EDITORIAL: RPS cannot avoid facing a host of difficult decisions

Dec. 2—On Nov. 7, Rochester voters rejected a proposed technology levy that would have generated about $10 million in new annual funding for the next decade. The margin of defeat was less than 400 votes out of more than 22,000 votes cast.

Prior to the vote, Superintendent Kent Pekel told voters that the additional funding would go not just toward technology, but would also help maintain class sizes and improve school safety. He also warned that if the levy were rejected, the district would face some very difficult decisions.

Those decisions seemed to become harsh reality this week when RPS announced its intent to close Pinewood Elementary, Riverside Elementary and Mighty Oaks Learning Center. These proposed closures are part of an "Attendance Options Redesign" proposal that, among other changes, would eliminate school-funded transportation for students who attend district-wide choice schools including Lincoln K-8, Washington Elementary, Longfellow Elementary and Montessori at Franklin.

This announcement, right on heels of the failed levy, has caused more than a few people to ask whether the district — and Pekel, specifically — should have warned voters more directly about the potentially dire consequences of a "no" vote. The PB editorial board this week wondered the same thing, because when we spoke with Pekel prior to the referendum, he never mentioned a plan to close schools if the levy failed.

Pekel now has said that the district wanted to avoid adding "another layer of complexity" for voters, and that the district wanted the run-up to the vote to be "about a positive investment in technology that also freed up class sizes, and not a scare tactic."

We have no reason to doubt these explanations, but we'd suggest another reason RPS was reluctant to hint at school closures as the vote approached; namely, it's entirely possible that the district planned to close these schools even if the levy were approved.

Pekel has stated unequivocally that the school closings "didn't originate" in the failed levy and are not "a kneejerk reaction to the defeat of the referendum." Indeed, the proposed closures are part of a plan that has been in the works for two years — a plan that aspires to streamline the district's transportation system and adjust school start times to optimize learning at all grade levels.

As painful as it is to close any school, we understand and support the district's plan as the next step in an ongoing, much-needed overhaul of Rochester Public Schools. Simply put, we believe RPS — and indeed, Rochester itself — is at an educational crossroads.

While Rochester is growing (Mayo Clinic's just-announced $5 billion expansion will fuel more growth), current enrollment projections for our public schools are stagnant at best. Families have never had more options for educating their kids, and more Rochester families are choosing private schools, home schooling, online learning or open enrollment in neighboring districts.

Meanwhile, RPS has slashed $21 million from its annual budget in the past two years, and the belt-tightening is far from over, especially in the wake of the failed technology levy. Further complicating matters is an increasingly heated dispute between the district and its unionized teachers, who are seeking a $22.8 million pay increase ($3.1 million more than the district says it can afford) and contractually-guaranteed limits on class sizes.

Even if the union ultimately accepts the latest offer from RPS, staffing cuts appear to be a near-certainty.

How did we get here?

Failed leadership played a big role. Starting in 2007, with the beginning of Superintendent Romain Dallemand's tenure, the district saw employment growth and spending that far outstripped enrollment growth. That trend didn't end when Michael Munoz took Dallemand's office. Dallemand wound up in federal prison on tax-evasion charges in Georgia, and Munoz resigned in disgrace two years ago as an admitted plagiarist, but the financial consequences of their leadership (and erosion of community trust in the position they held) have not ended.

That's the situation Pekel inherited. As he put it, the district already has trimmed both fat and some muscle, and now it must cut bone.

While we can understand the fear and anger that some parents feel at the prospect of seeing their neighborhood school close (sentiments that were expressed during the public comment period before Tuesday's school board meeting), it's important to consider the entirety of the district's new attendance options plan.

Included in it are:

* A significant expansion of the School Age Child Care Program, which is absolutely essential for parents who need child care before and/or after school, as well as all-day care during the summer.

* An expansion of the Newcomers Program for recent arrivals whose first language isn't English.

* Creation of a Middle School Alternative Learning Center, to complement the current high school ALC, which serves students who have had problems in the traditional high school setting.

By closing schools that have seen dramatic decreases in enrollment, RPS will be able to consolidate, improve and expand important services for students and families who might otherwise fall through the cracks.

But even if RPS succeeds in its mission to reduce transportation costs, better serve special-needs students and fully utilize its newest, best-equipped buildings, Rochester residents still face a big decision.

What kind of school district do we want?

Pekel and the school board can shutter underused buildings, reduce transportion costs and eliminate every nickel of "waste" they can find, but the chief goal of public education shouldn't merely be to balance the books.

We believe Rochester ought to expect better-than-average test scores from our students at all grade levels. We should demand a high level of college readiness from our graduates. Top-tier teachers should see Rochester as a prime destination, and even well-educated, high-income newcomers to our district should see our public schools as a great option for their kids.

Right now, our school district is not meeting those expectations.

RPS is making a good-faith effort to fix the mistakes of the past decade and to prove that it won't repeat them, but our schools can't cut their way to excellence. At some point, the community will have to partner with RPS, to invest in our schools, our teachers and our students — or to accept mediocrity.