LPOSD talks dollars, taxes and schools

SANDPOINT— The numbers are out there and have been for some time. But when you start talking in terms of millions of dollars — especially when those millions come from taxpayer dollars — some of the finer points of the message can get lost.

In advance of Tuesday’s supplemental levy election, we asked Lake Pend Oreille School District Superintendent Shawn Woodward to sit down for a wide-ranging conversation about where the money will go, why the levy is even necessary and what happens if it doesn’t pass.

Q: Levies tend to be complicated affairs — what’s your “elevator pitch” going into Tuesday’s election?

A: The bottom line is that this levy really cannot be considered as “extra.” This is part and parcel of what we do every day with our students and our system would not look the same without the support of people to get this levy passed.

We have metrics and evidence from the last eight or nine years that would suggest that the investment people are making in taxes are getting great returns when it comes to our student learning. We’re recognized as a leader across the state of Idaho when it comes to innovative practice and people can trust that the investment has been worthwhile.

Q: What kind of metrics do you use to make that determination?

A: We have statewide academic achievement data and we are consistently at or near the top when it comes to student achievement when you’re looking at similar demographics in the state of Idaho.

Every junior in the state takes the SAT exam and, in the last two years, students from Sandpoint High School have been at the top in math, reading and critical writing when you compare them with like-sized high schools in Idaho. That says a lot for our entire system, because those students come well prepared from our elementary schools and middle school and then, of course, our high school staff brings it home. Also, when it comes to being a springboard for students to continue their education after high school, we are far above the state average when it comes to sending kids on.

Q: A fairly common statement, when it comes to levies, is: “Little or none of the money ends up in the classroom.” How much really does make it to the classroom?

A: Eighty-five percent of our levy dollars go towards people — salary, benefits and that sort of thing. There’s a frustrating statement I hear out in the community where people say, “Gee, only 15 percent goes to the students.” We do whatever it takes in our system to hire the very best and brightest people to work with our students each and every day. The people we hire, in every facet of our organization, make the difference.

We know that the most important factor when it comes to student success in school is the skills and the abilities of the adults who are working with those children. So, to say that only 15 percent goes to students is an absolute misrepresentation. The 85 percent that we spend on people directly impacts student learning every day in our schools.

Q: Another comment is, “Here they go again, hiring a bunch of people.” But aren’t you talking about making staff cuts, even if the levy passes?

A: Yes. This is the third year that I’ve lived and worked in this community and this will be the third straight year that we’ve made cuts in the spring. Even with passing this levy on March 10, we are looking at cutting approximately $1 million out of our budget.

That is due to a variety of factors — one of the biggest is the fact that we are in a declining enrollment environment. We are funded on an average daily attendance model, so, if we have fewer students coming in, we need to make cuts.

Q: What’s the dynamic behind the decline in enrollment?

A: One thing is people moving out of the area. Coldwater Creek leaving our town is one of the reasons. Another reason is that people have choices in the community — they can choose other ways to educate their children. Interestingly enough, we had a significant drop this year compared to last, but, since the first week of October, we gained about 35 students, so we’re keeping an eye on this.

To help mitigate the impact, we are developing a much broader menu of options for our families when it comes to educating. We’re expanding on our Experiential Learning program, which is drawing a lot of interest from private school families and home school families.

We’re also working toward offering more non-traditional offerings for our home school families. We can have them sign up for those things that they are most interested in getting from our public institution. People are happy that we have that flexibility and it works well for us, because we can be reimbursed from the state government when we enter into those kinds of partnerships with families. That way, we can pay for the overhead costs associated with that.

When you build those bridges, people start calling you. We’re finding there’s a lot more interest in partnering than we would have thought two or three years ago.

Q: Have there been any innovations in how you serve the existing student population?

A: Yes, one of the things we’re piloting right now is how to give students more voice in their education. It’s called the Aspirations Project and it gets students and staff to talk about the students’ hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future. The more teachers know about these dreams and aspirations, the more they can make learning meaningful for these particular students. The age-old question has been: “What do you want to be when you grow up?” We’re asking different questions: What interests you? What motivates and excites you about your future?

I think we do a fantastic job right now and something like this simply helps us hit the target a little bit better. We take very seriously our job of being a champion for every single student and we believe it when we say, “You can do whatever you want to do.”

Q: Our rural schools perform very well, but they also have some of the biggest declines in enrollment. Is there a point where you have to consider closing such a school?

A: Yes, we are faced with that dilemma, because, nationwide, there is a shift out of the more rural areas into areas that have more jobs for families. We are committed to making adjustments in those rural environments that will have a minimal impact on student learning, but would also help us be more fiscally viable.

Clark Fork is a good example. In the last nine years, we’ve lost roughly 38 percent of the student population there, while our staffing has remained relatively flat. There has been a lot of support from our board of trustees and our administration to make sure we had a school out there that had everything it needs to be successful. That shows in their achievement rates, which are very good. We’re at the point, though, where we have to make some adjustments, so we’re looking at a variety of scheduling options next year that won’t require the same number of staff members, and allow us to be more fiscally efficient without having an impact on learning.

