Speed Gibson

The Fog of STEAM Enrollment

District 281 (Robbinsdale) has just completed the lottery process that picked the winning students from all who applied for its two magnet programs.  Its Spanish Immersion (RSI) program goes back decades.  This year as you’ve read here, a STEAM program will open this fall, in the re-opened Olson Elementary building.  Code named SEA (School for Engineering and the Arts), this is the hybrid of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) plus an A for the Arts, long a District focus.

Sure enough, several parents (of Fall 2012 Kindergarten students) who didn’t get a golden ticket came to the “Listening Time” preceding the March 19, 2012 School Board meeting.  What frustrated them was not so much that they lost but that the district refuses to tell them where they are on the waiting list.  They were in fact somewhat surprised to find there are multiple lists corresponding to the multiple drawings for the various set-asides for minorities, walkers, siblings, over-capacity (from Forest Elementary), and Open Enrollment. 

There are two sets of these lists, one each for RSI and SEA.  Parents could apply for both, and should they win both lotteries, pick one by the March 20^th acceptance deadline for both schools.  Given all this complexity and the alleged stonewalling of all inquiries (“sorry, we can’t help you”), the parent dissatisfaction I saw tonight is understandable.

One parent made this astute summarization: if there are no numbers, there is no list.  Superintendent Aldo Sicoli said that to publish these numbers would have only confused parents all the more.  But some of us mathematical types recognize this process as an indeterminate system.  There are multiple, no doubt thousands of selection permutations that satisfy the rules, hence the lotteries.  And hence, if the waiting list numbers are hidden, there is no accountability beyond whatever trust the public has in the process.  Who is to say that some parents might not suddenly win if they let it be known they will opt for private school otherwise?

No system would have pleased everybody.  No doubt it will be refined in future years.  But the district is off to a bad start on that trust issue and needs a more forthcoming response, this year if possible.  Otherwise, all that the losing parents received in the mail was a certificate of rejection and would be foolish to plan on any reversal of fortune.

All of these parents were promised a transparent selection process, as Dr. Sicoli reiterated tonight.  The most germane definitions of transparency from Merriam-Webster are "readily understood" and “characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices.”  Clearly (no pun intended), that is not the case here.

Seeing through STEAM Part 3: The Intent

Why did the Robbinsdale Area School District (281) create a new STEAM (STEM plus Arts) magnet school?  Just what is the intent?

The stated intent is to increase enrollment by offering an an additional concept thought to be in demand.  The Board has been very direct about that.  They specifically want to "stem" the net outflow via Open Enrollment.  The STEAM financial model depends on this.  The Board has admitted all along that without this new business, the positive cash flow projected ten years out will not materialize.

Judging by the attendance at the two public information meetings, the Board if anything understated the anticipated interest.  They of course assume this represents parents wanting into this new magnet program, not parents wanting out of their current zip code school.  Especially now, since the District's focus will clearly must be on the new concept launch, not improving the "old" concept for at least two years.  By then, "STEAM Lite" will be ready to turn them around as well, or so the narrative goes.

I've been dabbling at this point for several days, asking myself: is it as simple as this?  Unable or unwilling to improve the existing elementary schools (remember Eden Prairie?), they have created an unaccountable alternative that cannot help but succeed on paper because only motivated, involved parents will apply.  That means that the averages will likely drop a little at the "left behind" schools but that can conveniently be attributed to increased poverty as quantified by Free and Reduced Lunch enrollment.  That is largely moot now given the recent waiver of NCLB sanctions.

But is all this truly worth the considerable effort and investment?  Objectively we will likely never know given its ten year timeline and inability of most to understand the fog of K-12 accounting.  Even as stated, the net added value is actually quite small. 

No, my sense is that this is subjective, the creation of a Board who remembers when District 281 was considered by some to be the best system in Minnesota, certainly in the top five.  They remember when enrollment was around 27,000, not 12,000.  They have watched the tax base move west, leaving them struggling to keep old buildings open while outlying districts build new facilities.  And even if they truly wanted to aggressively complete, that is largely prohibited by union-friendly law.  So I can understand if they at least want to try something.

My problem with this is that I think they are more focused on recreating the past than embracing the future.  Experts in weight loss see this frequently, when a 30-something client thinks they're going to work their way back to looking like a teenager again.  They must refocus them on looking good at 40, itself a fine goal and one they can actually achieve.  With the schools, and not just Robbinsdale, the number one challenge is clearly our achievement gap, a failure of national embarrassment proportions.  STEAM does not address this and the lack of interest shown by parents of the "lower achievers" is therefore not surprising.

