Why the support for the expansion at the current site?

(an email sent to Board members on April 22)

Dear Members of the Governing Board,

The mayor opposes it.  The neighborhood opposes it.  The majority of parents at the school probably oppose it (but we don't know for sure because they've not yet been asked their opinion).  So, I'm left sincerely wondering why this is going forward and why there is such strong support for building on-site among some individuals.  I'm not being facetious; I really want to understand the issues from an alternate point of view. 

From the emails and conversations I've been a party to, this is what I understand the arguments in favor of a high school on the current site are:

#1  Credibility.

#2  This high school has been well-thought out and planned and it's going to be great!

#3  We need a high school by this fall and this is the only way to get one.  If we don't do this, we will strand the 65 students signed up for the fall.

#4  Nothing else will work because we have to build within one mile of the existing school

#5  The State has approved us to build on the site.  The state says we have enough room.

#6  Other schools are K-12 and successful.

#7  The concerns about teenagers and young children would apply only at other schools.  We will have the oversight and the caliber of kids to keep any potential safety issues at bay.

#8  We have great ideas for solving all the neighbors' and parents' concerns.  This might include separate times for using the ground, separate start times, tiered parking, larger drop-off zones, and more.

#9  Next year, the impact would only be "fifteen additional students" because the rest of the ninth graders are already here.

Can I take a moment and respond to each of these concerns from the standpoint of BOTH a parent AND a neighbor of the school?  In doing so, I don't mean to attack any individual or cause any hurt feelings.  I truly want to understand and create dialogue on these issues.  I freely admit I don't have all the facts.  I would love to be set straight if I misrepresent something or someone.  But I also think that only in discussing these issues can the Board really understand what's at stake when they make their decision.

If you disagree with my assessment, fine.  Let me know what I'm not understanding or considering.  I'll listen to what you say.  But I also hope you will take into account that I have talked to many, many individuals about the high school.  My husband or I have attended all the Governing Board meetings we knew about where the location for the high school was discussed.  We attended exploratory meetings and expressed our opinions.  We've offered to help in the past with surveying the parents at the school, only to be told by an administrator "you're the last person we want to be involved in a survey about the high school."  We responded to that by saying,  "Fine.  Find someone else to do it.  But the parents at the school should be asked their opinion."  We've tried to stay involved and aware of what is going on even as we feel we have been given very little information at times.

With that said, here are my thoughts on the arguments for a high school on the current location:

#1  Credibility.

I understand this one.  I really do.  The school is going to lose credibility with students who have signed up for the fall and with other parents at the school.  It's going to be embarrassing (if it's not already) and it's going to let down all the enthusiastic supporters who worked so hard to develop curriculum and do all the very long and thankless behind-the-scenes tasks to work on funding and build support for the school. 

But the school also needs to consider that if they DO go forward against the wishes of so many who have repeatedly expressed their opinion, they lose credibility with a much larger community.  They lose credibility with the mayor and his office.  They lose credibility with the neighbors they will have to live with for decades to come.  They lose credibility with the parents at the school who were not asked their opinion about moving forward or whose concerns about having a high school on the same site as an elementary school are discarded. 

Frankly, either way you choose you're going to have people upset.  So if "credibility" is the main concern, then I'd suggest that my side wins.  We have many more people who have lost or will potentially lose their faith in the school's credit.

#2  This high school has been well-thought out and planned and it's going to be great!

This really isn't an argument for the school ON THE CURRENT SITE and it needs to be dismissed as the red herring it is.  Arguing that the kids will be great or the curriculum will be wonderful is really just an argument for a high school in general. 

I hope the high school will be great and I'm sure there is a lot of thought and effort that's gone into it.  But the discussion about whether a high school should or should not be built is not what we're discussing here.  The high school can be just as wonderful somewhere else -- it does not need to be on the current site to be great.

#3  We need a high school by this fall and this is the only way to get one.  If we don't do this, we will strand the 65 students signed up for the fall.

Yep.  But the problem here is that the issue of not having a high school for the fall is a temporary one.  If the builder can't deliver on time, you'll have to wait a year anyway. 

It's not a compelling reason enough to build at the current site.  An obligation to 65 students cannot outweigh the obligation to the neighbors and the city.  The fact is, none of the members of the governing board or the administration live in the neighborhood.  You will all move on from the school at some point.  But the decisions you make and impose on the neighbors will be here for fifty years or more.  You cannot make a hasty decision about something that will impact this community based just on the idea that the 65 students won't get the best schedules if they try to sign up for Provo High or another high school at this point.  (updated 5/5/12 to add:  I have now been informed that one governing board member does live in the neighborhood.  I apologize for the mistake and appreciate the correction.)

