Year-round education will receive more emphasis if the Sisters School Board
presents a new bond proposal to voters as early as next March.
Voters in the November 7 election turned down a $5.5 million bond request by a
58 vote margin. The bond proposed that $3.5 million be spent to add eight new
classrooms to the elementary school and to remodel the old intermediate school
for seventh and eighth graders.
The additional $2 million was to fund fencing, field irrigation, school labs
and maintenance projects.
In a workshop session with members of the schools' Long Range Planning
Committee on November 28, the school board discussed presenting a bond to
voters again in March or in May.
If they do, members agreed, the board must clearly endorse year-round education
for the elementary and intermediate schools.
"It seems to me that by spending $3.5 million at the elementary site, we're
irrevocably committed to year-round education on that site," said board
chairman Bill Reed. "I don't think we should set (the issue) aside. I think we
should deal with it up front."
Leslee Bangs, chair of the Long Range Planning Committee, reminded the school
board that the bond was part of the committee's 10 year plan, which called for
the development of a year-round calendar.
"The 10 year plan doesn't work without YRE in it," Bangs said. "It just
doesn't."
The school board approved the 10 year plan at its June 12 meeting, but at the
same meeting Reed stated that adoption of the plan did not mean that the school
board was endorsing year-round education.
Board members and planning committee members agreed that the board's position
on year-round education must be clarified before a bond issue can once again be
brought before the voters.
"The issue is, does the school board endorse YRE," said planning committee
member Jim Knapp. "If it doesn't we shouldn't be out there endorsing the
bond."
Reed said that if the district doesn't go to year-round education, they should
not spend the $3.5 million at the elementary school. Reed argued that, in that
case, the money should go toward building a new middle school. Reed said that
the possibility of building a middle school four years from now has not been
adequately explored.
Bangs said that the Long Range Planning Committee had thoroughly explored the
possibility of building a middle school and determined that, even if the board
could pass the approximately $9-$12 million construction bond, under current
state funding practices, the district would have no money to operate the
school.
That, she said, was why the committee submitted the 10 year plan calling for
additional classrooms and year-round education at the elementary school.
Board member Harold Gott expressed concern about asking voters to reconsider
something they already turned down.
"I'm still working through in my mind the whole issue of resubmission, period,"
Gott said.
He argued that voters had concerns besides year-round education and that, if a
new vote was to be successful, the board must give the voters a better idea of
what they are agreeing to pay for.
"If we can't tell voters what they're going to spend their money on, maybe we
ought not to ask for it," Gott said.
Gott said any new bond proposal should itemize specifically how the proposed $2
million maintenance portion will be spent. And, Gott agreed, the board must get
behind the concept of year-round education and tell voters "it has good
academics behind it and it has good economics behind it.
"It's not a perfect solution," Gott said, "but it's the best solution that we
can do."
The school board will soon decide whether or not to resubmit the bond proposal
to the voters. The issue is on the agenda for the school board's December 11
meeting.