"Don't give me Rembrandt, give me production!" goes an old business adage.  Too much time and resources can be wasted seeking perfection.  You can also waste them with too complicated a product line.  Apple Computer was criticized for this ten years ago, having too many overlapping models that confused sales people and customers alike.  Apple simplified its offerings and in my humble opinion, District 281 should do the same.

The demographic changes that many blame for various problems have pretty much propagated throughout the district and overall seem to be stabilizing.  It seems to me that refocusing all schools on a unified mission is what's required, to attack the achievement gap head on - or literally die trying.  That means no more STEAM, no more language immersion (RSI) and no more International Baccalaureate (IB).  All elementary schools teach the same program which means higher standards can be introduced.  The more variations you have, the lower the common denominator must be.

This would also end the separate but equal high school problem, with Armstrong AP based and Cooper IB based.  Go with the stronger program - Advanced Placement - at both schools.  Such consolidation can provide resources to help struggling students directly, with no distractions or meaningless but discouraging comparisons to other schools or programs.

Seeing through STEAM Part 2: The Approach

Last episode I went through what I've seen, heard, and read about the curriculum at the new STEAM magnet school program opening this fall in District 281, the Robbinsdale Area Schools.  I can only evaluate what's been presented, supplemented by some accounts of similar efforts elsewhere across the country.  Maybe it will take firm shape and direction as it develops, a process that may take a few years.  But so far, as I like to say, it's pretty thin soup.

Actually that's not quite fair.  To continue the metaphor, yes, the district's recipe is short on actual Arts and Engineering.  But there are other ingredients in the pot as I think this paragraph from the STEAM brochure makes clear:

The School of Engineering and Arts at Olson Elementary is designed for students who enjoy investigating the world around them, using creativity to solve problems and find solutions to challenges.  Teachers use inquiry-based instruction to deliver excellent standards-based curriculum for a well-rounded education, grounded in discovery and hands-on learning.  A focus on engineering and the arts allows students to understand the design process as it presents itself in all core subject areas, and to learn new ways to communicate their findings.  The combination of an excellent STEM education combined with a rich arts education (STEAM) will help students develop into innovative leaders essential to a global society.  Learn how this program will benefit your child!

Do you sense it, the touchy-feely approach underneath it all?  We don't just complete tasks, we do Service Learning Projects.  We don't engage customers or investors, we embrace Community Partnerships.  We don't apply ourselves, we work Collaboratively!

This isn't the language of engineers.  This isn't even the language of artists.  It is the language of educators.  It's what they know.  It's what they were taught - by other educators and it's a clear handicap for the STEAM task at hand.  I saw this first hand in college, when a visiting engineer from Medtronic taught a junior year electronics course.  It was our first real confrontation with market realities, having to build projects that both worked and could be built for a specified price.  It's when we first had to deal with the absence of 247.389 ohm resistors in the parts catalog.  You found a way to make a standard 270 ohm resistor do the job, the cheaper 10% tolerance ones if possible.  He talked a completely different game than we were used to, and at a much faster pace.  He personified the old saw: "Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."

This is not to berate the teachers who will be teaching at Olson this fall.  But the fact remains that they are teachers and think like teachers and, well, teach like teachers.  Spending a few hours in professional development and visiting the Science Museum isn't going to change that.  To be successful, I think the STEAM school needs a more hybrid faculty, both engineers and teachers.  Even so, both must work within the limited mathematical and cognitive skill levels of the early grades.  We understand this concept in the arts.  We hire music majors not education majors to teach band and choir.  STEAM must find a similar solution to succeed.

But to read the District's brochure and press clippings, they seem to think that happy thoughts and psycho-babble like the above will be enough.  It depends on what the goal of STEAM really is.

 

Seeing through STEAM Part 1: The Curriculum

Having attended many of District 281 School Board meetings that developed the STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) magnet school opening this fall, I thought I understood the concept.  Let's see what happens I thought.  But after attending both infomation night presentations recently, I must say I'm now a bit disappointed.  Let me start with the what first surprised me - the Arts component.

The Robbinsdale Area Schools can rightly point to many decades of emphasis on the arts, in all grades.  Recent budget cuts that reduced this commitment to what many other districts would consider nominal were nonetheless painful for many parents as well as staff.  I naturally inferred that the "A" in STEAM would therefore be an attempt to regain some of that legacy.  Apparently not.

