2019 Eastern Carver County School Referendum Master Thread of Misleading Claims (Update #3 – 11/5)

Six days away from the 2019 referendum in Eastern Carver County Schools, I thought it would be a good idea to centralize some of the real facts and data about points of contention as it relates to the 3 referendum questions.

We’ll be updating this post with new information between now and Tuesday, so bookmark and check back! New information will be at the top of the post.

UPDATE #3 (11/5):

Today is the day! I encourage you to seek out factual information and make your own judgments. After doing my research, I voted Yes on all three questions.

Polls will be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Tues., Nov. 5. Here are the polling locations:

Residents living in Carver
Carver City Hall
316 Broadway, Carver
This includes Dahlgren Township,San Francisco Township and the City of Carver

Residents living in Chanhassen
Chanhassen Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Blvd., Chanhassen
This includes City of Chanhassen, Precincts 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 and 5

Residents living in Chaska
Chaska Community Center
1661 Park Ridge Dr., Chaska
This includes Chaska Township and the City of Chaska, Wards I, II, III, and IV

Residents living in Victoria
Victoria Recreation Center
8475 Kochia Ln., Victoria
This includes Laketown Township and the City of Victoria, Precincts 1, 2 and 3

And, just for good measure, here are a couple of last-minute claims to evaluate:

CLAIM: The district holds referendum elections in odd-numbered years in order to confuse voters, drive down turnout, and have a better chance to win

Various social media posts, like this one.

This one is a little more complicated. Let’s first start by understanding why – excluding reasons surrounding electoral strategy – school districts would find it necessary to go to the expense of holding a separate election in the odd year.

State funding represents 73% of the district’s General Fund budget this year ($91.9M out of $125.6M). The state works on a biannual budget cycle, completed in May of the odd year. This makes the need for odd-year referendums by the district clear, as changes in state funding can have significant budget impacts.

Eastern Carver County Schools 2019-20 General Fund budget by revenue source. Data source.

Why is this important? Because state funding has failed to keep up with inflation since the Ventura Administration. Here’s a graph that shows the base K-12 formula funding trends.

Funding per student is hundreds of dollars below where it would have been had it merely increased at the rate of inflation. Data source.

As a result, districts have had to raise operating levies to make up the gap. In fact, on average, school districts have increased their levies by over $1,000 per student over this time.

Waiting until 2020 puts school districts 18 months behind changes in state funding levels.

As for whether or not, having referendum votes in the odd year increases the chance of success, well, there is some evidence to support that. In 2013/2015/2017 referendums, requests for additional funds (bond or operating levy) passed at a higher rate than similar requests in 2012/2014/2016, while renewals of existing levies were strong in all years.

CLAIM: “They want an avg INCREASE of $700 per household per year for at least the next 10 years”

Carver County Conservative PAC

This is not true. The district has provided a tax calculator which will enable you to estimate the impact on your individual taxes.

The average home value in Carver County is $350,000 — such a home would see an increase in taxes of $36.25 in the first year of the referendum should all three questions pass. That’s $435 per year, not $700. The amount you pay will depend on the value of your home, so the higher value your home the more you will pay.

It’s also worth noting that your tax hit on Q1 and Q2 will be the highest in year 1, and decline from there. As the district grows and the tax capacity grows with it, the costs of the referendum will be spread across a wider group.

Let’s look at what happened with out last referendum as an example:

How much a property with certain values pay to support school levies in Eastern Carver County Schools. Data source

In the image above, I’ve highlighted the row for a home with a value of $400,000. You can see that in 2014, such a home would pay $2,857 to support our schools. The value dipped in 2015, then ticked up again in 2016 after the 2015 referendum passed. In 2019, this home has actually seen its share of taxes fall by more than $300 since the first year of referendum funding in 2016.

UPDATE #2 (10/31):

CLAIM: There is a lack of integrity because the School District is administering the election

Public forum speaker Laura Skistad, October 28 School Board Meeting and various Facebook posts, like this one.

Plain and simple, the district is following the law.

