Some FAQ

Questions:

1) Why am I running for School Board?

2) What is my stance on future bonds?

3) Is it true that you are only running for school board because of some sort of personal agenda to fire management?

4) I don’t believe you when you say that more than 1 out of 5 students don’t graduate high school here within 4 years because they either drop out or take longer than 4 years to graduate.  Why are you saying the dropout rate is 10.4%?;  Where are you getting this information?

5)  Do you support the continued plans by the district to annex SMS as a high school building and go from three to two middle schools?

Answers:

1) Why am I running for School Board?

All children in this beautiful valley deserve to graduate with every opportunity open to them.  Our curriculum needs to be rigorous, our expectations need to be high, and our intervention programs for keeping kids on track to graduation need to be rock solid.  I believe that the #1 job of a school board is to ensure that students graduate prepared for success in college or career.  In the Snoqualmie Valley,  we need to develop long term strategic plans with goals in place and with multiple benchmarks across all grades for measuring progress towards preparing kids for their future.   All school board priorities and decisions, including those for facilities, should be made with these goals in mind.  Our young people deserve to have the same opportunities for education as children who graduate in other area districts.

I want to serve the community as a school board director to aim this district towards better planning and improved decision making which is focused on the future of these kids.   Our curriculum, staffing, and expectations should be designed to ensure that all doors of opportunity, whether they be for college or career training, are open to every student when they complete their K-12 education here.   I will ensure that we join other area districts by developing a strategic plan with high expectations, measuring our performance against timely benchmarks, and enhancing the process when needed.

Let’s raise the expectations and lead our valley’s children to a successful future.

(Check back for more FAQ as the site continues to be developed.  And feel free to ask me questions below.  I moderate all comments, so please let me know if you would like your comment or question to be anonymous.  Thank you.)

2)  What is your stance on future bonds (question submitted on 8/3/2011)?

Someone asked me the other day, “Can we ever get a bond to pass in this district?” .  My answer is, “Absolutely!”  But, to do so, I believe, we have to do a much better job with strategic planning, determining building needs, and utilizing impact fees.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT topic with lots of ramifications, so please bear with me. 

Strategic Planning: I believe that the Snoqualmie Valley School District urgently needs a long-term strategic plan, like other districts, with goals related to student success and regular measurements of progress towards those goals.   I think it is important to put this type of strategic plan in place prior to making any decisions related to building needs, budgets, curriculum, class sizes, boundary changes, busing, etc.  I believe this is one of the most important jobs of a school board and administration, yet we don’t have this plan, nor do we have regular measures of accountability toward education goals, such as rates for dropout, graduation, and college/career success.

Determining Building Needs:  We are a growing school district, and as we grow it is important to regularly assess our building capacity in relationship to enrollment.  This assessment must use solid facts and reasonable assumptions.   When building and bond planning is flawed and bonds fail or schools are built too late or too small,  the results are devastating and the related busing and boundary decisions become painful for a community and detrimental to the education of our kids.   We have to do a better job
of planning for the timing of new schools, the size of schools,  the locations of schools and the use of portables to minimize boundary changes and busing outside of communities.

With respect to the high school space, I believe we need to do a much better job analyzing the current capacity and understanding why the enrollment estimates have been so overstated and growth is almost flat.  I believe we absolutely must do this homework before building new schools or expanding high school capacity by taking over other schools.  I strongly oppose the closing of SMS as a middle school without a replacement because we shouldn’t be reducing the number of middle schools in a growing community.  I believe that doing so would have a negative impact on middle school students and their education, and that is not okay.  I also believe that we need to take a much more careful look at what looks like an urgent need for another elementary school.   When possible, I believe that community schools are best for education.  Busing elementary children to schools outside of their communities significantly impacts the ability of students and their families to participate in school activities and volunteering and has a negative impact on student learning and morale.

My significant experience on the Facilities Task Force and early support of bond promotion efforts is evidence that I support bonds for building new schools and remodeling older schools when needed.  But, we should only ask taxpayers for their hard earned money when new buildings or remodels are absolutely essential and when these buildings and remodels are needed to further our education goals in a long-term strategic plan.   These are important long lasting economic decisions, and all bonds need to be supported by solid facts and reasonable assumptions.