Throughout the presentations it was clear that we are not talking about music, drama, painting, or dance, the classical motifs I suffered through at St. Louis Park Junior HIgh oh so long ago.  No, we are now talking about "media arts" which is to say computer graphics.  Given this is elementary school, given what I saw at the presentations, much of this is not much beyond Microsoft Paint or Apple MacDraw.  Is it possible that the "left behind" schools will actually have the superior art instruction this fall?

Meanwhile, what about the STEM components, like Engineering, the focus of the presentations?  Myself an engineer, I have to say: this ain't it.  They speak of an Engineering methodology, to define, imagine, plan, create, and then refine.  I'm not going to argue what the exact sequence or formulation should be; this is elementary school.  But I think even these students can learn to appreciate one more little detail: cost.  Engineering is much more about the repeatable, the affordable, the practical, not the experimental, the unproven, the theoretical.  Too much of the latter and you wind up with a Chevy Volt.

Science, also part of STEM, does probe new theories and approaches, of course.  But I wonder what will happen when the irrestible force of the Scientific Method confronts the politically unmovable object known as Man-Made Global Warming.  Technology comprises accomplishments, the results of applied science, i.e. engineering, not a teachable discipline per se. 

Finally, we have Mathematics.  Some may snicker, but basically we teach elementary math about as fast as the students can assimilate it.  Some mistakes were clearly made in "the new math" of the 1970's where rote and drill were replaced by large doses of concept and discovery, too early and too quickly.  It was too much for even the parents and was soon scaled back.  I could wish for a little more returning to basic numerical literacy, but what is taught today is largely workable.  I therefore cannot imagine what significant deficiency or missed opportunity STEM or STEAM addresses that the "left behind" schools cannot.

District 281's STEAM is self-described as "the path to creative innovation."  (Is there any other kind?)  That path is no doubt paved with good intentions, but where does it truly lead?  I'll give you my theory in Part 2.

STEAM: Overloaded

UPDATE (details below): Additional meeting scheduled.

If school bus transportation is in fact outsourced in District 281, I think we should hire the driver that took me from Northport Elementary to Olson Elementary for tonight's Parent Information Night regarding the new "School of Engineering and Arts at Olson Elementary" that opens there this fall.  The position: Event Planner.

For tonight's event was a mess.  School Board members were proud and amazed at the turnout, standing room only.  Crowded into the library of less than 1,000 square feet, almost as many were standing as sitting.  Taking the courtesy bus, we arrived much too late to get a seat.  Given the snow and parking overload, I suspect several potential attendees gave up and drove away.  We couldn't even see the podium or the presentation graphics behind them.  The public address audio cut out at times.  As our driver observed, they should have scheduled this at a middle school, followed up by a few open house dates at Olson itself.  A School Board member said that they would schedule another such event, presumably soon given the March 1, 2012 application deadline.

Sure, this seems obvious now, but even half this turnout would have filled almost every seat, leaving little room for error.  How did they misguess this so badly?  Because there were more than just parents interested in STEAM per se attending.

Some of the extras may have been sightseers, including me, with no children currently enrolled but curious about the program.  Some may have been nearby residents happy to see the long closed facility open again.  Some may have been Olson alumni.  But in addition to these and those truly excited about the STEM or STEAM concepts, I think many were there because they are simply dissatisified with their current schools.  It's not irrational for them to assume that their schools will receive less district attention and/or resources.  It's not selfish for them to seek the district's best offerings for their childen.

Regardless, it's very obvious there will be a lottery for most to get into this new magnet program here in the Robbinsale Area Schools.  There are various quotas and set-asides, particularly in the hope that the STEAM enrollment demographics will approximate that of the district. But in a district with an almost 50 percent minority elementary population, I sadly must report that few of those parents were here tonight.  You at least have to like their odds of getting a golden ticket.

As to the presentation, I fear the district may have placed itself on the wrong side of the "under-promise, over-deliver" maxim.  There is much to do by this fall, staff as yet largely unhired and/or untrained in STEM/STEAM concepts, fairly new concepts to begin with.  The building is still being reworked, another reason not to even hold this at Olson.  The model classrooms were largely empty and unfurnished, just a new-fangled whiteboard here, a few "STEM" toys there.

But the presentation exuded total confidence in the district's ability to delivery flawlessly this fall.  I think they could have toned it down a bit, emphasizing the importance of the teacher-parent partnership, openly admitting some mistakes may happen along the way - like this event.  I think the parents would have been just as impressed, maybe more so.