Per Celi Haga, the district’s Director of Communications and Community Relations:

“As was the case in previous elections when there are no other questions on the ballot, the responsibility for running the 2019 special election is that of the school district.  The school district follows both statute and practice as outlined by the Minnesota Secretary of State, and is responsible for administering all election duties as is the case for all other school districts in the state during elections where only the district is on the ballot.

School boards are responsible for the conduction of all school district elections.  The school district clerk is the election administrator for the district.  During absentee voting, the place of business (school district) is the voter’s polling place, as outlined in the Secretary of State’s guidance.

Election guides, including school district elections and absentee voting administration, can be found here: https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/election-administration/election-guides/

Eastern Carver County Schools has always been committed to following the law and maintaining the integrity of the voting process, and continues to do. The district clerk and all election judges have gone through the certification process, as is required by law.  We have worked in close partnership with our county and city clerks to make sure we are following every process as outlined by statute and best practice.”

Paid election judges (from outside the district) are administering the early voting process at the District Education Center. On Tuesday, the Election Day voting will be staffed in the various communities by paid election judges as in all other elections.

UPDATE #1 (10/30):

CLAIM: Between 2014 and 2019, the district only gained 156 students.

Current elementary program capacity is 5,203 students, meaning there are over 900 empty spaces available.

“The District ‘repurposed’ two elementary schools and now wants you to build them a new one.”

Video posted on Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs, October 30

Let’s look at some claims about enrollment and capacity in our schools at the elementary school level. There’s been a lot of confusion here, and some of that is the district’s fault. They have not consistently reported enrollment in the same way from document to document. Some of that is because compliance with various state programs requires tracking enrollment on certain dates while some require averages for the entire school year. Other programs — for funding purposes — count some kids as more or less than one pupil. Even the district’s own referendum information (in the June 24 School Board Packet) had presentations from two consulting firms that had mismatched enrollment numbers.

So in September, I asked the district for one set of consistent actual enrollment numbers, taken on the same date each year– October 1. The only exception, obviously, was this year’s numbers which are as of September 10. Here’s how they look:

Eastern Carver County Schools K-5 enrollment history, 2014-19. Data source.

This data shows a growth of 249 students over that time, or about 1.2% a year on average.

Let’s bring capacity into the equation. The video claims a program capacity of 5,203 students at the K-5 level. That number is just impossible to reconcile with the district’s own numbers.

Eastern Carver County Schools K-5 enrollment and capacity history, 2014-19. Data source – enrollment. Data source – capacity. Data source – capacity 2.

The only way to get to a program capacity of that level is to double count the former Chaska Elementary/current La Academia and Kinder Academy building. This relates to the repurposing comment — here’s what actually happened. In 2017, Carver Elementary school opened (capacity 706). The ECFE programs that were housed primarily at Chaska High School moved to the Kindergarten Center (capacity 280), which was taken out of service as a K-5 school. Meanwhile, the La Academia (from the Kindergarten Center) and Kinder Academy (from Bluff Creek) programs moved to Chaska Elementary (this building went from a capacity of 540 to a capacity of 517 because there are more kindergarten classes there now).

It should be noted that La Academia and Kinder Academy are programs that serve students in the K-5 range. You may hear folks imply that both the former Kindergarten Center and former Chaska Elementary are being used for non K-5 purposes, and that isn’t true — only the former Kindergarten Center is no longer used for K-5.

And why is that? Because the former Kindergarten Center is ill-suited for elementary school usage because its lack of a gymnasium and a substandard kitchen.

When you accurately calculate program capacity for K-5 level, you get a capacity of 4,546 versus an enrollment of 4,310 — or 236 empty seats. However, it’s not practical to combine regular K-5 classes in with La Academia and Kinder Academy, especially considering you could only fit two sections in the building with only 49 seats available. The available capacity of the remaining elementary schools is 187 seats.

If the district grows just at the 1.2% rate of the last five years, and not the accelerated rate projected by the district, you still need a new elementary school in less than five years.

For additional thoughts on capacity issues, see my previous post on this topic.

CLAIM: There is a missing $90M in the district’s referendum request.