This issue has been framed as "a high school has to be built here or we don't get a high school."  But is that really the criteria a decision of such long-lasting importance should be made?  Because of the four-months deadline we "make do" instead of doing the due diligence involved in finding a location that has more room and won't have such vocal opposition?

#4  Nothing else will work because we have to build within one mile of the existing school

I'm not sympathetic to this argument at all.  The ONLY reason we have to build within one mile of the school is because the individuals who went to the state did not do as they were directed by the Governing Board.  Instead of applying for a separate charter for a 9-12 grade, as was authorized, they applied for a change in charter, making Freedom Academy a K-12 school instead of a K-8 school.  The mistake made at that time has artificially imposed the one-mile radius on the school.  If the individuals had done as they were directed, the high school could be built at any site in the whole city.  [updated 7/3/12 to add:  After paying for copies of some missing minutes and reading them, it does appear that there was one meeting my husband and I were unable to attend where the plan was changed from getting a separate charter to exploring expansion of our current school, both on and off-site.  At this meeting, in which many neighbors showed up and were not allowed to speak, two votes were taken.  One was to explore expansion and come up with a plan that would be subject to approval.  A vote of 6 to 1 was taken in favor of exploring plans and making a proposal that would later be subject to approval.  The next vote was a vote to take the proposal to the state.  This vote was ruled "carried" even though it did not have the 6 votes needed according to the by-laws for any movement which changes our charter.  The vote taken was 5 in support, 1 opposed, and 1 who abstained.  Yet the administration and expansion committee, without ever circulating or allowing parents to see the plan they took to the state, took that plan to the state and applied to amend our charter.  The state approved that application and plans were carried forward.  Freedom Academy's name was changed to Freedom Preparatory Academy and the administration and some Board members acted as though the decision had already been made and that parents didn't need to be consulted or approve.]

#5  The State has approved us to build on the site.  The state says we have enough room.

Frankly, this argument doesn't fly with me.  The state has their own criteria and made the decision to approve the change in charter without hearing from any neighbors or citizens of the area that will be impacted.  They didn't walk the site or see what happens to traffic during drop-off or pick-up.  Just because the state says there's enough room doesn't mean the neighbors or parents feel the same way.  The state doesn't have to live in this neighborhood and cope with the decision on a daily basis for the next fifty years.

And really, there's a lot of things "the state" would let me do that would annoy and damage my neighbors.  I could fill my lawn with pink plastic flamingos and put up some neon signs that say, "Rednecks live here" and my neighbors couldn't do anything about it.  Just because you CAN do something by law doesn't mean you SHOULD.

#6  Other schools are K-12 and successful.

Yes, and other schools have become K-12 and failed.  My sister lives in Eagle, Idaho and her children attended a charter school there that was highly successful and academic in their focus.  But when they added a high school, the school's quality has floundered.  Many of the best and brightest students wanted to go to the larger area high schools where there were more choices and opportunities, leaving the school filled with kids who couldn't really keep up with the academics.  Many parents have withdrawn their students from the school as they've seen its character and quality go down because of the types of students who filled the spots in the high school. 

I do understand and appreciate that those who have worked for a high school have done research on the successful models out there.  That's great.  I hope they will also research the ones who have been unsuccessful.  But I hope that most of all, they will talk to parents at the school right now and make sure that a K-12 model is really what a majority of parents want.  Just because it can be done successfully somewhere else does not mean that translates here.  In fact, because of the widespread opposition to the change on site, I would bet that the school is much more likely to fail rather than to succeed.  Don't jeopardize what has been a successful K-8 school based on what could happen.  Sure, it might work.  But it also might fail.

#7  The concerns about teenagers and young children would apply only at other schools.  We will have the oversight and the caliber of kids to keep any potential safety issues at bay.

This remains to be seen.  I have already brought up issues that happened when the seventh and eighth grades were added.  This is a public school that plays by much different rules than a private one.  You may think you can limit some things that the First Amendment says you can't.  You may think that only the best and brightest kids will be attracted to the school, but state law says that everyone gets an equal chance at the lottery. 

Even if you could convince the neighbors that the current administration and Board would do enough to mitigate safety concerns, this school will be here long after those administrators and board move on.  The next board or the next or the next may have very different ideas than the current one.

But more than that, why should such concerns HAVE to be mitigated?  The absolute best way to make sure teenagers and young children do not mix in negative ways is not to include them on the same campus.  If we want to keep kids safe, that's the best way.  Why are we considering a second-best way?  What compelling reason other than the deadline to start in four months says that we should expand on the current site?  Is there a majority of parents who think we should?  Is there absolutely amazing research that says a K-12 model is better than a K-8?  If so, I'd love to see it.  All the research I've seen shows that a K-8 model is better. 