*** UPDATE (per the Robbinsdale Area Schools):

An additional Family Information Night for the School of Engineering and Arts, the district's new STEAM magnet school, will be on February 23, 2012 at Olson Elementary School, 1751 Kelly Drive, Golden Valley. The presentation will be from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.

I see no mention of bus service as last time, which got its riders there too late to get a seat or (in our case) even be able to view the presentation.  Attendees should plan on arriving at least 15 minutes early, but also note that this first meeting ended early, around 7:10 pm.

The Pressure For STEAM

A comment left me a link that explains more about STEAM implementations elsewhere.  It's a good article, worth your time to read and consider.  The premise is that there is synergy to be had in adding an arts component to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) to get STEAM as the article explains.  It's a fair assessment, too, identifying limits and the absence of supportive empirical data so far.

I like how the article speaks of the "intersection" of art and science, the latter referring to all of the STEM components henceforth.  They are indeed different disciplines, indeed different approaches to life itself.  They cross more than overlay each other.  That's true of people, too, the consumate art and science masters like Leonardo Da Vinci relatively rare.  So I'm again inclined to ask, can we implement both without limiting one or the other?

The article does blur an important distinction, like when it observes that "Nobel laureates in the sciences were 22 times more likely than scientists in general to be involved in the performing arts."  One can deeply appreciate and enjoy performances far beyond their own ability.  It's the difference between real guitar and air guitar.  Similarly, an artist does not need to understand the science of his craft or his tools.  Abraham Lincoln wrote his immortal Gettysburg Address on the back of an evelope while thousands of would be novelists can't write anything memorable on a MacBook Pro.

The article also raised a question for me: just what is science in the STEM/STEAM world.  Certainly the physicial sciences like physics and chemistry, biology close enough.  But as everyone tries to get in on the premiere platform, will science broaden as in dilute to include social sciences like Sociology or Economics, even misnomers like Political Science?

As many have said, if everything's a priority, nothing's a priority.  While this article may be right, that STEAM can rise higher than STEM, trying to cover those additional bases won't be easy, especially for a new program in a district with no prior experience.

 

STEAM: The Heat Is On

It's been about 3 weeks since the District 281 Board approved the creation of STEAM magnet program.  I and others have written several posts questioning this decision.  You can use the Categories link at the left to see them all.

Apparently the district has been hearing from many of us with similar concerns.  Marketing and Communications Program Director Tia Clausen responded in a Sun Newspaper guest column on December 29th.  Our favorite contrarian 281 Exposed has already responded but allow me to pile on.  Ms. Clausen begins with:

As the administrator in charge of marketing and communications in the Robbinsdale Area Schools, I need to dispel some misconceptions about the Olson STEAM magnet so that our communities have the correct facts.

That phrase "correct facts" sets a disquieting tone for what follows, as in "correct set of facts," as in "our correct set of facts," as in "the facts you should accept."  After all, the title of the column is "Olson STEAM program misconceptions put to rest."

Let me clarify: the financial model used for the STEAM magnet does require open enrollment. That should come as no surprise, as in order to create new programming, funding is needed, and rather than "take away from existing programs," we wish to bring in new funding that comes with new students, or with students who may previously have attended schools other than Robbinsdale Area Schools.

The one-third number that is being conveyed doesn't solely come from the new magnet. It is a ratio of the number of seats at that school that would be above and beyond the current open enrollment in the district and could be filled by new students coming to any school.

The financial model uses numbers that are in keeping with the current percentage of open-enrolled students in the district (approximately 10 percent).

Nothing is clarified here; quite the reverse, tediously so.  And she missed the point.  The issue is not whether increased Open Enrollment is needed to make STEAM financially viable.  The issue is whether STEAM can indeed attract those new students.

Regarding the financial timeline, the district would begin to see revenue as a result of the STEAM magnet after year nine, using a very conservative financial model. Then the revenue enhancement increases, with an over $5.5 million revenue enhancement in year 14.

Again, no misconceptions are put to rest.  And notice the conditional tense and somewhat indirect phrasing.  Are there some additional assumptions?  Why not just say: "We conservatively estimate that STEAM will break even by 2022, generating over $5 million of additional annual revenue by 2026.  We say conseratively because ..."  That's what inquiring minds want to know.

Implying that we can continue to be an exemplary district by contracting within our own walls is simply not forward thinking. I personally don't wish to "exist," but to grow and continue to offer students the best possible education anywhere.