Video posted on Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs, October 30 and lots of other places

The district provided a coherent explanation for this already. But here’s the quick summary:

When you see $121.7M referred to as the referendum’s cost, that figure is only reporting the Year 1 impact of the referendum

$211.7M is the full 10-year cost of the referendum.

Confusion has ensued based on how the media has reported these figures. Most media sources only report the “Year 1” impact versus the full 10-year cost.


CLAIM: “Eastern Carver County has the highest median property tax in the state of Minnesota!”

Parents for D112 website

Yes, this is true — if you’re talking about median property tax amounts. But there’s more to the story.

The primary reason residents of Carver County have the highest median property taxes is because we have the highest property values in the state. According to SmartAsset, median home prices in Carver County are $287,200, over $15,000 higher than second-place Scott County. But on a tax rate basis (tax paid per dollar of property value), Carver County’s rate of 1.15% is slightly below the state average of 1.19%

It’s also true that residential property owners in our district pay a higher share of the bill because of lower amounts of commercial development in our four communities than typically found in the metro area.

According to 2017 data from the League of Minnesota Cities, 64% of our district’s property tax capacity is residential homesteaded property, compared to a metro average of 50% (and 48% in Minnetonka). Only 19% of our tax capacity comes from commercial property compared to a metro average of 29% (and 34% in Minnetonka).

CLAIM: “Our administration is extremely heavy”

Public forum speaker Gwen Michael, October 28 School Board Meeting

According to figures from the Minnesota Department of Education’s School District Financial Reports for 2018, Eastern Carver County Schools spends $856 per pupil on district and school level administration. That’s $234 per pupil less than the state average, and $137 per pupil less than Minnetonka. It’s the third-lowest of the peer group the district uses for benchmarking.

Eastern Carver County Schools with the third-lowest administration costs of peer districts. Data source.

What is included in “administration”? Per the Minnesota Department of Education, district administrative costs include the cost of the school board, superintendent, administrative staff, and all centralized operations of the district — including finance, IT, purchasing, human resources, etc. School administrative costs include the salary and benefits of the principal, dean, counselor, administrative staff.

CLAIM: “The district currently has a staff of 1,432  of which 730 are teachers. This is a 1:1 ratio, does this seem excessive?”

ParentsforD112 website

The district’s 2019-20 budget lists 714.8 FTE teachers out of 1108.2 total FTE (64.5%). That is NOT a 1:1 ratio. For comparison, Minnetonka’s 2019-20 budget shows 799.25 FTE teachers out of 1326.4 total FTE (60.3%).

Eastern Carver County Schools 2019-20 budget showing FTE by role. Teachers highlighted in yellow. Data source.
Minnetonka Public Schools 2019-20 budget showing FTE by role. Teachers total highlighted in yellow. Data source.

CLAIM: “The school is using space for K-12 for a FOR PROFIT pre-school? This is NOT what we had agreed to and now they claim they need more space?”

Parents for D112 website

Two points to discuss here. First, “for profit preschool”. This isn’t really true. The preschool program is run as a break-even operation — projected to run about $8,000 in surplus on $1.7 million in revenue in 2019-20.

Eastern Carver County Schools 2019-20 budget showing the projected $8,427 surplus in preschool programs. Data source.

The second point is about whether it is appropriate to host preschool in elementary schools. The short answer is: Yes! Many districts do the same thing, particularly districts like our own who serve multiple communities. Here are just a few metro-area districts that host preschool programs in elementary schools:

  • Elk River (also serves Rogers-Otsego-Zimmerman)
  • Anoka-Hennepin
  • South Washington County (Cottage Grove-Woodbury-Newport)
  • Apple Valley-Rosemount-Eagan
  • North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale.
  • Burnsville-Eagan-Savage
  • Bloomington

And why is there preschool in Chanhassen and Victoria Elementary schools in the first place? Because residents of those communities asked for it! The district was being responsive to families with young children who didn’t want long drives for half-day programs and to have their child be accustomed to the elementary school they would be attending once they turn 5.

