to note that it was not until April 12 that the PED increased the unit value, resulting in an improved funding picture. In addition, the media reported assurances from both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature, as well as the Governor’s Office, that there was no appetite to further cut public education.
Therefore, it is just in recent weeks that we were confident moving forward with our best case budget scenario consisting of a $1.78 million deficit, a better financial outlook, but still grim.
Mr. Nathan’s reasoning that students suffered when Alvord, Kaune and Larragoite were consolidated into one larger school, citing a drop in proficiency scores in reading, is flawed. While it is true the reading proficiency rate of the new, larger school, Aspen, dropped in 2010, the entire state saw a similar dip in proficiency during that same time. However, the proficiency rates of Aspen students soon after actually increased and, by 2012, the students at Aspen were performing better than the state average, something the three smaller schools of Alvord, Kaune and Larragoite were not able to do in 2009, the year before consolidation. Achieving academic proficiency cannot be attributed to one variable.
Mr. Nathan claims that “Based on the research, the optimal size for an elementary or middle school is 400 or fewer students.” However, the research remains mixed on the efficacy of small school size benefits. The $700 million Gates Study found that it was unreliable to make assumptions that small school size in and of itself was the reason for improved student achievement. Additionally, Rio Rancho Public Schools is often looked to as a model for academic achievement, yet their smallest elementary school has an enrollment of 632 students.
I understand families and educators prefer smaller schools; unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of sufficient funding to support them. On May 2, I recommended and our school board voted to not close any of our schools. However, over the next few years, the Board has the task of determining if the funding is there to keep these schools open. An important point that Mr. Nathan chose to ignore is that the cost of renovation for the schools in question exceeded 60 percent of the cost of new construction. This, coupled with what demographers predict will be continued declining enrollment, must be seriously taken into consideration when making the decision on how capital outlay dollars will be spent and what will be taken to the voters in the next bond cycle. We hope when that happens, Mr. Nathan sticks to his organization’s mission statement, as stated on the Think NM webpage, “to perform and publish sound, nonpartisan, independent research.”