But enlighten me.  Sell me on the idea that a K-12 school is better or safer or has positive benefits for the younger kids.  But don't resort to anecdotes about this or that positive benefit that have come at this or that school or even our current school.  Because for every positive story, I could counter with a negative one about teenagers who abuse and bully younger ones, about drugs or PDA or other things that have occurred in K-12 environments.  I could even bring up some examples from our current school about negative things that the older ones have done to hurt younger ones -- for example, one of my sons is very small for his age and he has been teased by older kids at this school because of that.  Granted, that's not the same thing as a sixteen-year-old molesting a kindergartner in the bathroom, but still, it shows that bad things still happen at good schools -- plus there are no sixteen-year-olds at the school right now!

When you're talking about changing what has by and large been a successful school, then there had better be empirical research behind the change, not just nice stories or interviews with other schools who have "made it work."  The Board and administration has acknowledged that there are challenges to safety with moving to a K-12 model.  Some think they are solve-able.  They might be.  They might not be.  Why are we taking that chance? 

#8  We have great ideas for solving all the neighbors' and parents' concerns.  This might include separate times for using the ground, separate start times, tiered parking, larger drop-off zones, and more.

That's good to know.  I'll be interested in hearing some of these ideas rather than just hearing that there ARE ideas.  I'd also be interested to know why these ideas for solving neighborhood concerns haven't been implemented to solve the current traffic problems. 

But let's not pretend that the neighbor's concerns -- more traffic, more cars, teenage drivers, hazards to neighborhood kids, etc. -- can really be "solved."  At best, any "solution" come up with is going to be a compromise or something that may lessen the impact somewhat, not something that does away with the very real challenges of housing a K-12 school on narrow streets in a residential neighborhood.  Adding 400 teenagers means teenage drivers. It means more traffic.  It means more cars on narrow city streets.  It means more parents worried about when they can let their kids play outside without worrying about them getting hit by a car -- which has happened within a block of the school at least twice in the past few years.  It means more resentment for the strain the school is putting on the neighborhood.  It means more parents of children who walk to school (and Freedom Academy is not the only school kids are walking to in the area) worried about whether they will make it there safely or not.

Again, I ask, what compelling reason is there to go forward?  Why should the neighborhood be asked to put up with these hazards, even if their impact won't "be as bad as it could be"?  What compelling reason is there to disregard the wishes of the mayor and the community who lives around the school?  Is the school interested in being a good, considerate neighbor or is it just interested in moving forward on a high school "because we lose credibility if we don't?"

#9  Next year, the impact would only be "fifteen additional students" because the rest of the ninth graders are students who are already here.

I hope that the school or the board is not perpetuating this myth. 

The fact is, there will be at least 65 new students next year.  You can't add on a ninth grade that includes 65 students without adding 65 students to the whole school's population.  There may be only 15 new students in the ninth grade, but basic math says that there will be 50 new students added in other grades.  The 50 students who are "already here" would not be staying if there were not a ninth grade added.  If we're going to really talk civilly about numbers, then perhaps the school could be upfront and honest about the real numbers (I'm not saying you aren't being that way, just that I've heard this "just fifteen new students" argument and the school needs to help correct it so they don’t look stupid).  How many families and cars are being retained next year that would normally move on because of the ninth grade?  How many new students are being added in the other grades?  Exactly how many more cars will there be in the fall?  By the way, I calculated how much space even "just fifteen cars" takes up on a city street, and it's half a block or more.  You can't pretend that won't have an impact or that it will be "just fifteen cars" more next year.

Besides, the neighborhood really doesn't care that much if it's "not that bad" next year, or the year after that.  They care about the long-term health and viability of the neighborhood.  They care about the safety of the kids who live here.  They care not just about what the school will be like in the next few years; they care what it will be like in ten or fifteen years.  They care what it will be like in fifty years. 

Let's not minimize the very real impacts that a K-12 school will have on the neighborhood by talking about its impact NEXT YEAR.  That would be appropriate if the school were asking for support to put portables on-site for a short period of time or if there really were legally-binding "solutions" to the concerns of the neighborhood that would actually solve the problems brought up, not just put a Band-aid on them.  The solutions I've heard about may lessen the impact of some of our concerns, but they don't solve them.

***
If I'm wrong on the facts as I see them, enlighten me.  If there are more aspects of this issue to consider, tell me.  I'm a reasonable person.  I'm not the enemy of the Board or the high school expansion committee.  If there is a Freedom Academy high school, I want it to be successful.  But because of the issues I've brought up before in a very detailed and clear manner, I do not see any way for the school to be successful if it expands on the current site.

Sincerely,
Christina Bartholomew