CLAIM: “The Cost of Educating a student in Minnetonka is Approx. $10,800. The State Average is $11,000”

“The District 112 School Board (Eastern Carver County Schools) pays $1000/yr more per student than the Minn average – and they want lots more by way of a BIG tax increase.”

Video posted by Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs, October 27 and by Carver County Conservative PAC, October 28

These figures appear to be outdated. According to figures from the Minnesota Department of Education’s School District Financial Reports for 2018, Minnetonka schools spend $12,238 per pupil from their General Fund. The state average is $12,596 per pupil. Meanwhile, Eastern Carver County Schools was at $12,089 — less than Minnetonka and the state average. Looking again at the peer group of districts, ECCS’s spending was 11th out of 15.

Eastern Carver County Schools with the fifth-lowest general fund spending of peer districts. Data source.

CLAIM: Equity work is about Islamic indoctrination

Ad in the Chaska Herald from Parents For D112, October 24

Schools are covered by extensive federal and state laws prohibiting promotion of any particular religion. Secondly, we don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. We can look at the equity work the district has done. We can look at the full report from the equity audit performed by “Vote No”‘s favorite boogeyman, Dr. Muhammad Khalifa.

None of the work done by the district or its contractors to this point displays any favoritism or promotion of Islam, or any religion for that matter.

CLAIM: Equity work is about treating races differently when it comes to academics and discipline

Alpha News video posted on Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs, October 4 and Child Protection League post linked to by Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs, October 6

“Vote No” groups point to examples of other districts that they believe have lessened academic rigor or changed discipline policies in order to hold different races — specifically blacks and Latinos — to a different standard than white students. But, again, we don’t need to look at other districts. We have the work being done in our district.

The equity audit points to a need for our district to raise — not lower — standards and academic expectations for minority students. The equity audit also suggested no changes to our district’s discipline policies.

8 days, 3 questions and 13+ months: talking about the state of ECCS

The vote on the Eastern Carver County School District referendum is in 8 days — on November 5. There are three questions on the referendum:

Question 1 increases the district’s operating levy — the funds used for the everyday operations of the district: salaries, supplies, transportation, etc.

Question 2 is a capital levy that would build a new elementary school, perform deferred maintenance projects, and acquire a new bus garage.

Question 3 is a continuation of the security and technology levy originally passed in 2013.

For more on the referendum itself, see the district’s webpage. Review the information and cast an informed vote. After carefully reviewing the information — and despite my misgivings about how school leadership has handled some issues (more on that below) — I have come to a “Vote Yes” position.

But I’d like to talk more about how the discussion around the referendum and equity have evolved over the last few months.

For the first time in recent history, this referendum has faced an organized “Vote No” campaign. If you’re a parent in the district, you received an e-mail from this group “Parents for D112” on October 14.

Similar groups, such as the “Eastern Carver County Schools Watchdogs”, have been operating for months, and they have aligned with partisan groups like the Carver County GOP and Carver County Conservative PAC as well as agenda-driven news sources like Alpha News and blogs like the Deplorable Housewives of the Midwest to spread a consistent message of misinformation and division in their efforts to undermine the referendum and work on equity. Their campaign is slick and apparently well-funded.

Let’s briefly address their address two of their equity-related arguments:

Argument #1: Equity work is really just a cover for Islamic indoctrination.

Not true. For starters, schools are covered by extensive federal and state laws prohibiting promotion of any particular religion. Secondly, we don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. We can look at the equity work the district has done. We can look at the full report from the equity audit performed by “Vote No”‘s favorite boogeyman, Dr. Muhammad Khalifa.

None of the work done by the district or its contractors to this point displays any favoritism or promotion of Islam, or any religion for that matter.

Argument #2: Equity work is really just a way to hold different races to different standards.

Not true. “Vote No” groups point to examples of other districts that they believe have lessened academic rigor or changed discipline policies in order to hold different races — specifically blacks and Latinos — to a different standard than white students. But, again, we don’t need to look at other districts. We have the work being done in our district.

The equity audit points to a need for our district to raise — not lower — standards and academic expectations for minority students. The equity audit also suggested no changes to our district’s discipline policies.