This paragraph reads like a pout, but let's try to follow the intent.  If Robbinsdale is an exemplary district today (source?), why does it does need a new magnet program?  Should we "mess with success" like Steve Jobs did?  What if it backfires, like when Netflix tried to split its offerings?  Thousands of businesses have gone bankrupt from too much "forward thinking" couched in the form of a false choice like the one presented here.

As both a former teacher and coordinator of magnet programs, a "school-within-a-school" model of programming, for STEAM specifically and at the elementary level, is not feasible nor what is best for students.

I'm not sure how one assumes this can be done in a "school-within-a-school" model. Would kids be pulled out to learn STEM? If so, that's not STEM education. Would the school pool their K-5 students together in a STEM classroom? If so, how would that work with such a vast difference in curriculum, age of students, and developmental level?

As "281 Exposed" noted, the "school within a school" approach was seriously considered by the District.  The approach adopted in fact plans on leveraging the accumulated STEAM experience at the single Olson location by eventually deploying portions of it in the other schools.  Did Ms. Clausen not get the memo?

The development of a STEAM magnet at Olson Elementary School will provide options for families, and give new families the opportunity to experience the great things that Robbinsdale Area Schools has to offer.

It will also have a direct effect on the learning across the district.

I thought the purpose of this piece was to clear up misunderstandings, not republish the press release.

While I appreciate the opinions of others, this district is moving forward; it is innovative and fresh. Things are happening all across the district that is taking our students to the next level.

We must jump on this train of fast-changing education for the benefit not only of our students, but our community members, our residents, and our students yet to come.

This is marketing, not communication, unresponsive to those unquoted opinions that the author appreciates.  Not that there is anything wrong with good marketing, but we were promised the "correct facts" that would allay our supposed misconceptions about STEAM.

That's the trouble with this whole article.  By its titles, we expect communication.  But what we read is marketing, with a somewhat dismissive air toward us non-believers in the need or prospects for STEAM.  In a word, it is unresponsive, which only tends to concede the argument.

STEAM Escapes Me

Long ago I was on a student committee to come up with our Homecoming slogan to rally the St. Louis Park Orioles over the Robbinsdale Robins.  We voted for "Kick the L out of Robbinsdale!" but our faculty advisor vetoed it.  Today's letter to kick around is the A in STEAM, the new magnet program starting this fall in the Robbinsdale Area Schools, District 281.

STEAM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics, a variant of the STEM concept being adopted by many schools nationwide.  Here is a Connecticut school district's summary:

[Our STEM Magnet School] offers an advanced academic program focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Students receive a rigorous, academically challenging curriculum with rigorous and intense science and math instruction. Teachers use an innovative, hands-on inquiry approach for instruction in all content areas. Students at STEM not only receive a state-of-the-art education, but are also immersed in a nurturing and collaborative environment that is built on a partnership between the home, school, and the community.

You have to wade through a lot of Edu-Speak before you realize how little is being said here.  What non-STEM educators would agree that by comparison, their programs aren't advanced, rigorous, challenging, or innovative?  What classes are taught today without any nurturing or collaboration?

But let's take it at face value, that some students will respond better to a left-brain approach emphasizing the quantitative as opposed to a traditional right-brain qualitative experience.  I'm willing to see what happens, though my left brain insists on asking: how much better, and at what cost?  My cynical side also has a question.  Will the schools allow the rigorous application of the scientific method to disabuse their students of anthropogenic climate change and other junk science?

Now, where does A - the arts - fit in?  The Board added this in consideration of the District's long standing reputation and commitment to the arts.  I can understand how they didn't want this eclipsed by a new "state of the art" (no pun intended) STEM program.  I am at a loss, however, to see any synergy whatsoever.  Indeed, isn't STEM targeting nerds like me who have no real artistic calling or ability?  If there is no synergy, then the resources, even the focus are diluted.  Indeed, not knowing much about STEM but knowing a lot about Art could result in a "steAm" program as a fellow pundit put it.

And if the "best" Arts program will only be at Olson (STEAM's home), what is left for the other schools, including those not able to enroll in STEAM for lack of a winning lottery number?  Should someone who would benefit from STEM per se be shut out to make room for someone who wants to work in clay?  That cynical little devil on my left shoulder reminds me that Executive Director of Education Services Lori Simon said that "We need to be sure the student body reflects the district’s overall enrollment.”  Adding the non-quantitive (as in harder to measure results) arts component clearly makes it easier to do that.

If we must do STEM, let's not dilute it.  Kick the A out of STEAM!