Right now, as an example, we have around nine classes in Clark Fork that have fewer than five students in those classrooms. With our adjustments, we’ll see more like 18-20 students in a classroom.

Some people in the community of Clark Fork might think, “Is this the next step toward closing our schools?” As superintendent, I see it as the first step toward keeping them open.

Q: There have finally been some positive headlines about state funding for Idaho schools. Have those funds started to trickle down to our district yet?

A: They have and this coming year, we’re expecting somewhere around a 7 percent increase. The tricky part is that much of that will be non-discretionary dollars that come to us. We’d love it if the 7 percent was ours to decide how we’re going to spend it, but there are a lot of strings attached. We certainly still appreciate the increase in the funding; it would just be more helpful if it was more discretionary in nature.

Q: School districts all over the state have been mounting levy elections for years. Is this the new normal? Do you foresee that LPOSD will always have to rely on levy dollars?

A: I would be absolutely shocked if, anywhere in the United States, levies just went away. It’s very, very common that local tax dollars support education in a given community. Unfortunately, there’s a heavier reliance in Idaho, because of the lack of state funding we receive relative to other states in the U.S.

We’re hoping that, over time, we’ll be less reliant on property tax dollars. However, right now the scales are tipped heavily in that direction — about 30 percent comes from property tax dollars, which is very high. Our hope is that, over the next 5-10 years, the state will put more money into public education.

Q: LPOSD has had strong support from the private sector, with Coldwater Creek leading that charge in the past. Has the business community been able to fill that breach in the company’s absence?

A: We were really fortunate to have the kind of working relationship we had with Coldwater Creek. They were such champions of public education and we never took it for granted. But sometimes, you don’t know what you had until it’s gone, right? So that left a huge void for us.

A lot of private organizations and individuals have stepped up in the last couple of months to support a non-profit called Citizens for Better Schools in the community. It’s just a good reminder for all of us that the overwhelming majority of people who live in this community are supportive of public education. This is the fourth school district I’ve lived in and I’ve never seen anything like it. We’re very fortunate and it’s very humbling.

Q: Do you ever feel that spending this much time trying to get a levy passed is a distraction from what you’d really like to be doing — spending time in schools?

A: For sure. It’s an enormous effort every couple of years and it’s a real grind on time, energy and resources. But, at the same time, once we get going and we’re out there interacting with people, we always learn something that’s going to help us get better, whether it’s through the questions they ask, the comments they make or the energy they have for quality education.

That said, I wish we were in a state that would allow 3-year elections, or 4-year, like Washington State. I’d like to see that law changed to give us a bit more time between levy elections.

Q: There was an interesting story about a week ago that noted LPOSD ranks No. 7 in Idaho as far as the size of the levy amount, but I’m guessing we’re not the seventh-largest school district in the state. How does that stack up?

A: There’s definitely a correlation between the number of students and staff you have and the levy amount you go after, but what some people fail to recognize is the fact that we’re one of the largest, if not the largest, school district as far as the number of square miles we serve. So our school district requires us to spend more money to transport students from one place to another.

Q: How is a supplemental levy different from other types of levy elections?

A: This is a replacement levy. The levy we had gone out for two years ago is over. The amount the board of trustees landed on is identical to the last two years, so this replaces that — it does not add onto it.

There’s a misperception out there that this will become permanent if people vote “yes,” but this is just a 2-year replacement levy. What will happen, though, if we pass this on March 10, is that we will fit the criteria where we can go out for a permanent levy. At that point, our board of trustees would begin to have dialog around whether we want to ask our voters for a permanent override. But that would be a separate ballot issue.

Q: Crossing over to the dark side, what does the district look like if this levy fails?

A: As most people know, literally one third of our staff is funded trough this levy. Not to overstate the obvious, but, without it, you can simply look at all 11 of our schools and simply take out a third of the staff from every school. Our class sizes would be astronomical.

We would seriously begin to figure out how we would shut down schools and consolidate our schools to become a more centrally located district. We certainly wouldn’t see anything happening before or after school, because all of our athletic and extracurricular activities are 100 percent funded by the levy. We would not have any new curriculum materials — there would be a freeze on all spending related to anything we put into the hands of our students, whether it’s technology or books.

Again, there’s the misperception that this supplemental levy is “extra,” but it simply helps us survive as a school district. Without it, things would look a lot different. It would radically change everything we do. We are that dependent on the levy.

Q: Traditional wisdom has been that seniors on fixed incomes tend to vote “no” in levy elections and parents with kids in school vote “yes.” Is it really that cut and dried?

A: It’s a generalization, but I think there is some truth to that. What I’ve found is that, the more educated people are about what a quality school district means to a community, the more likely they are to support a levy. A lot of people feel like, “Well, I did my duty in the past and now it’s someone else’s turn.” But there’s a whole other camp that realizes that good schools impact the quality of life in a community. I’m also finding that, given the opportunity to have a conversation, people can be swayed to be supportive.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of misunderstanding about “kids today” and what’s really happening in our schools. I invite people who are concerned about quality education and the youth in our community to set up a visit to one of our schools. I guarantee that you will leave with a different attitude than when you came in, because you will be amazed at what you see happening in our classrooms and the quality of students we have in those seats.