Utilizing impact fees:  When bonds are needed we must maximize the ability to use state matching funds and impact fees such that the effect to the local taxpayer’s wallet is
minimized.  We need funds for schools to help mitigate growth, and the cities want to collect and the builders want to pay fair impact fees.  We need to do a better job with the calculation, collection, and use of the builder impact fees.   In the City of Snoqualmie alone,  homebuilders and developers have contributed millions of dollars of impact fees through both the donation of significant acreage of prime land in the center of Snoqualmie Ridge (3 parcels totaling 90 acres, only 1 parcel has been used) and an impact fee paid to the school district for every home built.  I have encouraged the school district to bring the builders and the cities together to discuss the facts and assumptions used in the calculation of the impact fee so that we build consensus and improve the collection and use of the fee.   And, as we collect the fee, we should be tracking how it is used in the district to mitigate growth.  I think if there was a better understanding by the public as to how these fees are collected and used, we would have an improved chance of passing bonds.

To sum it up, with significantly improved strategic planning, enhanced efforts to determine building needs using strong facts and reasonable assumptions, and better calculation and collection of impact fees combined with communication and promotion of all of the above, I think we can ensure that our school buildings are in place when and where kids need them.

3) Is it true that you are only running for school board because of some sort of personal agenda to fire management?

My motivations for wanting to serve the community on the school board is not for any personal reason or personal agenda against anyone.  I am simply motivated to use my business and education experience to: 1) raise expectations and focus on student success to; 2) improve planning, decision making and accountability; and 3) develop open and transparent relationships with the community.    I look forward to working with other school board members and the administration to develop a comprehensive strategic plan
addressing these areas so we can lead our Valley’s children to brighter futures.

4) I don’t believe you when you say that more than 1 out of 5 students don’t graduate high school here within 4 years because they either drop out or take longer than 4 years to graduate.  Why are you saying the dropout rate is 10.4%?;  Where are you getting this information?

This public information is easily available at http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us for every school district in the state of Washington.  The state is now reporting the “Actual Adjusted On-Time Cohort Graduation Rate” and the “Actual Adjusted 5 year Cohort Extended Graduation Rate”.   Information on this site is provided as to how these rates are calculated.   Plus, I watched the video cast by Randy Dorn (state superintendent) on the day these reports were released earlier this month.  The state gathers information from all of the districts based upon tracking the actual freshman class from the day they start high school, accounting for transfers in and out, and reporting on-time graduates – within 4 years  – and extended graduates – within 5 years, so there is always a one year lag in the information.  The drop out rate is the inverse of the extended graduation rate. The state is now following guidance from the US Dept of Education as to how to track dropout and graduation rates.

I had noticed when our kids graduated (2008 and 2010) that their graduating classes were about 25% smaller than their original freshman class.  I started asking questions to the district administration and school board and was told that the calculation of the dropout rate was very complex.  I also have never heard the school board discuss the dropout rate.  I think these are key indicators that we should track, report and improve.

The SVSD rates are the worst of the 7 Eastside school districts that I observe, yet our demographics (poverty and English language learners) are about middle of the road or on the moderate side in this group of districts.   I hope that by reporting what happens between freshman year and graduation, we can identify ways to improve.  I heard a quote recently that was something like – if you don’t know how deep the hole is, you can’t devise a solution to get out of it.

5)  Do you support the continued plans by the district to annex SMS as a school building and go from three to two middle schools?

I am opposed to using the SMS building for the high school when there is no
replacement middle school, because that creates a very significant overcrowding
situation at the middle school level that didn’t already exist and that could
impact student learning.  The high school enrollment is not growing much if at all. This slowdown in enrollment growth was evident by the middle of 2010, but the plans kept going forward for the replacement middle school bond.   We need to analyze the enrollment growth estimates at the high school level again to determine when and if we will exceed capacity before we make any major building use or bond decisions.

I fully support efforts to provide more interventions to help freshman students succeed,
and I also support STEM type learning and teaching.  But, we do not need a separate building for this initiative, unless called for by enrollment growth.