Tonight the School Board is holding a Public Hearing on whether to merge small elementary schools to improve fiscal efficiency. This will also include establishing two new K-8 schools as part of the Public Hearing.
This past April, I cautioned the School Board to refrain from hastily eliminating school mergers as a cost reduction option because Florida had not confirmed if the federal stimulus money was secured. I also promised the School Board that if the stimulus money was secured, I would approach them to determine if they wanted to continue exploring school mergers as a cost reduction option.
The financial sense of urgency that surrounded my initial caution no longer exists. We are not digging ourselves out of a $240 million hole, and the revised projected deficit was addressed at the April 13th work session.
I have also had to consider the compressed period of time for implementation. My staff is prepared to work on an accelerated schedule but the question is will the community be ready? I suspect that everyone would prefer that we take the necessary time to allow our parents and other community members to get adjusted to the proposed new school assignments.
Although some community members may argue whether small schools should be merged at all, no one should doubt that in two years, if the economy doesn’t reverse itself and the legislature does not provide a stable recurring source of revenue for the children of Florida, Orange County and every other school district in the state will fall off of the proverbial financial cliff. We’ve already discovered a more efficient way of doing business by merging costly small schools. This board will have to address maintaining small schools within the context of that financial deficit.
Additionally, there is benefit to our capital budget when we merge small schools. Rebuilding a campus to serve an enrollment of less than 600 students is preferable to incurring the cost of renovating two or more small facilities. As we find ways to stretch our capital dollars, this strategy will become increasingly attractive.
Another point for consideration is the recommendations of the Biracial Committee. They used very narrowly defined criteria to recommend against merging of 5 schools (including K-8) and I am not sure if they fully weighted the benefits. Although their actions are advisory as defined by the Federal courts, in an era when OCPS is seeking Unitary Status it may not be prudent to proceed without allowing them to gain a better understanding.
On a related note, the local NAACP branch has not yet taken a stand on the school mergers in the Black community and has even gone as far as to recommend re-zoning the entire district to achieve equity. I would want more time to give the NAACP the assurance that schools mergers will be fair and that they will not repeat past discriminatory practices.
Taking everything I said into consideration, I recommend that we either table all action on small schools or move to approve all mergers not under question by the Bi-Racial Committee. If the latter is the decision, I recommend we allow one year for implementation. Either option will require a vote by the School Board.
Both options would allow the School Board more time to gauge the level of funding coming from the State.
The merits of acting only on the three options endorsed by the Bi-Racial Committee; Kaley/Lake Como Elementary, Maxey Elementary and Pine Castle Elementary would allow the district to improve its operational efficiency during these difficult economic times and make the necessary adjustments in its capital program.
The School Board has difficult decisions ahead and my recommendations are intended to help them to do what is best for children.
