School choice is here, and it's not going away. Whether it's resident public school district schools, open-enrollment public charter schools, private/independent schools, home school, neighboring school districts, or moving from/to a community, most Arkansas students/families are empowered to choose the education options which best fit their needs.
But when the only performing resident district's high schools are full or over capacity, private/independent schools require tuition, charter schools are enrollment capped, inter-district school choice is limited to 3 percent annually, and moving requires resources, what are those to do who are left with no options?
Competition is not competition if the largest district in the state can't, won't or doesn't compete.
In its recent editorial, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette proclaims: "There are charter schools operating in old business buildings that are doing wonders for kids. And the newest, brightest, most expensive classroom in the world can't teach a kid a thing."
We agree with the latter, but in order to "teach a kid," a kid must be present--retained and/or attracted. And we're losing them by the thousands to the "newest, brightest" classrooms in and out of the district.
If buildings don't or shouldn't matter, why is eStem Public Charter Schools building a new high school on the campus of UALR and a new K-8 on Shall Street in Little Rock's East Village? Why did LISA Academy just enter into a long-term lease for a new K-6 campus in west Little Rock? Why did Little Rock Preparatory Academy just refurbish the former Lutheran School in midtown? Why is Pulaski County Special School District building a new Mills and refurbishing Fuller and Robinson? Why are Benton and Bryant building and upgrading their schools?
If, as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette asserts, "Johnny Key and Michael Poore are the right leaders who will continue to improve Little Rock's school district until they get more schools out of academic distress and returned to local control," shouldn't they be trusted with the tools they and so many others say they need to do just that?
Instead, the only suggestion the editorial makes to improve the schools is to "attract the best teachers" with competition and merit pay, which, by the way, requires more money. How is the district supposed to attract and retain the best teachers when it can't or won't provide a "warm, safe and dry" and "adequate and equitable" working and learning environment in every school?
In order to compensate for the annual loss of over $37 million in state desegregation funding, the district has cut $41 million from its budget. It did that by closing schools, over strenuous opposition, and reducing employment. We agree, debt service mills should be used as voters intended--for debt service. But the district's former local boards and superintendents have long been addicted to using two-thirds of those mills for operations. In order to immediately free those mills, as the paper suggests, the district will have to immediately cut another $26 million from the budget, and that means closing more schools and reducing more employment.
The editorial concludes: "When they [Johnny Key and Michael Poore] get the school district out of academic distress, we think that would be a better time to borrow more money and take on the heavier debt burden."
When the school district is out of Academic Distress and returned to local control, if history is any indication, Michael Poore may no longer be in charge. Good luck asking voters to "borrow more money and take on the heavier debt" when district enrollment has dwindled even further and building costs and interest rates are higher.
We believe the students and families of Little Rock have waited long enough, particularly since the timing and fiscal health of the district has never been more advantageous:
LRSD's 12.4 Debt Service Mills rank 111th of 232 Arkansas school districts.
LRSD's percentage of 46.4 total mills for Debt Service is 26.72 percent--169th of 232 Arkansas school districts.
LRSD's assessed property valuation is $987,319,755 higher than second place PCSSD.
LRSD's property tax receipts increase an average of $3,850,344 every year.
LRSD's average annual growth of property tax receipts of $3,848,580 is higher than 139 Arkansas school districts' total property tax receipts.
Current long-term interest rates are approximately 4 percent.
Little Rock's district has great current and future capacity to maximize its resources without raising taxes by lowering its debt's interest rate and extending its term to immediately build, upgrade facilities. If approved, this fiscally responsible refinance will cost the district and its taxpayers far less and do far more than the public proposals previously put forward.
Forget open-enrollment charter schools and private/independent schools. How many more students and families must Little Rock lose to neighboring districts and contiguous counties before we finally choose to compete?
We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Instead, we can choose the quickest route between good and perfect by finally addressing what the district has avoided for decades, and that includes, but is not limited to, building or upgrading every school to meet student/family demand.
Or not.
On May 9, may the immediate needs of students guide voters' decisions.
------------v------------
Gary Smith chairs the Committee to Rebuild Our Schools.
Editorial on 05/08/2017