Opposition to Larrabee Closure Persists

Editor's Note: This letter was submitted to us for publication, but was originally sent to the Bellingham School District. A couple of issues not made clear previously are highlighted in this letter.

I’m writing to voice my strong opposition to the scheduled timing of the retirement of Larrabee Elementary School. I implore you to heed the recommendation of the Facilities Planning Task Force and close the school only after the new school opens at Happy Valley and upgrades are completed at Lowell. I am the father of a 2nd grader at Larrabee and I live a block away from the school. I moved from Seattle to Bellingham in 2006 and, like many in this neighborhood, I bought my specific home, in large part, because of its proximity to the school.

Construction

My primary concern is that I don’t want my son and other Larrabee students forced from our neighborhood school and crammed into another old, inadequate school in the midst of a major construction project. The traffic situation around Happy Valley currently is congested and unsafe for walkers, and it will get significantly worse with a large influx of new students and a steady stream of construction vehicles. And Lowell? One patch of asphalt that serves as a play field will be the construction zone for the new gym and cafeteria, while the other asphalt patch will be partially consumed by a portable for at least a year. I’m not sure either school can provide what I consider to be an adequate play field during the construction process. But I know Larrabee would. My son loves to run and play soccer and needs to release energy in this way. It’s extremely important for all kids. I’ve learned that logistical plans for the jam-packed interim years are not solidified yet. How is this possible? You decided to close Larrabee before you knew how you were going to accommodate our children? This is upsetting to me. I don’t imagine parents at Happy Valley and Lowell are particularly happy about it either.

How can we know, as parents, that every single employee, contractor, and subcontractor working on the construction project will be the kind of person we want around our children? And how can we be assured of safety? The decision to downplay the construction is particularly cavalier, considering the debacle that occurred at Whatcom Middle School just four years ago. Students suffered asthma exacerbation and other complications from exposure to noise and debris, and the building caught on fire! While I understand a similar project was completed successfully at Shuksan Middle School, I’m not convinced the proposed fence separating children from the construction at Happy Valley will guarantee safety. I feel that you’re being irresponsible with our children and that, more than anything, angers me.

I suspect that some Happy Valley parents will also have concerns about the construction zone, and if Larrabee remains open until the new projects are complete, we might even see a few transfer requests from Happy Valley to Larrabee during the process.

Further Concerns

Secondarily, I would like to express some other grievances I have with what transpired over the past 15 months. I am among the overwhelming majority of Larrabee parents and neighborhood residents who supported including our school in the bond and keeping it open, but it is not my intention to revisit that issue. My intention, rather, is to address the objectionable methods by which the superintendent and others went about trying to justify the closure and how the Larrabee community, through that process, was disrespected. I would also like to address efforts Dr. Baker made to manipulate opinions regarding the timing of the retirement.

I have read all the minutes from the Facilities Planning Task Force meetings and also those from the meetings of the “consultative” Think Tank created to offer input on the timing of the Larrabee closure.

On November 28, 2012, the Task Force voted unanimously to move forward with the plan to retire Larrabee and build a new, larger Happy Valley. Opinion aside, it would be fair to summarize the decision as being predicated on their vision for larger elementary schools, and their belief that it was necessary to close one of the three small Southside schools to achieve this goal. Larrabee lost out to Happy Valley because of its small lot size; Lowell wasn’t on the chopping block this time around.

In reading the notes, I learned that public relations became an immediate priority. Focus shifted to selling the desired plan, rather than objectively evaluating the merits of the plan. One task force member suggested that it would be important when addressing the community to emphasize lot size as the main reason Larrabee wasn’t a viable option. It would have been far more palatable to me if that straightforward approach had been heeded, but what followed instead was a series of poorly-contrived attempts to manipulate data and show Larrabee as deficient in several areas. In some cases, statements criticizing Larrabee were made with no supportive data at all. An unfortunate side effect of this approach was that some excellent teachers were disrespected in the process.

There were numerous examples of statistical finagling. I found this one on the district’s website:

Q. How many students currently ride the bus to Larrabee and Wade King elementary schools and at what cost?

A. Approximately 175 students ride the bus to Wade King Elementary on three buses. Taking into account mileage, fuel and driver expenses, the annual cost per rider is $232.58. Approximately 25 students ride the bus to Larrabee Elementary School on one bus. Taking into account mileage, fuel and driver expenses, the annual cost per rider is $472.61.

Questionable

Q and A

In my opinion, this supposed Q and A is presented with the goal of making people believe that transportation to Larrabee is more costly than transportation to Wade King. The “question” above is flawed. If one were actually trying to determine the transportation value of the schools, annual cost per student would be calculated rather than annual cost per rider.

