Letter: I'm Voting 'No' On Shorewood Schools Referendums'

The following is a letter of the editor submitted to Shorewood Patch. The views expressed in the following are those of the author.

Dear Members of the Shorewood School Board and Village Board, My wife and I have lived in the Village for 27 years and our three children are graduates of our excellent school system. Laura and I moved to Shorewood largely based upon the reputation of its schools and are pleased by the quality of education provided to our children.

I have provided feedback to the district for more than two decades and have been witness to the loss of state support, the 2011 referendum (which I supported), and dialogue regarding the possible closure of SIS.

It's an extremely difficult task to operate an exceptional school system in a state which seems often at war with public education. I am providing this introduction to explain how difficult this decision has been for me.

I will vote against both referendums on April 2.

The following is offered as my logic, and as points for you to consider regardless of the outcome of the referendums:

1. Yes, the need exists. I wholeheartedly agree the physical condition of our four schools necessitates capital investment and a higher level of maintenance support. However, I hope the referendums do not succeed. This would allow us to take a breather and return to the topic within two years with an adjusted and improved plan.

2. Is current school design best for the future? There are two crucial issues which seem unaddressed by the referendum materials. First, what impact will future enrollment changes have on the four buildings? Second, how will the inevitable arrival of online learning affect the high school?

Enrollment projections are difficult to make, as pointed out in the October 2016 Facility Assessment by Eppstein Uhen Architects. At present, the high school and SIS appear to be operating at approximately 60 percent of capacity. The elementary schools might be at similar capacity, or actually almost full capacity, depending upon the projection method used.

Just seven years into the future, using the "2 Year Trend Model" the elementary schools would be at 103 percent capacity based upon current staff-to-student ratios. The high school could be at 93 percent with SIS at 75 percent of capacity.

I know . . . the facility assessment offers a number of ways to calculate capacity. But when you invest $65 million into a "system of buildings" the investment should accommodate a range of scenarios. In addition, what will happen if 25 percent of our high school students take a good
portion of their classes online seven to ten years from now?

I don't see evidence in the capital plans to accommodate these potential outcomes.

3. The village has done nothing to develop family housing. This has gone on for more than two decades. We seem fascinated with development of the business district and the addition of accommodations for couples without children, empty nesters, retirees, and senior citizens. In
addition, there remain big areas in our village without access to playgrounds - - even small "pocket" playgrounds. Beyond having a great school system, the village as a whole has not worked to become more family friendly.

Before voting "yes" to a giant capital expenditure, I want to see the school board and village board pulling in the same direction to make Shorewood more attractive to families. Enrollment drives state aid . . . and this drives revenue for the district.

4. The school maintenance system has been broken for decades. This seems to remain as the "third rail" that administration and the school board doesn't want to touch. For a long time it was union issues and the inability to ensure worker productivity. There were discussions at one time
to outsource these functions to a private contractor. There's an exterior door at the high school science building which I use as a barometer of maintenance effectiveness. The door has been without an automatic closer for years . . . I'm surprised the glass has not shattered from the way
it slams open.

Ask any teacher and they likely have a similar story. This is not about a lack of money - this is about a dysfunctional system. Let's fix the maintenance process before we give it more money.
I realize there has been a tremendous amount of work put into these referendums. The materials are impressive . . . but do border on being too slick with grey, red, and black graphics. The "Vote No" post card which arrived in the mail today suggests there are questions about how the tax
impact has been presented. This is especially true if the $65 million cost is actually $99 million when interest expense is added. I'm sorry about my decision, as it suggests I don't support public education. Actually it's because I support our schools that I will be voting no on April 2.

Sincerely,
Jay Sorensen
1916 E. Kensington Blvd.