This is precisely the sort of “equality not equity” that the “Vote No” groups claim to endorse, yet they are fighting this work tooth-and-nail.

Why is this the case?

It’s been nearly thirteen and one-half months since the first of many highly publicized racial incidents during the 2018-19 school year in our district: when three Chaska High School students wore blackface to a football game. While some have focused on whether or not this event was overblown, what it clearly foreshadowed was that the district was not equipped to handle these sorts of incidents — a pattern of dropping the ball that continued through the every one of the long string of racist events that followed last year.

In December 2018 (after another racial incident that was mishandled, this one at Chaska Middle School East), parents began showing up at school board meetings to criticize the district for their failure to take these events seriously and to treat racism as a real problem.

These parents were there in January, too. And February. And March. And April. And May.

You know who wasn’t at those meetings? Any of the people leading the “Vote No” campaign today. Alpha News wasn’t there to cover those meetings. None of those people made YouTube videos decrying the racism directed at black children in our schools.

It wasn’t until June that these “Vote No” folks parachuted on to the scene. They only showed up to protest the fact that the district hired Dr. Khalifa to perform the equity survey.

The reality is that many of the people behind this “Vote No” effort aren’t residents of the district. And to be frank, some have long histories of targeting Muslims or promoting conspiracy theories.

Like here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. (I could go on, but you get the idea.) OK, two more — the parent video that “Parents for D112” promotes is done by a guy who claims to be a member/supporter of conspiracy-minded group QAnon. (At least this guy lives in the district!) And last week, there was a blog post that claimed that all this equity work in the district was part of a sinister plot financed and masterminded by George Soros.

Here’s how Alpha News advertised their “Eastern Carver County Schools Exposed” video:

Screen capture of Alpha News video, as taken from the Carver County Conservative PAC page.

This is nothing more than an appeal to prejudice against Muslims. What other explanation could there be for advertising this video using a shot of a woman in a burka?

That’s par for the course for Alpha News, though. One need only look through their archives to see how they’ve handled issues of race and religion in the past. Here, for instance, are the stories filed by a now-Chanhassen City Council member (and State Senate candidate) while she worked there.

The “Vote No” folks have had nothing to say to the victims of racism in our schools, other than to accuse them of trying to make a quick buck out of it, all while trying to cash in on it themselves.

Screen capture of a Facebook comment by the Chair of the Carver County GOP on a Chaska Herald article
Letter from the Carver County GOP fundraising off of their opposition to equity work and the referendum.

I got involved in the equity work more deeply because of an experience I had earlier this year. This conversation opened my eyes, and led to many other conversations that showed me that the problem didn’t just emerge this year, but had been simmering for a long time.

In April, I sat at a meeting organized by the school district to discuss equity issues where minutes after district leadership promised transparency on equity issues, two black girls sitting at my table passed around their phones showing us the “Negro Hill” image which had been circulating for days but had not yet been communicated by the district. I was appalled and angry and embarrassed. But what really broke my heart was the reaction of the girls, who — while upset — seemed sadly resigned to this sort of thing as a regular part of life in our schools. They didn’t trust that the leaders at the school would stand up for them because they had been let down before. No one should have to feel that way at Chaska High School or anywhere else.

Breaking Points: Jim Bach and ROAR

The people I’ve come to know and work with on these efforts — district employees and citizens alike — aren’t the least bit interested in indoctrinating anyone’s child into a particular religious belief. Nobody is looking to give children of a particular race a free pass to not do their school work or asking for children not to be disciplined if they do something wrong. I’ve talked to leaders at multiple schools in the district and in the administration office. They say that none of the leaders of the “Vote No” movement have come to their schools to meet and see what is really going on in our schools.

I’ve talked to parents of children who were targeted in the incidents last school year. Their experiences are real. Their pain is real. It’s no longer acceptable for our district to compound the damage of the incident itself with insensitivity and disregard in how it responds. It’s also no longer acceptable for the rest of us to ignore this reality.