In reality, the above numbers show that it costs $88 annually per student to bus kids to Wade King (462 students) and only $64 annually per student to bus kids to Larrabee (185 students**). Therefore, what we truly learn from the numbers is that transportation to Larrabee, with its central location and large number of walkers, is less costly and better for the environment, for what it’s worth. (**If Larrabee’s current enrollment is 150, and the bus costs have remained static, the annual cost per student would be $79 ... still less costly).

Again, I’m not citing that statistic to argue the merits of Larrabee and re-engage in the small schools vs. big schools debate; my point is to offer one of many examples where the public relations effort deviated from integrity and accuracy. Similarly misleading statistics were served up regarding teacher salaries and test scores. Surely you can understand why these tactics angered our community, and you can understand why even the most ambivalent among us began to resent what was happening and became motivated to speak out against the spin job.

Energy Star Certification

In 2011, Larrabee received ENERGY STAR certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Defined on the EPA site: “ENERGY STAR certified buildings and plants cost less to operate and help protect the environment. On average, these buildings use 35 percent less energy and cause 35 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than comparable buildings across the country. Academic studies also show that ENERGY STAR certified buildings are more valuable — commanding higher rents and sale prices, among other benefits. To earn ENERGY STAR certification, a facility must operate among the top 25 percent of similar facilities nationwide, with no sacrifices in comfort or quality.” Yet by the end of 2012, the same Larrabee building was being described as energy inefficient, and its alleged inefficiency was repeatedly parroted by those in favor of closing the school.

Adding insult to injury for the Larrabee community is the fact that this clumsy public relations effort didn’t need to succeed. Few, if any, in this community were fooled but, ultimately, the only opinions that mattered were those of the school board members. If a majority of the board shared Dr. Baker’s vision for larger elementary schools and the retirement of Larrabee, it didn’t really matter what the data showed. So why shovel it out there? I don’t get it. Our community was too small to affect the outcome of the school board elections or the bond vote, so we had no leverage. I, like a majority of Bellingham residents, support spending tax money to improve public schools. And, for the record, I like the idea of a nice, new school, and I understand why all three Southside elementary schools are considered inadequate in their current form. I even support spending money on the district offices ($16.9 million), despite the fact that some of its occupants treated my community poorly.

Public Hearing

The meeting during which the school board voted to close Larrabee was held on May 9th, 2013, at 7 p.m. The public hearing at Larrabee was held on May 8th, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. The public hearing was described on the district’s website with these words: “The board will listen to each speaker and read the written feedback, adding it to the past five months of public input process, feedback, recommendation, analysis and information that the board has previosuly [sic] received regarding Larrabee Elementary School. The board may take action by considering a resolution on the possible retirement/closure of Larrabee Elementary School for use as a K-5 elementary school as early as its next regularly scheduled meeting ...” I don’t consider one day adequate time for the school board to truly evaluate all the feedback from the hearing. It was obvious that the decision was made before the hearing, a fact that was confirmed for me when one of the board members addressed the audience with these words: “We’ve never had to do something so difficult before. I mean, we did go through the situation with Lowell, but we’ve never had to do this before.” I was appalled she basically admitted that input from the hearing wouldn’t be taken into consideration alongside the other information they’d received. I asked a couple people at the district about the egregious timing of the hearing in relation to the vote, and they defensively bristled, “We gathered and evaluated information for months prior to the hearing.” (As if that’s a valid excuse for ignoring what people had to say ...) So why have the hearing at all? I assume it was a legal step in the process, but I’m sure it’s not supposed to be a mere formality to check off a list. I assure you this community didn’t perceive the hearing as superfluous. People put a lot of time and energy into researching and preparing for the hearing; the fact that it was a charade was particularly cruel and infuriating.

Impacts Need Understanding

Even with your decision made, if you’d listened with an open mind to what parents had to say at the hearing, you might have gained a more personal understanding of the impact the closure will have on particular children and our community as a whole. You had a perfect opportunity to achieve what you wanted in the retirement of the school, while showing a bit of compassion by allowing students to remain at Larrabee while Happy Valley and Lowell are worked upon. It would have been an easy and logical call to adhere to the recommendation of the Facilities Planning Task Force, and to lessen the pain for the jilted Larrabee community. But instead you opted for the 2014 closure, and for that I harbor resentment.

Think Tank

Regarding the Think Tank formed to explore options of when to retire Larrabee: of great concern to me is the influential presentation that was given to Think Tank members preceding their vote. The superintendent alone had the power to make the decision about the date of retirement, but with the recommendation of the Task Force solidly supporting retiring Larrabee only after the construction is completed at Happy Valley and Lowell, it was important for him to gain some semblance of support if he desired rapid closure. So principals from Puyallup were brought to the Think Tank meeting to explain how, in their experience, it was good to close schools as soon as possible. But the situation in Puyallup was different from that of Larrabee in almost every critical detail. Most importantly, the schools to which the children in Puyallup moved weren’t under construction! Severe budget constraints and severe under-enrollment had crippled the closing schools, too, so in their case it was good to retire them immediately. And aside from that, Puyallup is as similar to Fairhaven as Seattle is to Saturn.

