We don’t think the Corvallis School District has intended to be inequitable or unfair, but those would be the outcomes if the Board approves the currently proposed school consolidation plan.
And before digging in, we want to say Corvallis Schools, like districts nationwide, are navigating uncertain and unchartered territory. We cannot recall a time when American education has faced declining birth rates and enrollments. And in Oregon, like most states, funding is on a per pupil basis, so local districts really do need to reduce their budgets.
We also think the Corvallis District needs to give their currently proposed school closure plan a relook. It does target its burdens on just one corner of town, much of it lower-income and middle-income.
Of the three schools presently being discussed for closure, all are in the northeast corner of Corvallis. None is in the more affluent northwest, even though there are three elementary schools within a stone’s throw of one another in that area of town. The elementary school being targeted for closure isn’t nearly so close to any other elementaries, but it does serve a largely less affluent crowd.
However, in our analysis, what is more concerning is how junior high kids in the northeast corner of town would be treated entirely differently than everyone else’s kids, and essentially, just because of their address.
Junior high, this could be a problem
Under the new plan, if you live in most any part of Corvallis, your kids will be guaranteed a typical junior high experience and all the educational programming that can offer.
But if you live in the northeast corner of town, your kids may not have the same opportunities.
With the closure of Cheldelin Middle School, the current Mtn. View Elementary campus would transition to a K-8 model. And kids within its new boundaries would attend both elementary and junior high there.
Undoubtedly, the District could point to K-8 models as being potentially advantageous for some kids. There would be some truth to that. Some children do better putting off a school transition until ninth grade. So, a K-8 model can be really advantageous for junior high kids, if, and this is important, there’s a way to get those kids the robust programming one sees at a dedicated junior high.
That may NOT be what is happening here. As you’ll see, for everything from lab-based science electives to music classes, there is very real doubt, even among District officials, that a K-8 model can be effectively delivered at Mtn. View. At least not in enough time for the next school year. There are physical facility limitations and logistical problems.
Built in 1954, the Mtn. View campus doesn’t have the stuff one finds in a modern junior high. It really is an elementary school. Renovating it to really serve contemporary junior high programming by next September is at best highly unlikely. Even if the campus could be renovated to a sufficient level in a timely way, the district may not be able to deliver the programs to that campus.
Illustrating that reality was an exchange this last Monday night between Superintendent Ryan Noss and some of the School Board’s members. And we have to say, Noss and many on the Board sounded a little heartbroken at the new realities they’re facing, and honestly worried at the enormity of the task.
When Board member Judah Largent asked about equal access to electives for kids at Mtn. View, Noss replied there would be, “some variation there.” Then, Board member Terese Jones picked up the thread and asked about junior high orchestra at Mtn. View for seventh and eighth graders and Noss replied, “We’re continuing to work towards that.”
He could have stopped there, but then he added, “One of the things I want to be clear about is no proposal is perfect.” After that he said, “We’re going to do our best to provide every opportunity for our kids,” and “I want us to understand that we need to manage expectation.”
He then finally said, “We will do the best we are able to do as people who care about kids, and that’s all we can offer.”
As heartbreaking as that must be for an educator to say, it is also an acknowledgment that he’s worried about just how all this is going get finished in a timely manner.
And this is the core problem. No matter how well intended the proposal or herculean the effort, Mtn. View seventh and eighth graders may not have the same opportunities as other kids at District Schools. And even believing, as we do, that this is not the intent, we prefer to think Corvallis is not the kind of town that would allow that to happen.
Because of that, we don’t think the Board should approve the proposal as is. We do, however, believe they can add a simple caveat to an approval that would address the problem.
If the Board chooses to go ahead, they should at the very least guarantee that Mtn. View seventh and eighth graders will have the right to transfer to the envisioned junior high in town.
When we asked District spokesperson Kelly Locey if that would be possible, she said the current policy bases transfer approvals on capacity. We don’t think that’s good enough in this instance.
An ironclad guarantee for these parents is what’s fair, and we believe the junior high building can absorb that. If need be, it would not be unthinkable to add a few modular classrooms. Alternatively, we believe equity and fairness would require Cheldelin to remain open.
Letitia Carson Elementary School
The closure of Letitia Carson Elementary has struck parents as especially onerous. It is one of only two elementary schools in the northeast corner of town.
Carson’s service boundaries include largely lower income and middle-income neighborhoods, and a relatively lightly populated area that is a bit more affluent. It is a Title 1 School, which means the federal government views it as lower-income, and provides some added funding.
Parents have pointed out that none of the elementary schools serving more affluent families are being considered for closure. We believe that’s a valid observation.
Kathryn Jones Harrison, Bessie Coleman, and Franklin are all near one another. None is being considered for closure. Letitia Carson is not so close to other elementaries, but it is being considered for closure. So, you can see why parents view this as unfair.
But the District rationalizes that Coleman is newly built and has a higher capacity, so it should remain open. We can accept that. The District also goes on to say it would prefer not to close Harrison because it has infrastructure in place for a life skills program for students that have specific needs.
When we asked the District if they could move that program to another school, their spokesperson Kelly Locey said that they could, but she also said the renovations could be expensive, even up to $1 million.
We also asked about the alternative of closing Franklin. It is a K-8 school that parents can opt for if they have the means to drive their kids to and fro throughout the school day. Because it is an optional school of choice, the district does not offer bus service for Franklin. It does not have boundaries, students from throughout the district attend, and the highly regarded school does have a waitlist.
Locey responded, and Noss has also said, that moving Franklin’s students back to their neighborhood schools may not help much. They told us the schools they land at wouldn’t see an increased enough enrollment, and therefore budget increase, to safeguard or add programming at those campuses. They also said closing Franklin could mean a wider spread set of school boundary changes throughout the District.
When we asked Locey if there would be any greater cost savings for closing one campus versus another, she said that closing any of these saves the district about $1 million yearly.
There are compelling reasons to retain Coleman, Harrison and Franklin. But, if Carson is closed, the corner of town it serves will no longer have even one walkable or bikeable elementary school. All the others will. Bus travel and driving times for school events will be increased more than if one of the campuses serving affluent families is closed.
In our analysis, closing Carson is less fair than closing one of the campuses serving more affluent families.
Summary, our analysis and opinion
Materially, the changes being considered for seventh and eighth graders living in northeast Corvallis are potentially the most educationally damaging. The K-8 model could be advantageous for some students and problematic for others. And in our analysis, the parents that tell us they’re skeptical about Mtn. View being ready to offer programming that equals the junior high are justified in their worries.
If the Board approves this plan without guaranteed transfer rights to the junior high in town, parents should, in our view, respond.
The proposal to close Letitia Carson is also inequitable. But at least it is less potentially deleterious educationally than what is being considered for junior high kids. Still, we think it would be better to close one of the more affluent campuses.
And, in fact, District officials are already saying they may need to close a second elementary in the next three to four years anyhow, so maybe that should be sooner, and Carson could come later.
Finally, we haven’t said anything about Crescent Valley, and up until Monday’s Board meeting we would’ve said it’s probably a goner, regardless of what has been a soft pedal from District officials. However, on Monday, Noss told the Board that a relook is happening, and that the District may have an alternative. So, we’ll see.
Postscript
We asked Corvallis School District spokesperson Kelly Locey if the district would be willing to delay repurposing Carson or Cheldelin for a year so that area parents can begin work on developing a charter school if they so desire.
She replied, “Delaying the repurposing of those campuses for a year is a decision that needs to be reviewed by the Long Range Facilities Planning Committee.”
Related coverage: The Revised School Closure plan
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com