All we’re asking is for a district that truly values every student equally, and consistently responds with care, compassion, and justice when children are targeted by others.

If I saw evidence that this work was leading us down the paths the “Vote No” group suggests, I wouldn’t support it. But I don’t see it. And I’ve certainly got a better view on what’s happening in my child’s school than folks from North Oaks or Norseland or Anoka or St. Louis Park or Prior Lake. Those folks aren’t going to be around once this vote is done — they’ll be on to the next perceived outrage — but the rest of us will have to live with what comes in its wake.

There are areas where I could find common ground with the “Vote No” folks. With my group Even Better Carver County Schools, we’ve been trying to push reform in how the district operates for the last two years. We’ve pushed for real transparency, and to have them stop measuring effort and instead focus on measuring results. We’ve pushed for better leadership on personalized learning and Empower. We’ve questioned why test scores are declining and achievement gaps are not closing. We’ve said that the school board isn’t doing enough to hold the leadership team accountable for all of the above. (Other groups, like the Concerned Citizens for Eastern Carver County Schools, have been working on this as well.)

(The “Vote No” people haven’t been there for those fights, either, sadly.)

And while I disagree with the “Vote No” conclusion on whether a new elementary school is necessary, there is no doubt the district has been inconsistent in how it has reported and explained trends in enrollment and capacity in recent years. They’ve created confusion where none should exist.

And yes, the idea that 5th grade band should be on the chopping block should the referendum fail is ridiculous. The cost-cutting ideas proposed by the district need to be dragged back to the drawing board and completely redone, if they are needed.

The “Vote No” group rightfully chafes at the district’s change in policy to limit the public forum at school board meetings to 45 minutes. For a district that goes out of its way to manage public feedback and control the message in every forum, this is a bad look — and it prevents the board from hearing publicly from its constituents at a time when it needs to hear it the most.

But it’s hard to get to common ground when folks choose to lead with misinformation and scare tactics. Hopefully, after the referendum is over, we can cool the temperature down and get back to the real work of making our schools Even Better.

That’s what this work is all about — and has always been about. Empowering teachers to do their best work every day. Ensuring that parents, students, and teachers have technology that makes tracking progress easier, not harder. Changing the mindset of the district to one that seeks feedback on a more timely basis and then having a predisposition to fix problems and not just wait to see if they go away. Closing achievement gaps and raising academic performance across the board. And, yes, making sure those girls I talked with last spring — and all students in this district — feel valued, welcomed, and supported in their own schools.

Whether you are “Vote Yes” or “Vote No” on Election Day, I hope you’ll be there after the referendum to do this work. We need all hands on deck, and a more united community to make our schools better for all students.

Looking at the capacity question of the 2019 Referendum (UPDATED)

Question 2 of the 2019 Eastern Carver County Schools Referendum is a request to spend $111.7 million on capital projects – the largest of which is $35 million on a new elementary school to built on district-owned land in southwest Chaska.

Opponents of the referendum have indicated that there is already enough capacity in our schools to handle the projected growth in our district, and that a new school is unnecessary. Let’s start our analysis by looking at the district’s actual capacity, rolling back the clock to before the 2015 referendum and seeing how that compares to today.

Capacity Over Time

“Program capacity” as defined here is the capacity of the school based on the current use of its space. So, as an example, an area used for special education purposes would have a lower program capacity than a similarly-sized area used for a typical classroom setting.

Historical program capacity by building

As you can see from the numbers, program capacity since the 2015 referendum has every level of the district. At the elementary level, La Academia and Kinder Academy have relocated from their previous locations at the then-Kindergarten Center and Bluff Creek elementary to the former Chaska Elementary building. Carver Elementary has opened, and additions created more capacity at Clover Ridge and Victoria (while allowing some common spaces to be reclaimed). Changes at the secondary level occurred as well, most notably Chaska High School reclaiming one of its houses which was previously being used for early childhood education.

Where are we at today from an enrollment perspective?

Current enrollment and capacity by building

Based on enrollment figures, there are about 185 open seats at the elementary level (excluding the specialized programs of La Academia and Kinder Academy), and comfortable capacity numbers at the middle and high school level. Which brings us to the projections for growth.