Even following that overt attempt at persuasion, the vote was essentially split. Few people supported a 2013 closure, eleven ‘yes’ votes and two ‘maybe’ votes supported the 2014 closure, nine ‘yes’ votes and four ‘maybe’ votes supported a 2016 closure, and nobody supported a rolling closure. Contextually taken and considering the misleading presentation, I’m surprised the vote wasn’t unanimously in favor of a 2014 closure. (As a side note, in my opinion, the option of a 2013 closure was absurdly impossible and only floated to make the 2014 closure look like a reasonable compromise). And when Dr. Baker ultimately made the call to retire Larrabee at the end of 2014, he justified his decision by referencing the tainted Think Tank support and citing a number of transfer requests. Of course, when he sent out a letter on March 27, 2013, prolonging uncertainty about the date of retirement and suggesting that “families with young children or those feeling a sense of urgency who want an earlier transition may continue to submit transfer requests,” he encouraged more requests and again manipulated the process. If parents had been assured that the school would remain open until at least 2016, I believe there would have been fewer transfer requests.

During a conversation I had today with someone at the school district, it was suggested that the 2014 closure was unrelated to transfer requests or funding, but rather the result of a philosophy that kids would have a better learning environment and greater opportunity for collaboration at the other schools. My understanding is that some educators question the merits of the collaboration theory, but even if you accept it, I highly doubt a superior environment will be provided when kids are in portables next to a construction zone.

Responsibility

I acknowledge that keeping Larrabee open and running properly for a few more years will have its challenges. It won’t be perfect, but I believe it will be better than the alternative. I realize that this difficult path may increase operational costs, but you made the decision to close the school, so you should take responsibility to make sure the kids are taken care of in the best possible way. If shrinking enrollment would normally warrant smaller staff funding, override the standard procedure. We pay taxes, too, and we got the shortest straw when our neighborhood school was slated for retirement. Please provide the resources to take care of the kids at all three Southside schools during the transition. Education isn’t all about money. We’d save more money if we just put all the kids in a warehouse, but that’s not the point.

Nothing is more important to me than my son, and I’m sure most parents feel the same way about their children. The Larrabee teachers have been good to him, and for that I am grateful. A large part of my desire to write this letter is to stand up for them and refute some of the nonsense that was thrown their way.

Be Careful

For those of you who supported the Larrabee result, I’m sure it’s nice to see your vision come to fruition. Larrabee will be retired, the $160 million bond has passed, and the district offices will be upgraded. I’m happy about several parts of the bond, too. I’m excited that if we remain in our neighborhood, my son will attend a new Sehome High School. For many, this is a wonderful situation and it’s a bright future for Bellingham Public Schools in general. But I advise you to be wary of the methods employed in the process. Was it really necessary to slander Larrabee on the way to achieving your goal? Was it right to massage the statistics because you believed the end result was in everyone’s best interest? It’s all well and good when you agree with the goal of those in positions of power, but how will you feel when you don’t? Will you trust that an ethical and considerate approach will be taken? I, for one, lost some respect for certain parties through this process and I didn’t appreciate how people were treated. Hopefully things will change for the better in this regard as we move into the future. I should add, at this point, that several people to whom I spoke at the district office were very kind and helpful; I appreciate their willingness to listen to my concerns, share information, and communicate their opinions, whether they agreed with mine or not.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Rezoning and Repurposing

The time and effort that has gone into rezoning, and the discussions about the repurposing of Larrabee will not be wasted if the retirement is delayed a few years. The decisions can be implemented when the time comes.

I’d like to stress how important I believe it is for the think tank evaluating the repurposing of Larrabee to be comprised primarily of people from this neighborhood. We are the ones whose properties and community are altered by this decision; therefore, we should be represented heavily in determining what will become of the Larrabee property.

For reference, the final recommendation from the Facilities Planning Task Force:

“Our Task Force does not make the recommendation to retire Larrabee lightly. The community input from throughout the school district around this issue was varied. The Task Force discussed and examined a large range of issues from walkability to the other schools to the other advantages of Larrabee’s current size. Ultimately, the Task Force concluded that in the long term, students would be best served in a new elementary school on Happy Valley’s property and a renovated Lowell. We recommend that Larrabee’s retirement be coordinated with the opening of a new school at Happy Valley and the upgrades at Lowell to minimize disruption to families and student learning. A well planned transition that allows many current Larrabee students to complete their schooling there while the new school at Happy Valley is being built and Lowell is being upgraded should be considered to limit the number of moves that students need to make. Our Task Force also discussed the issues with prolonging the retirement of Larrabee. These include families with young children who want to enroll in the school their children will ultimately attend and staff transfer requests.”