Getting STEAM Rolled

As others have already pointed out, there are two obvious concerns about the financial projections for the newly adopted STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) magnet program.  One is the assumption for a net increase of 94 K-5 Open Enrollment students.  Two is the long payback, in the red the first 10 years, partly to amortize over $2 million in facility (re-opening Olson elementary) costs.

In year 12, the district projects a positive cash flow of about $1.5 million, largely from that Open Enrollment increase, both residents who return and non-residents who sign up.  But there are problems with this analysis.  That new money obviously comes from neighboring districts, a zero sum game meaning for Minnesota in total, nothing has changed.  We will be spending just as much overall at the state level as before.  The additional expenses in running STEAM are real and local, however. 

We sometimes see this phenomenon in business where one department saves a dollar by in effect spending two dollars of another department's budget, sometimes all unknowing.  Chief FInancial Officers usually spot these loopholes and close them.  The District (and its Financial Advisory Commisssion) could and should similarly be more forthcoming from a taxpayer's overall point of view.

The other problem is that this STEAM model assumes that the other districts will not offer programs of their own, especially when they see that they are losing students to Robbinsdale.  Assuming STEAM proves as popular as hoped, what is to prevent, say, the Osseo Schools from doing the same, maybe better?  There are no secrets to this.  Indeed, the District plans on replicating at least portions of it for use at its other non-magnet schools later on.

Few businesses today will underwrite projects with over a 5 year payback, let alone 10.  Too many things can change.  It is quite possible that the Board, Superintendent and Cabinet will be all new faces ten years from now.  The economy?  Anybody's guess.

This is not to say that STEAM isn't still worth doing.  Just don't expect it to be profitable.

Full Steam Ahead

At its December 5, 2011 meeting, the Robbinsdale School Board adopted a new magnet school program for District 281.  This is in addtion to the decades old Spanish Immersion ("RSI") magnet program, recently relocated to the re-purposed Sunny Hollow elementary school building.  It remains popular to the point of using a lottery to limit enrollment to match capacity.

Now, the STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) magnet program will begin operation this coming fall in the Olson elementary school in Golden Valley.  This building was built in 1970 only to be closed in 1980 when the baby boom had played through, total district enrollment dropping by a third over those ten years. 

This is a significant move for the district, in both theory and practice.  It is a bit of a financial gamble as well.  If it proves successful, as in also requiring a lottery, what remains for those students who don't draw a lucky number, "left behind" in non-magnet programs?  This has been a nagging question even now, as only RSI and one other elementary school are meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals.

I will have much more to say and post after Christmas.  Some early reaction is available at Give2Attain, Community Solutions, and of course, 281 Exposed.  For now, let me provide you with an unofficial transcript of Board Chair Barb Van Heel's remarks before making the motion to adopt the STEAM proposal, edited for clarity only.  It's a good summary of the Board's overall position.

First I wanted to remind people that we have spent many hours as a Board discussing this issue as well. I believe it has been on our work session agenda probably ever since May, almost every month. I know this has probably garnered the most interest and the most questions. We have really asked a lot of questions and gotten a lot of good answers. I want to congratulate the Committee for their work because I think they did outstanding work and spent a lot of time on it.

I’m going to support opening the STEAM school. I did talk about this a little bit in our work session in November and so I wanted to re-iterate those comments that I made.

First of all, I talked about how during every public meeting that I’ve been involved in, either as a Board member or before, there were always people in the audience who would get up and say, “Why aren’t you doing anything to stem declining enrollment? Why aren’t you doing anything to increase the enrollment in our district? What measures are you doing?” And so I was so excited when the Enrollment Enhancement Committee got started and started looking at ways that we can do this.

Additionally, when we hired our Superintendent we charged him with making our district a district of choice in the metro area. And I really applaud him for starting the Budget Committee and the starting the Enrollment Enhancement Committee. I believe that we now have a well-researched plan after months of detailed study to do just that.

I think the STEAM school is going to provide choices for our families that they want. It’s going to attract families that would have looked elsewhere for educational opportunities for their children. Yes, it does require a number a certain percentage of students to open enroll in our district in order to make the financial model work. Even though these families might open enroll initially, I would hope that they eventually might move into our community, into the many affordable homes that we seem to have available right now due to the foreclosures that we’ve been experiencing.

I think this school will be a win – win for our neighborhoods with the vacant homes, a win – win for our senior citizens who are trying to sell their homes in this economy, and a win – win for our cities, and a win – win for our taxpayers. And so I most definitely support this decision.