Resolution on ISD 2142's Restructuring Plan
Whereas:
The St. Louis County School Board's school restructuring plan lacks basic equity.
Background: The plan would close the Tower-Soudan High School (community of 1,300 residents with over 2,000 within five mile radius), forcing students to travel 25 miles to attend school in a neighboring district. We believe no other urban center of this size has been forced to bus students this far anywhere else in the state of Minnesota.
At the same time, the district proposes major renovations at the Cherry School, which serves a rural area in the Hibbing-Chisholm area. Most Cherry students, all of whom are considered rural, have a choice of alternative schools (Eveleth-Gilbert, Mt. Iron-Buhl, Virginia, Chisholm, or Hibbing) within 7-10 miles. Furthermore, the Cherry School is maintained, even though the district projects its enrollment will fall to 270 students within eight years. At the same time, Tower-Soudan’s enrollment is expected to grow modestly, to 280 students. Why is the Cherry High School renovated while Tower-Soudan is closed? The decision is not educationally-based, nor does it treat communities or students equitably.
The same situation exists with the district’s decision to maintain the Babbitt School even though its enrollment is projected to fall to just 248 within four years. Students in Babbitt would be able to attend classes in Ely in the event of closure, at a distance of 14 miles. That compares favorably to the 25 miles required for students in Tower-Soudan. Furthermore, if the Babbitt School were closed, many Embarrass students would likely shift to the Tower-Soudan School, enhancing its long term viability.
Whereas:
The District's plan fails to address school viability issues in the district’s northeast.
Background: As indicated above, the district expects enrollment at the Babbitt School to fall dramatically in the next four years, to 248 students, equal to Tower-Soudan’s current enrollment, which the district now claims is lacking viability. In the district’s plan, they anticipate solving Babbitt’s viability problem by bussing Tower-Soudan students there. Yet, the Babbitt School is 25 miles from Tower and 27 miles from Soudan and residents of the communities have told district officials repeatedly that they will be opting to send students to neighboring districts (most likely, Virginia, Ely, or Mesabi East).
The district’s consultants have now acknowledged that few students from Tower-Soudan will likely attend in Babbitt, but they never re-examined their basic assumption that students from Tower-Soudan provide viability for the Babbitt School. As it is, the district’s plan abandons Tower-Soudan’s secondary students and does nothing to maintain viability in Babbitt. In the end, students at both sites are likely to lose their opportunity for education in or near their own community.
We believe that the only viable solution in the northeastern part of the district must include Ely (ISD 696). By combining Ely and Babbitt into a new K-12 school, Babbitt’s viability issue is resolve as is Ely’s serious facilities issues.
Whereas:
Maintaining a K-6 in Tower-Soudan isn’t financially viable and won’t operate more than a few years.
Background: Currently, Tower-Soudan students attend school in a single K-12 building. Common spaces, such as the library, pool, gymnasium, and cafeteria are shared by both elementary and secondary students. All of these spaces would continue to operate under the elementary-only proposal. The entire building is currently heated by a single heating plant, which will minimize operational savings due to closure of the high school. The district will still need to maintain food service, janitorial services and continue to operate its existing bus routes.
This will force the district to incur most of the expenses it presently incurs while its ADMs fall from 260 to 130. The district currently receives approximately $9,000 per ADM, meaning the district stands to lose $1.17 million in revenue that could help pay for operational costs of the Tower-Soudan School. In addition, the K-12 facility currently provides efficiencies because some teachers (art, phy. ed, and some special ed or other specialists) can serve students across grade levels. Those opportunities would disappear, resulting in higher costs to the district or fewer educational opportunities for remaining students.
All of these reasons suggest the maintenance of a K-6 facility in Tower is a temporary decision by the district, intended primarily to salvage support for the referendum in the Tower-Soudan attendance area. If the district can’t afford to operate the building as a K-12 facility, as it claims, it certainly can’t afford to operate it as a K-6 and we believe that the financial realities will lead to its quick closure, leaving area residents with no educational options whatsoever, short of transporting students (of any age) 25 miles or more. We believe this eventuality would lead to the rapid demise of this community.
Therefore, be it resolved:
That the City Council of Tower, Minnesota officially goes on record in opposition to the St. Louis County School Board's restructuring plan, known as Option D.
Approved Monday, Sept. 14, 2009