Under the district’s projections (done by consulting firm Davis Demographics), elementary school enrollment will top current elementary school capacity by the end of the 2020-21 school year and be nearly 800 students higher than current enrollment by 2024-25.

Even less optimistic estimates of growth (such as a somewhat discounted growth rate on the Davis projections or using the last five-year trend of just over 1% growth) show that the district will be over capacity at the elementary level in less than five years.

The bigger question

Opponents of the new school have pointed out there is significant capacity at the middle and high school levels. Why can’t we just move kids there, they ask? Even under the most optimistic projections of growth, the district would not risk being over capacity in total until nearly a decade from now.

Enrollment projections and capacity by school levelyellow cells indicate where enrollment is larger than capacity

Well, we’ve answered this question before. From 2012-2014, I worked on a district facilities task force that dealt with the same sort of question – how to deal with rapidly rising enrollment at the elementary level.

The task force produced three options for the School Board and senior administration to review.

The first option was called “Cram”. It involved not building any new schools but just redrawing elementary boundary lines to balance enrollment across schools. Class sizes would get progressively larger, but boundaries could be redrawn – yearly, if necessary — to spread the pain evenly.

The second option was called “Shuffle”. It too, involved not building any new schools, but instead solved the elementary school problem by shuffling kids – among the options looked at were moving some 5th graders to middle schools and moving some 8th graders to high schools.

The third option was “Build”. This was the option selected at the time, and after the 2015 referendum passed, Carver Elementary opened in 2017.

Most people probably don’t remember the public feedback around those three options, but as a member of the task force, I do.

The “Shuffle” solution, which referendum opponents seem to be favoring in some fashion, was broadly unpopular. It was even more unpopular if people discovered that it was their kids who were going to be “shuffled” as opposed to someone else’s kids. The reality is that it’s easy on a spreadsheet to shuffle kids and balance enrollments, but there are real world consequences to doing so.

Middle school buildings are not equipped today to deal with elementary school students. Even if there is classroom space, scheduling of common facilities is problematic. For instance, Chaska Middle School East struggles with physical education space during the 3+ months that the dome in not available during the school year and adding several sections of fifth graders to the mix wouldn’t make it any easier.

Other parents balked at their fifth graders riding the bus with eighth graders or having to share school start and end times with middle schoolers. In the end, most folks agreed that a “shuffle” plan was not the best answer for our kids, and the 2015 referendum to build a new school earned 69% of the vote.

I’m not telling you to vote “yes” here — that’s up to you. I’m just suggesting that the question of whether the elementary capacity is needed goes a lot deeper than just putting the numbers on a spreadsheet and seeing if Column B is less than Column A.

UPDATE (9/18):

I was alerted to some comments on Facebook by referendum opponents regarding this post, and just wanted to post some clarifications and additional comments.

  1. One of the complaints was that I did not include the current Family Learning Center (former Kindergarten Center) in the current elementary school capacity. Yes, it is true that we could choose to put elementary school students back into that facility. However, I don’t feel that would be prudent. That building is lacking two critical components: a gymnasium and a kitchen. It is better suited to its current use housing early childhood and preschool programs that don’t require those amenities. Besides, if you do move those early childhood and preschool programs, you still need to find somewhere else to put them and would incur additional expense to utilize that space.
  2. Accusations were made that the data above did not come from the district. That is not true, with the exception of elementary school enrollment projection scenarios #2 and #3, which were generated by me as described in the original post. Some of the enrollment figures in these files received from the school district on September 12, 2019, are either more recent or pull enrollment at different dates than what has been published in other district documents. In the interest of transparency, I have attached the three source files received from the district below.
  3. The issue of program capacity versus absolute capacity was raised. It is true that program capacity does not reflect the maximum capacity scenario for a particular school. What is does reflect is the reality that not every space in a school — whether a traditional classroom or a special education room or a science lab or a music room or an art room — has the same practical capacity per square foot. Not every inch of the school is going to be able to be maxed-out from a capacity perspective.